That’s too strong a definition of omnipotence. Give the poor God person a break. He must be logically able to do everything, but he is still omnipotent if there are things he doesn’t do. He must be able to make every horse in the race win - but he doesn’t have to make them all win. At one time. Then you get into the rock too heavy to lift paradox.
Actually, since time in our sense got created in the Big Bang there is no t = -infinity. If God had a pseudo-time there could be, and if we were born from another universe there would be time there.
They way they get around the everything needs a creator problem, so who created God, is that God always exists. Which leads to my problem.
Sure, some types of God’s fiddle and some don’t. But the ones that don’t have other problems. First, they are clearly not ruled by Heisenberg and are part of a truly deterministic universe. For instance, if God desired that humans would show up, he’d have to set up the solar system and maybe the entire galaxy to make sure that asteroid would hit us 65 million years ago. You don’t need much of a cosmic butterfly to change that.
Then we have the good old free will problem. I can buy that the answer to the problem of human evil is that giving people freedom will inevitably lead to some doing nasty things. (Natural evil is another matter.) But if God set things up, then that murderer is fulfilling God’s plan and relatives of the victim have every right to be pissed at God. This is clearly not the best of all possible worlds, but you are not claiming God as omnibenevolent, so that isn’t a problem for you.
In our world, a god setting things off for a predetermined end is a monster. I’m here because of WW II - if it hadn’t happened, my parents would have had a child long before me. Even worse, I have a friend whose parents met in a concentration camp. He is here because of the Holocaust. Sorry, that’s not a god I want any part of.
When I was in 3rd grade, my family moved across town and I had to attend a new elementary school. I still lived in the same town as my existing friends, but I had to make new friends to interact with day to day, so it was a minor tragedy for me, but I got through it. One day in 4th grade my new friends, the ones I sat with at lunch, informed me that they did not want to hang out with me anymore. It was one of those capricious kid decisions; it didn’t really say anything about me one way or another. But I was very upset by it. I had been having problems at home, and the thought of having further problems at school was deeply depressing to me. So on the bus before school, I prayed. My family was not a religious family, we didn’t attend church or anything like that. But the basics of Christian belief had filtered down to me, such that I thought I should pray to God to deliver me from the stressful and upsetting time I was going through. I did this for several weeks.
Everything eventually worked out fine, of course. Not because some deity interceded, but because my situation wasn’t truly that serious to begin with. It was lack of perspective that put me into the state of mind I was in. I made new friends and life went on. But the prayer helped me get through it. It really did. It allowed me to overlook the fact that, as far as my little life drama was concerned, nobody could really help me, it simply had to be endured.
Was this unhealthy? I don’t think so. I’m sure you’re familiar with the aphorism “There are no atheists in foxholes.” Try and imagine yourself as someone living in a village, and men from another village have invaded and are killing and raping everyone. There’s nowhere to run, and no one to fight the invaders. Your only chance is to hide and hope for the best. Wouldn’t it be psychologically comforting to pray to a higher power for deliverance? If all you had to rely on was the knowledge that you lived in a harsh and cruel world, that escape was strictly a matter of remote probability, and that you were well and truly alone, I think you might be driven insane. Then again, if you did survive, and you attributed this to divine providence, maybe that would be a form of insanity. But I think in that case you’d have a better shot of going on living as a functional human being, albeit with the “knowledge” that a man upstairs is looking out for you. It’s that aspect of religious belief that I have sympathy for, the existential fear coupled with a lack of resources or networks to help shield you from the vicissitudes of life.
An idea which is both insulting and nonsense. It’s a mix of calling atheists cowards & hypocrites, along with a refusal to believe that anyone can really be an atheist.
No, because I don’t believe that any such power exists. Nor do I have any reason to assume that if did exist it would be on my side. It wouldn’t be any more comforting for me than it would be for a Christian to hope that Sauron will show up and rescue him.
You seem to be implying that 84% of the world’s population is a bunch of looney toons. Is that your official statement on the matter?
We believe the brain produces consciousness, it is not consciousness itself, that doesn’t make sense. How the brain produces consciousness has never been shown. Evolutionary biologists claim that consciousness “emerges” at a certain stage of biological complexity, yet this claim rests on no direct evidence. As Rutger’s University professor Jerry A. Fodo flatly states, “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. So much for our philosophy of consciousness.” Consciousness is most certainly not defined as “the brain.”
You throw around the word “nonsense” as if you are some authority on the matter and it’s really uncalled for. Along with claiming you know better than about 99.9% of all people and that all of those people live in a horrible fantasy world; are you also now claiming that you know better than the people who defined the word “delusion?”
Here’s the defintion: A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
You can claim it’s a delusion if you want to, just know it’s not actually recognized as what a typical delusion would be.
My beliefs? Were not talking about my beliefs. For the purposes of my point, it is irrelevant to consider the dynamic of interactions of certain religious groups. Whether or not they are all wrong, you are still claiming to know better than 99.9% of them. That is quite a bold assertion.
Their religion might be wrong, but their faith in a deity may not be, which is the point.
So when people acquire faith from witnessing the impossible or the improbable, they are really just hallucinating or living in a fantasy world? That’s a ridiculous assertion. One day you might experience something so profoundly breathtaking that you could not possibly chalk it up to coincidence. Those are the types of things that can make people believers, so the fact that you are calling them “delusional fantasies,” I would imagine could be quite insulting and/or laughable.
Also, like I already pointed out, there is a distinct difference in the amount of subjective evidence for a god, as opposed to these other beings you keep mentioning.
Your the one who can’t seem to come up with a better argument for something that is so “blatantly obvious.” (the only thing I have witnessed you doing is copying and pasting cliche arguments where they don’t always fit very well, like trying to put a square through a circle) In theory, it should be easy for someone to make your point in a number of ways(according to the way you talk about it). If you are truly trying to accomplish something here then why don’t you try and come up with something else instead of clinging to this as if it some golden nugget. You say I handwave this, but then you turn around and handwave my perfectly reasonable answer? Okay…
I have already shown why your “other mythical beings” argument doesn’t work, and you handwaved that. Stop being a hypocrite if you want me to take anything you say seriously.
Well good thing I’m not talking about their religion and I’m only referring to their belief in a deity. It’s quite possible they all believe in the same God, they just don’t know it, so your point is invalid. Just because some disagree with what the Bible says verses the Koran is irrelevant to what I said.
Relatively speaking, it is premature to claim that our level of science is in any way capable of detecting a conclusive plausibility level for gods. If you want to assume or believe they don’t exist, then that is your choice, but it is not fact.
Don’t get me wrong either, you may be entirely right, but you have no proof of some of the very bold claims you have made that go far and beyond typical atheism.
That’s not at all what it means. It’s referring to a situation just like I described, when you stand powerless against destructive forces. No one, devout or atheist, brave or cowardly, can stand against an artillery shell that happens to land in his trench. How does one endure in such a moment and maintain his sanity? Do you pin your hopes on Sauron, or pure luck? At least with Sauron, there’s a notion that some tangible force or being is looking out for you. It’s not real, but it does provide one an additional layer of psychological protection. It’s the difference between “I have a 17.4% chance of getting out of this unscathed” versus “If I pray to Sauron, he might deign to spare me.”
I’d much rather rely on luck. There is no tangible force looking out for me. If there was such a force why did it let me get into this situation in the first place?
Considering the last response you had for me was “I was only joking” on several of your ‘key points’ - I question if you are debating honestly and if there is any point in continuing to respond to your posts. Your ‘examples’ of “everyday delusions” is laughable at best - as none of those delusions affect life/death decisions - unless, of course, you’re a bagpipe salesman in Scotland.
None of them compare to the delusions that are based on ‘faith’ and ‘religion’
The closest of those things you listed was phobias - which by their very definition are “irrational fears” that do (or can) affect the daily lives of those suffering from them. But they are neither common (everybody) nor are they comparable to the choices that ‘god believers’ make.
Not knowing how long the 100 year war actually was? That will never affect the individual other than in a trivia contest.
in any event - to address this simple point -
When it comes to the beliefs in God, the Afterlife and all the trappings that religion has to offer, yes - those that believe in those items have been deluded. There is simply no evidence to support this belief system - which is what makes it “faith” - which is by definition, irrational (as it cannot be gotten to thru reason and logic)
However, it is your words that they are “looney tunes” - being deluded and/or delusional in and of itself does not make one “looney” - it only makes them irrational when it comes to that particular belief and/or belief system.
I also question your “84% of the worlds population” - but as I already stated numerous times in this thread - how much the delusion impacts the persons daily life (aka “how looney they are”) is entirely an individual thing - how they are able to balance their faith with reality - for many, its no big deal - for some - its huge.
As for what your mom could do if “not studying the bible and going to church” - she could spend those hours helping others actually beat the smoking habit - by helping them find the strength within to do it… but you know, that would actually be doing what Christ wanted his followers to do, instead of reading about what “god” wants you to do.
You have a pleasant day - the tone of your response will dictate if I will continue discussing this with you.
You threw this out there before - and it needs to be addressed - the bolded (by me) piece above is what you are skipping over - and trying to claim that makes religious belief “not delusional” - which is simply incorrect.
“As a pathology” - meaning that in a clinical setting, those things are not considered as a pathological “delusion” - where paranoia or “delusions of grandeur” would be.
Does not mean that those people that hold untrue beliefs based on those things are not still deluded and/or delusional otherwise - just not as a ‘pathology’.
Now, you might say that the clause “despite superior evidence to the contrary” keeps faith based delusions “safe” from being called “delusions” - but the reality is that there is simply no evidence for the faith based belief - which means there can equally be no evidence against, other than logic and reason - which, as I stated earlier - is what makes it by definition irrational, and belief in it delusional.
I would carve out some middle ground for things people believe, because other people have told them it is so.
A lot of people are very passively religious. They believe in God because Mom and Pop said, “Yep, God loves you, and you can always believe that.”
It isn’t exactly delusional, as it’s based on an illusion of evidence. Hey, Mom and Pop would never lie to me, right? They take it as having the persuasive force of evidence.
This, of course, is a kind of special case, for people who have just never bothered to pay a whole lot of attention to the matter. People who go to church, because that’s what their family has always done. People who answer theological questions with, “I wouldn’t know; why don’t you ask Pastor Emil? He’s an ordained minister, and I guess he can give you the right answer.”
For this particular class of people, belief isn’t so much a delusion as it is an unquestioned assumption. I have no idea what proportion of the world’s believers falls into this category, but I’d bet it’s a large one.
Only one point (regarding a side point) was based in humor. I was clarifying your misinterpretation of my post.
Some of those examples of delusions were retarded, but that’s not the point. The point is that there are thousands of other delusions BIG AND SMALL that can effect people’s lives just as much as you claim faith does. How bout racism or bigotry in general?
You are using extreme examples of religion that make a great point, but an equal point could be made about the extreme opposite examples of how people have done extraordinarily good things using their belief in God. All that being said, I would assume the only valid point of debate is how belief effects the average follower of a god, which is what I thought we were talking about all along, and is the point I was trying to make in regards to some of your comments.
The point your making about people being indoctrinated into religions and committing suicide-bombings is comparable to racism. Something that can be completely distinguished from religion, but still causes similar negative effects as the extremists you are talking about.
Yes, but you did say they are “denying reality in favor of fantasy” which is essentially synonymous with looney.
Well you are right. 84% of the world identifies with a religion. 60% believes in God; my mistake.
As for how belief effects the individual, you agree that for some it’s hugely negative, but for MANY it’s no big deal. There are some out there that would be quantifiably or just logically better without it, but for the vast majority, nobody has the right to say one way or the other.
That’s exactly why - as a pathology - its not considered a delusion.
Since I see no evidence for the belief that they have - ‘I’ Consider it a delusion on whole - as in they are believing a lie and are largely irrational in that belief.
This is even more so in evidence for the ‘special’ groups where the lies fly in the face of science - believers in the flood, the groups that oppose women’s rights, want to teach “creationism” in schools - etc.
Where, as I said before - they no longer have a balance between their ‘faith’ and ‘reality’.
Strawman - no one has said that racists or bigots are not equally delusional - its another set of beliefs that are irrational in todays world and fly in the face of “superior evidence”
another strawman - there is no one arguing that some people have not done ‘great things in the name of god’ - however, these same people could have done those same things without invoking god - invoking god gave them no more power or capability (other than culturally/politically - possibly).
yes - it is comparable to racism - and fuels racism. bigotry and seperation - and this is not just in the ‘extreme’ cases. How many ‘christians’ are against SSM simply based on ‘what the bible says’ ?
no - its not - ‘looney’ denies a special class of crazy - there are many ‘quite sane’ people that are so involved in their god belief that they ignore reality - believers in the flood, creationism, etc. Doesn’t make them ‘looney’ - just makes them wrong in the face of superior evidence - you know - delusional.
Well, I don’t believe that holding onto ANY delusion, once discovered and understood, is healthy - going back to the phobia example - people learn to cope with the fears or at least understand them. so as to lessen the affects of, to their everyday lives.
Just converting the time wasted studying a 2000 year old text and focusing on helping others around you - or atleast not blowing yourself up because they disagree with you based on 2000 year old words - would have a quantifiable and positive affect world wide.
I, for one, will never forget that bagpipes did not originate in scotland.
That is what it means; believers just can’t see it because they are unwilling or unable to grasp the viewpoint of anyone who isn’t a believer.
No; it’s “There’s no such thing as Sauron, and if there was he’d direct the shell at me.” “God” is both nonexistent and if he was real, a monster; why would I pray to a nonexistent monster who would only wish me harm and delight in my suffering?
At least luck isn’t malignant, unlike both Sauron and God.
Of course it makes sense. Consciousness is no more some mystical non-material thing than a picture is; just as the paint on a painting physically is the picture, the brain is consciousness (among other things).
You most certainly are. You certainly aren’t talking about facts or logic, and have in fact denied that both have any validity in a discussion of religion like this one.
No it isn’t. Religion has a history of being relentlessly wrong; “wrong” and “religion” are very close to being synonyms. Going by their track record, one good reason not to believe in gods is the fact that religions claim that gods exist.
Their faith in a deity is a religious belief. Nor do all of them believe in a deity, or venerate deities if they do believe in them. You are equating religion with Christianity again (as you are every time you use the word “God”).
Yes. Or most often, they are just lying or being lied to.
No, there isn’t. You are just indulging in the old Christian attitude that the Christian God is somehow more profound and believable than all the other gods and spirits and whatnot that people have been just as convinced existed throughout history.
No, you’ve shown nothing of the sort.
Not at all; science is good enough to show that the possibility is as close to zero as science gets. Which is why believers are reduced to denying science, historical reality, and simple logic in order to defend their fantasies.
Logically speaking it would be impossible to make all the horses win at the same time from our perspective, so is an omnipotent, omniscient god not bi-omni because he cannot appease our sense of a logically impossible notion? I don’t really think so.
Yes I misunderstood what you meant by t = - infinity.
No, I don’t believe that an omnibenevolent god exists, unless the evils we perceive in this world are somehow necessary for some reason. Going out there on this one, but maybe the evils we perceive in this life are really insignificant, or not really evil in the grand scheme of things. Only perceived to be evil from our perspective/experience.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but since I do not believe in God, I haven’t rationalized how he would address this issue. If I had to guess god’s reasoning, I might think things exist the way they do because of necessity. If god really exists in the sense you and I have been speaking of him, why would god limit his creations to us? He would probably have created an infinite number of existences for every other possible life form, and we are just one tiny aspect of infinity.
How is it a strawman? My point is that people are going to be unhealthy in a delusional way no matter what. Everybody is biased, therefore delusional; so to speak. The negative effects aren’t necessarily from the religion itself, they are from bigots who try and bend their religion to their own end. That’s the way it is with anything that has to do with power and money.
Why do you keep applying a negative to my statements? They aren’t strawman.
I never said that anybody made claims about racism or that anybody made the claims you spoke of above.^^^ That’s not why I brought either of the those things up.
Whether they do or don’t gain more power or capability from believing in god, their belief still effects their psychological health in relation to culture and politics. So it is relevant and not a strawman at all.
Also, you cannot claim that those people would have done just as well without the exact psychological framework that they had from believing in god. One fundamental change might have turned them into a piece of shit.
What is SSM? And IDK how many Christians are?
Yes believers of certain specific religious points are definitely denying reality.
Just curious, what do you mean by “the flood?” I thought it was fairly substantiated by fact and science that a great flood actually occurred. Whether or not Noah did what he did is another story. Obviously he didn’t fit 2 of every animal on the ship, but it’s possible this occurred in a reasonable manner. Say, every animal that Noah was capable of fitting.
Well why would you? Only schizophrenics and other mentally ill people hold delusions right? But you are forgetting the one thing you have said that you lack. Evidence. Many have been witness to such an extraordinary happening, that they can only assume something greater is out there.
I agree with the second half, but I think you misunderstand what people are actually doing when they study this 2000 year old book. Much of the studying my mom does is simply extrapolating what the lesson is from any given portion of text out of the Bible. All she does is read one of the parables, then try and apply the lesson to life in a helpful way, and teach others to do the same.
All of the time people spend doing this together is valuable in and of itself for the individual as well. Although I’m not sure if that’s relevant to this specific thread. I have often been told that church is a good place to meet a girl too. (mostly from older people trying to imply that I should stop meeting girls at bars) Although I think you could definitely meet some good people at a church.
We believe the brain produces consciousness, it is not consciousness itself, that doesn’t make sense. How the brain produces consciousness has never been shown. Evolutionary biologists claim that consciousness “emerges” at a certain stage of biological complexity, yet this claim rests on no direct evidence. As Rutger’s University professor Jerry A. Fodo flatly states, “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. So much for our philosophy of consciousness.” Consciousness is most certainly not defined as “the brain.”
My point, which you have dragged me away from against my will, is still that our limited understanding of the brain is comparable to our limited understanding of an SDB. I couldn’t care less that you want to sit here and dispute science with your own beliefs. For all you know the brain is just a small mechanism in what really creates consciousness.
It’s against forum rules to call someone a liar. I have denied no such thing. The only thing I have denied is that YOUR logic is good enough to BELIEVE that SDB doesn’t exist.
And your splitting hairs on this matter why?
Here’s the statement your above comment is responding to again in case you somehow misunderstood it:
“Their religion might be wrong, but their faith in a deity may not be, which is the point.”
I didn’t realize that (according to you) “deity” is now a Christian term. You must be having a hard time keeping it all straight, that’s why I coined the term SDB for you. You obviously forgot, and are living in some sort of past state of denial.
You are very small-minded… In regards to my statement you quoted. How can reality lie to someone? Or do you not understand the English language very well?
No, you sir are purposely ignoring the point. More people claim to “know” God exists for their own personal reasons than any other being you have brought up. The point you are making is like comparing the number of votes Obama got to the number of votes you got in the last presidential campaign. There is no contest.
WHAT?! I think you might be smoking something… I have addressed this issue about a dozen times. You are just being a stubborn punk and breaking the rules.
This is from post #324
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 or experiences that might lead them to believe that an IPU exists) 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 (60% of the worlds population claim to have “seen” or interacted with on a spiritual level and many have personally experienced things that can only be explained as the result of a god) most regard it as the most important thing that is, or ever will be
No it isn’t. I’ll use your standard of logic real quick (religion is wrong about many things so it must be wrong about deities) Therefore, science fiction is a good indicator of future technology, therefore, science will find ways around current limitations, thus opening up the possibility that deities exists even further.
You are just as bad as you say any believer is in the sense that you won’t listen to logic and reason. You have a bunch of opinions that you walk around claiming are truths, and won’t listen when someone says, “now hold on a minute, that’s not actually proven to be true.” You are a walking talking contradiction in your belief on how believers behave. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING YOU SAY THEY DO. You are stubborn as a mule and you’re not worth my time.
That involves omnipotence only, and, as I said, an omnipotent God does not have to do logically impossible things. If you think he is able to in order to get around the bi-omni problem, you run into some real problems.
Not surprising, since that implies time before the universe began, which is nonsense. In our universe we have t = 0, and no time before that. If God is outside of time then there is no time before that, there is something else. If there is no time, then it is hard to see why God didn’t create the universe right away.
Didn’t think you did, so that’s one problem you don’t have. We’ve had some threads about this, by the way. In any case, even if our woes are trivial, God is not omnibenevolent unless they are as small as logically possible.
Sure, and why would we be special (which is what believers like to think.) Of course their God not only didn’t create infinite existences, he didn’t even care about most of the world, in the sense of not visiting and telling them the rules. Their God, though infinitely powerful, is more like the guy who never leaves his home town.
That’s the problem. If there is a God, and he ever talked to anyone, either they didn’t write it down or else God came across as an ignorant loudmouth, who could be lectured in science by a not particularly bright 11th grader.
The real reason I believe there is no god - as opposed to simply lacking belief in god - is that I can model several worlds in which a real god exists, and none look anything like ours. I can also model worlds where god belief sprung up locally, from misunderstandings of the world etc., and it looks exactly like ours.
First, I believe several Dopers who are atheists and who have been in combat say the no atheists in foxhole idea is a crock. I bet at least some Russian soldiers in WW II were atheists, and they did pretty well.
I don’t know about you, but if I thought God would save me through prayer, and then I saw Joe down the trench, the most religious guy in the platoon, get his guts splattered all over, I’d leave off praying and get to digging.
As Firesign Theatre said, Pass the Lord and Praise the Ammunition.