i"d like to get back to the denial portion of this thread.
IMO and experience I do believe there is plenty of denial in religious belief systems {as well as the non religious}
It’s pretty clear that a lot of evidence is denied concerning the nature of the Bible and historical evidence.
I think some people are so indoctrinated that they believe questioning one aspect of thier belief is akin to doubting God. I believe they also are afraid that letting go of some beliefs will lead to a total collapse of a belief system they value.
Yes, I can say that according to everything we know God is neither real nor even possible. And I see no reason to apply a special standard of evidence to God.
And I should believe that there’s any possibility of that because? Why should I consider that any more likely than the claim that someone I never heard of is secretly working for the vampire conspiracy that rules the world, or the Unseelie Court of the Sidhe?
IMO, our belief system, what we value, and therefore how we make our choices, is our vehicle through life. Labels are less relevant. If a person believes in god and/or the spiritual life , and that belief leads them in a positive direction and they in turn have a positive impact on the lives of people around them, then great. Who is to say their chosen vehicle is defective, or silly.
That said, I think we also have an obligation to examine how beliefs affect others and challenge them when its appropriate. I think it’s healthy to fight ignorence when it comes to sharing facts that contradict some religious traditions. It’s also healthy for people to discern the difference between belief and knowledge.
The evidence you have that God does not exist is circumstantial. It is just an opinion to make that claim. Just because it is “consistent” with modern science (assuming certain parameters) does not change the fact that it is an unsubstantiated claim.
Why would you think that? It sounds like you may suffer from an unhealthy delusion. All I said was that the believers you interact with may respond negatively because of the way you treat them.
I like how you did that to make your point. Let me type out the complete version and make my point.
Claiming the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists = unsubstantiated with objective evidence and supported on a minuscule level with subjective evidence (claims that people have “seen” or interacted with IPU on any level) most regard it as a mythological creature with little, if any significance
Claiming that a God exists = unsubstantiated with objective evidence and supported on massive level with subjective evidence (84% of the worlds population claim to have “seen” or interacted with on a spiritual level) most regard it as the most important thing that is, or ever will be
If you want to keep an open mind and imagine an IPU in an alternate dimension, then who cares? Yes, you should humor hypothetical believers with the IPU if your intention is to humorously show them the error of their beliefs. If, like Der Trihs, you want to make them feel stupid, ridiculous, and blatantly obnoxious while simultaneously claiming that you are helping them to see the error of their ways, then I would refrain from contradicting yourself. Why would we make fun of or dismiss people who believe in the IPU? And yes I’m I’m an agnostic towards the IPU.
Both of those notions are disrespectful in my mind. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. I have already highlighted several situations in which it is okay to use the IPU.
Well… There’s room for alternatives. God might be omniscient, but, in absolute opposition to omnipotent, God might be absolutely impotent. He might know everything you’re going to do…and can’t change or alter or influence the least, smallest atom’s worth of it! He might look down at “space-time” the way we look down at “Flatland.” He sees it all as one complete whole, and can’t change it.
(God as “Uatu, the Watcher” from Marvel Comics!)
I do agree that “predestination” and “free will” are really hard to reconcile!
I think the concept of only having heaven and hell is ridiculous. If there is an after life, I think it would simply be a reflection of what yourself, a reflection of what you expect, or something like that.
You must be an extremely optimistic person if you think we would have a Utopic attitude if no bad things happened. We would probably all be a bunch of pussies who are basic creatures.
I think we can definitely learn from mentally handicapped people, but as for all of that nonsense, no not really.
It is not “just an opinion” , it’s pointing out the obvious conclusion to be drawn by everything we know. It’s as “substantiated” as any claim that something doesn’t exist claim can be.
If we can’t say that God doesn’t exist, then we can’t say that anything doesn’t exist. A fact that you are refusing to address since you’d be forced to defend the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; instead you apply your special standard to God and only God, while ignoring all fact that you are using a double standard.
No, what you are doing is distorting what I said in order to insult me, repeatedly. I was referring to the way believers act in general, not just toward me; something I made very clear in my second post on the matter that you quoted.
If your agnosticism extends that far, I think you’ve exceeded the lengths of credibility.
Strawman fallacy, and easy tuff guy, I come in peace. You’ve actually been dealing with a good deal of dramatization there yourself, Shakespeare, balancing that with moderating, spending a lot of time on preaching good table manners, while not keeping your elbows off the table, and also introducing many tangents, so expect others to follow those, while not making the entire topic of it. I trust the SD moderators to do their job and so should you. Otherwise report it if you think you got a case.
And you also claim you’ve been arguing from someone that has an agnostic position and is neutral on most of it. Is this where I need to insert a lol? Speaking of which, using the lol as you do is often a form of ridicule, the very thing you often claim to detest if done to a believer and feel like we should try another way to reach them. If you can claim many positions as “bullshit” and “ridiculous” as you do, it sounds like much of your positions are established, not one of neutrality.
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever argued with somebody so much, that keeps saying we actually agree on things.
Personally, I think the internet itself has probably played one of the most productive roles in helping believers see what is wrong with their belief system, because many would have never been getting the same material from their clergyman. For many conservative religious boards though, you’ll find membership is only limited to those that are already believers. How’s that for protecting the flock?
Nothing wrong with promoting good table manners, but you’ve been doing quite well with sensationalizing your own POV as well as others. And I don’t think there is any single productive way to reach a person of faith. I see nothing wrong with ridicule, although I don’t use it often myself, and think it should be limited. I’ll address some of your other concerns in another post, just wanted to get some of this out of the way.
Under those circumstances, I think the IPU is a great tool to have.
Agreed, people who are are sheltered by their religion, so to speak, can behave in down-right crazy ways.
Thank you, I appreciate the understanding and the compliment.
I found a post of yours I overlooked too BTW.
No, I’m lame and dropped out of pre-med after one year at IU and ended up at community college because I couldn’t get my priorities together… Ahhh the parties I went to
And I agree with the jabs being happenstance, I just don’t agree with some other people’s opinions regarding the topic.
You wold think he would have!
I see what you’re saying, remember my electron example? He would most certainly only change things to humor lesser beings such as ourselves, and would be omniscient of that from the start. I still don’t understand how that wouldn’t work. He would never actually be changing anything from his original plan, because he would only be doing things he already knew he would do.
If you asked him, “which horse will win, A, B, or C?” He would respond, “B, unless I change it.” (knowing all along that you will ask him to make horse A win) See what I’m getting at? My point is, this being would never change anything from what he already knew, he would simply be acting out preordained acts through infinity.
There is no “obvious” conclusion though. Your argument is basically this: Well I can’t do it, and nobody has ever proven it can be done, so I conclude that it is impossible. That is a fallacy. There was a time where scientists believed that it was “physically impossible” for a man to run a mile under 4 minutes. The current world record is 3:43… Just because we try to form a concrete understanding of something, doesn’t mean we understand it. Our understanding of the human body in all of it’s chemical complexity is a great comparison to our understanding of God, and for that matter, our understanding of the Universe. We observe the human body behave in many mysterious ways, we observe chemical reactions occurring causing other actions, but we still don’t know how or why they occur.
Because the belief required for those other myths is fundamentally different, therefore a red herring. How many times do I have to say that to you? If you want to sit here and imply that you are somehow superior to 84% of the worlds population in your understanding of the universe, then be my guest, but don’t expect to be taken be taken as some authority on the matter as you appear to have zero understanding of what religious people experience, therefore have no right to discredit their faith.
I’m sorry if my brand of humor insulted you; you appeared to be distorting what I said. I was simply making a reference to the thread topic in my joke. And if you are generalizing the way believers act as a whole, then that is again, your opinion. You probably arrived at that conclusion from confirmation bias, because of the scenarios you choose to engage theists, or view them from, you somehow believe that they all act this way.
You might find Cohen’s The Mind of a Bible-Believer(Prometheus, 432 pages) book to be of some interest. It gives insight to how a good portion of the Christian mind works, and presents it with psychological terminology, also stating that depression is a concern for them. Here is a critique of his book which briefly covers the seven devices he found used, and if it interests you that much, you should read the whole book as well, I have, but it’s been about twenty years or more ago. I found all of the devices interesting, including the third which deals with logocide, the killing of the meaning of words.
I would assume your mother being a believer, you would be concerned of what she thinks of your agnosticism if she was more of the traditional Christian that believed in both heaven and hell concepts. If not her, what about those that do believe this? Any mental health benefits to be gained from believing in a fiery hell awaiting some loved ones?
Simple, because of their belief in the supernatural. I think it’s going to be hard for you to separate the believer from this. Nothing scientific about it, and this is the aspect I’d be interested in, I’m not interested in how they perceive other aspects of it, being selective of what parts that want to believe in, while ignoring the other parts that directly contradict their faith. Just another negative effect of their beliefs when they have to set their reason aside to keep the faith alive.
It was back to being qualified, when you specifically said earlier “Any mental unhealthiness is mostly the individuals fault, not their faith’s fault.” That is not an isolated case, there are many schools of indoctrination that teach all kinds of wacky things, of which cause serious harm, and if they can get to them early enough, can do even more damage. I just wanted to see in just this one case, if you’d ever acknowledge that that faith was ever at fault here, and not put the blame on the 13 year old boy.
I don’t know what “modern people of faith” means, did it get another update, what version are they on now? Still would like to know if your version includes religious people believing in the supernatural though. Don’t forget me on this.
It’s just logic, I’m not saying I’m agnostic to the IPU’s existence here on Earth. I’m not sure there are any claims that somebody has ever seen one in this world to make me even think twice about it, but I can’t say for sure one way or the other if there is a herd of them running around in some alternate universe.
Hey, I was just trying to show how you strawmanned me first.
There were several times where my lol was intended as a form of ridicule and others where I actually thought something was plainly funny and meant it to be lighthearted. Let me be clear, I am not preaching that you can’t ridicule and take jabs in a debate, I’m saying don’t try and tell me you’re(not you specifically) doing a good deed or logic exercise that is oh so pleasant and helpful, when in fact your presenting a condescending, aggressive argument meant to shut down certain aspects of a theists argument. There have been a couple people claiming that the IPU is the “best” and “only” way to enlighten a believer, when really, that is freakin horseshwoggle. Yes, horseshwoggle.
Yeah, my actual stance seems to get lost in the details quite a bit.
The internet is a wonderful tool. The world would still be full of mysteries for me if I couldn’t google the answer to questions from my iPhone whenever I want.
[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with promoting good table manners, but you’ve been doing quite well with sensationalizing your own POV as well as others. And I don’t think there is any single productive way to reach a person of faith. I see nothing wrong with ridicule, although I don’t use it often myself, and think it should be limited. I’ll address some of your other concerns in another post, just wanted to get some of this out of the way.
[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree with this (conceding that I have done some sensationalizing myself, but typically only when pushed)
No. My argument is that “God” violates a slew of physical laws, is logically contradictory, was made up by primitives in the first place, and has no evidence for it either being possible or existing.
Nonsense; none of that is remotely comparable to the utter absurdity of God.
An unlimited number of times, since you are completely wrong. Belief in gods or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are all absurd, and all require the rejection of both objective facts and of reason.
It sounds very interesting, I think I might check it out.
Maybe, maybe not. I can see how that would be a recurring worry for some.
I think in the modern sense, “supernatural” might be on it’s way out. From God’s perspective, everything would make sense right? So essentially, God would have a scientific explanation for everything he does. When people use the word supernatural, I think it is synonymous with saying, “I’m scientifically ignorant to what I just saw.” I mean just because you can explain something scientifically, doesn’t mean that God didn’t still make it happen for whatever purpose.
I think a logical(intelligence may or may not be important for this) person can find ways to rationalize God to the point where it’s not psychologically unhealthy, even in this day and age. It’s difficult to say that somebody would be better off psychologically as an atheist(not that it’s bad to be an atheist, it’s just a subjective claim to make). Take religion away, and they could possibly be worse off. It’s hard to say one way or the other.
Well I have said many times that religion can be like a poison, but in regards to the topic, suicide-bombings aren’t relevant. Except, the individual has rationalized in their head that committing suicide is okay. Whether or not that is good or bad for their psychological health is a moot point here because their health doesn’t matter if they’re dead. As for the time leading up to their death, it is speculative at best on how healthy they are psychologically. They might be happier than you or I are simply because they are looking forward to 73 virgins.
I think you, like others, are trying to address religious issues that are physically harmful to society, but are not conclusively harmful to the individuals psyche.
Hey, as long as nobody is pissin on somebody’s rug, it’s cool with me. lol
Somebodies psychological health may be intrinsically related to their specific religion’s God, but does believing in God alone make you unhealthy? I don’t think belief is inherently any more or less unhealthy than many other foundations of the human psyche.
Well then I would say that you are confining God to your understanding. Why would God be restrained by the laws of physics anyways if he does not have a physical form in the sense that we have? Why would he operate by the laws we perceive? It is plausible for God to exist AND have science explain it. We are light years away from that understanding, but it is nonetheless possible.
Also, given that evidence for God is almost entirely spiritual(meaning it is perceived uniquely by the individual), why would you presume that primitives didn’t know what they were talking about? Humans have had the same intelligence for what? like the last 200,000 years. Being primitive is not a reason to discredit something by itself.
Yes it is… We hardly understand anything about how the brain supports consciousness or how the body functions on a chemical level. It is perfectly relatable to our lack of understanding of the Universe and God.
And yet they are all absurd for different reasons making it a red herring argument.
That is a point of view then. What news are you watching by the way? Because American news has been shown to be much different from news in other countries.
And you cannot possibly be only getting it from the news. That would be untrue since they don’t typically show what type of debate style religious people use.
Because otherwise he wouldn’t exist. If something exists, it has a physical form.
Because they were wrong about essentially everything else; nor is there any reason at all to think that “God” was an exception. And “spiritual” is just another word for “imaginary”.
Nonsense. They would only be equivalent if the mind was logically impossible, like God; and if the mind violated the laws of physics; and if the idea of the mind had been made up by a primitive people; and if there was no evidence that the mind existed or was even possible. None of that is true.
No; what they are is an embarrassing (for you) argument. The fact is that your arguments for believing in God apply just as well to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but admitting that undercuts your argument so you just keep claiming it’s a “red herring” instead of addressing the issue.
What “debate style”? The religious outright declare that they are being “oppressed” when prevented from doing things like persecuting homosexuals because their imaginary god tells them to.
Your consciousness doesn’t have physical form in and of itself, does that mean it doesn’t “exist?” Existence can be material or spiritual by definition so your above statement is untrue.
In your opinion “spiritual” is synonymous with “imaginary.” I’ll add that you are among very few who believe this, even among atheists. Adding that it was “made up by primitives” is a fallacy on the same level you accused me of earlier. That I can’t talk about how the Bible is intertwined with history, lore, and culture. What is this special pleading nonsense? Hypocrite…
To state that God is “logically impossible” is wrong. In essence you are presuming that your understanding of the universe is greater than 84% of the world. You are still acting as if our knowledge of the laws of physics are supreme. Since when has our understanding of science ever been supreme???
I have addressed the issue. People do not believe in those beings because they have a spiritual relationship with them, all hypothetical belief in those beings is rooted in objective evidence. Those beings are all widely dismissed because they require that objective evidence which they do not have. God is not widely dismissed because it does not require objective evidence. Belief in God is rooted in subjective personal evidence; as in massive amounts of evidence. This plainly shows why this argument is a red herring. It is simply an attempt to win the argument by trying to confuse the opposition into thinking you have made a relevant point, when in fact it is fundamentally irrelevant.
If you want to use that point to illustrate that their is no objective evidence for God, then that is perfectly acceptable. If you want to use that point to illustrate that there is no such thing as God, then that is a fallacy because God requires only subjective evidence.
It’s funny how you have to specify your meaning of “embarrassment” since it could easily be taken the other way…
I’m talking specifically about how a theist would behave in a religious discussion with an atheist. If you want to base your opinions on some extreme version that makes the news simply BECAUSE they are extreme, then that’s your choice. Just know it’s a mistaken bias if you apply that to believers as a whole.
Of course you can; that is irrelevant to the subject at hand however.
God as typically described is logically contradictory, thanks to the believers insisting on adding all those infinites, omnis and absolutes to their description of him.
No; I’m saying that God is a blatantly false idea, like Santa Claus but even sillier. It doesn’t require a sophisticated knowledge of physics or to be especially clever to see that God is a falsehood; any normal adult can. If they want to. It’s willful self delusion that sustains belief in God.
And that “84%” doesn’t agree with itself at all; most of them have to be wrong, if for no other reason that they contradict each other. Not that reality is up for popular vote anyway.
Oh, garbage. There’s just as much “subjective personal evidence”* for any of those other beings. And belief in God is rooted in the willful denial of reality, not evidence. And “subjective personal evidence” isn’t evidence, anyway. Belief in those other things are dismissed simply because they are less popular than god here and now, not because they have any less evidence for them. Is “God” untrue in places and times where your monotheistic Christian god isn’t popular?
No, it’s asking the simple question why an utterly nonsensical idea like god gets a pass while other ideas which are if anything less ridiculous get dismissed as obvious nonsense.
No; that’s just an implicit admission that God is a fantasy.
Of course; I knew that if I wasn’t specific you’d twist or misquote my words as you have previously.
That’s where consciousness comes from, not what consciousness is.
You hold a position of faith as you are assuming the conclusion. It is plain and simple just another slight form of non-rational thinking. Also, faith is explicitly not a form of delusion. This thread has been perpetuating a politically incorrect, and flat out incorrect use of the word for some time now.
Yawn… just another red herring argument. Trying to distract from the fact that you are claiming you know better than most of the world. It’s irrelevant how they are wrong from one another when discussing faith in general.
Why I ever thought an atheistic zealot would ever be capable of understanding the significance of this… I do not know.
Suuuuuure buddy, you’re the only one who can see the matrix, the other 99% of the world’s population is just a bunch looney tunes… Freakin atheistic zealots… I say 99% now because only 2% is atheist. I can only assume that most atheists don’t even hold your view that there is no possibility of any kind of god, because believing that is irrational.
