And, as far as my opinions being “audacious”; how is it not far more audacious to demand that we throw out logic and our collective scientific knowledge just to validate a belief created thousands of years ago by ignorant primitive people, a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever? The fact that people defending religion feel the need to go so far in denying everything we know shows just how obvious the falsehood of religion is. How can it be more obviously wrong than needing to literally deny the validity of physical laws - and even the validity of logic - to defend it?
If this was any other belief, with the same lack of support and the same evidence against it, virtually no one on this board would take it seriously for an instant. People here mock posters who express belief in things like UFOs or the Moon landing being faked, but suddenly when religion comes up we are supposed to use entirely different standards of evidence.
“Entirely different standards of evidence”? Not at all. What I’ve been suggesting is the possibility of embracing a much broader definition of what “religion” or “God” is.
Let me put it this way. Much of what you say is true with respect to most organized religions, but even so I know a practicing Protestant minister who has never disagreed with me on any aspect of science, everything from basic evolution to Lawrence Krauss’ “something-from-nothing” meme where the origin of the universe itself can be regarded as nothing more than a random quantum event analogous to quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Maybe it’s just some kind of cognitive dissonance but his concept of “God” simply transcends these physical manifestations, which he doesn’t deny or challenge the way the nutbars do. Who are we to argue with him? He is not doing science, nor pretending to, and certainly not challenging it. Would you be more comfortable if we gave him the label “philosopher” instead of “minister”?
That said, I must admit that among the organized religious, he is certainly in a minority. Those wishing to burn school textbooks that describe evolution tend to be more populous, perhaps because contraception is a mortal sin.
That’s why I specified that the gods were mutually contradictory. Now you might say that all these groups misunderstand their god, but then you’d have to explain how they came to understand anything at all about their god. Basically you don’t have an answer.
As I mentioned, the IPU began after many arguments with theists on alt.atheism and talk.atheism. The argument it was meant to address was special pleading. One example is the theist conception that one must demonstrate anything to be true except their version of god, which we are supposed to prove false. Or that anything can be made fun of except God. And remember this was alt.atheism. Dumping the IPO onto a religious group would have been obnoxious, but those visiting an atheist group don’t get to be offended by such things.
No it doesn’t. Try reading the argument again. If we are just talking about omnipotence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a maximally omnipotent god (I know, redundant) is still omnipotent even not being able to do logically contradictory things. It is the combination that is the problem.
How is a universe where god does not exist different from one where this kind of god does exist? I’m assuming that your variety of god never talks to us or directly interacts with us. It could exist, but so could a teacup orbiting Saturn. So could an invisible elephant in my garage. This is a great example of special pleading, since I bet you wouldn’t propose the existence of any other impossible to detect thing.
Of course even if god believers believed in this kind of god, there would be no churches. What’s the point?
There are typically two classes of god. The first actually has interacted with someone somewhere sometime. That’s the kind people worship in religious buildings.
The second is the type of god that has never interacted with anyone, and kind of sits there at the beginning of time poofing the Big Bang into existence. That is the kind that people on message boards like ours worship - since it is logically indistinguishable from no god at all.
You’ll have noticed how many theists switch from one to the other with a speed that makes shell game runners green with envy. I don’t understand why anyone who actually believes in the second type of god would waste a second advocating its existence.
Except of course they seldom do that. And, if they are trying to make an argument that their god exists then yes, they are logically required to come up with some kind of evidence for it.
It is not my intention to impugn your friend. I’m sure she’s every bit the kind of person you believe her to be. I simply want to point out that there are good & bad people in the world. I think the quality of goodness is more a function of a person’s genetic and psychological make-up than it is a function of what they happen to believe or not believe. The corollary is equally true: A bastard is a bastard whether he has faith or not.
As to whether or not some of the kids benefit from Sunday school - that I’m not so sure about. If it does help some, as you stated, is it also possible that it causes confusion and guilt to some others? God’s a pretty overwhelming concept to a kid, even without all the fire and brimstone. And the concept of punishment by god is not such a foreign concept that a kid wouldn’t catch on pretty quick that he/she better toe the line if they want to get into heaven. But I don’t want to belabor the point except to add that indulging in some fantasies causes less long term harm than others.
Why in the world would you be an agnostic about Loch Ness? I don’t think that is agnosticism-I think that’s just fence sitting for the purpose of avoiding arguing with anybody.
Just to be absolutely clear, when I spoke of “those parts of the world that simply don’t make sense” I wasn’t speaking of demographic regions, but of philosophical and moral puzzles. Not “Uganda,” but “Why do bad things happen to good people?”
I like the idea…but how are you going to persuade the organized churches today?
For me, defining God as “The unknowable abstraction that exists outside of time and space and may have set off The Big Bang” is acceptable. But the nice Baptist Minister down the street is going to react pretty badly. He still claims to have a “personal relationship” with God (and Jesus.) He is not going to accept a redefinition of religion as abstract deism. He still insists the Devil is a real person and Hell is a real place.
That’s where Der Trihs and I differ (although I admire him very much.) I hold that the prevailing, conventional, popular form of organized religion in the world is harmful, but that more laid-back alternatives are not harmful.
In my ideal, religious beliefs are like preferences in flavors and cuisine. You might not like Chinese food, while I might not like Italian food. But who cares, since neither of us is going to try to compel the other to partake of what we like.
The American right-wing-dominated fundamentalist religious establishment is very much trying to compel outward compliance with their doctrines and dogmas. So, there at least, I stand close by Der Trihs’ shoulder. Those guys are goddamn dangerous to us.
And to you! If your ideas of reformed definitions of religion and God started to catch on, they’d aim their machinery of hatred at you. (Just look at how they hate “New Age” interpretations of Christianity.)
you’re not - because if its not personal and something that can smite/reward you (or doesn’t care one way or the other) - then there is nothing to ‘sell’ - and therefore less and less reasons for any kind of organized ‘worship’.
They could turn all the energy they spend selling heaven/damnation into actual good works - they could use Sunday mornings to organize weekly activities - but by and large - you wont persuade them, because there is simply no ‘power’ in it.
It works on an individual level, precisely because that is the point where the end user has finally realized that ‘organized religion’ is bunk, they have had enough unanswered prayers to realize that either God doesn’t exist or God is so far removed that it doesnt care - but they can’t quite let go of ‘God’.
well - you can’t be agnostic about things like the loch ness monster’ by definition - unless you are giving that critter ‘supernatural’ gifts -
agnostic is “unknown AND unknowable” - we could drain that lake and be 100% sure - given the efforts at searching it so far there really is little doubt as to the existence of the critter - but we do find new critters every so often, so its not unpossible.
So, you think believers would respond with an emotional and irrational response to the IPU, because it’s a valid comparison? No, just no.
This is entirely your opinion, nothing more.
Where are you getting this? lol I haven’t demanded anything let alone that non-believers “bend over backwards.” Again, I think you’re seeing ghosts of past theists when you read my posts. lol I have voiced my opinion and I have made a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make a small adjustment to your approach. This adjustment would be less likely to start a fruitless argument, and more likely to be thought-provoking.
You should stop putting words in my mouth, It’s really annoying.
I did not deny that. I said that just because our current logic doesn’t allow for us to understand, doesn’t mean it doesn’t make perfect sense on a level beyond our understanding. Our logic and science doesn’t explain all phenomena anyways, so in regards to God, it’s not something that you can make an easy assumption about, no matter how fervently you argue that it somehow is “obvious.” Like I said, you seem to think that what we know is supreme… What we know is constantly changing and evolving. We can’t figure out how the Great Pyramid of Giza was built, or many other ancient ruins, and I’ll say it again, WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHAT MAKES HOT WATER FREEZE FASTER THAN COLD WATER.
What makes you think our current level of understanding or “logic” is sufficient to form a conclusion on whether or not God exists. Simply put, YOU CAN NOT KNOW.
It rules out specific characteristics many religion’s Gods’ have, but not the idea of any God existing. What science are you claiming rules out any form of God? Be specific because I guarantee you there will be holes in your statement.
You have absolutely no proof of your claims. The world could quite possibly be much worse off if religion had never existed. Yes, it clearly has negative effects caused directly by extremists, not your everyday religious person. You are discriminating just as bad as any believer might discriminate against you.
So basically you should say that you are arguing against religion, not God. To lump the two together is a gross oversight on your part. And let’s be honest, it’s been the church and the people who have been perpetrating ALL of the religious evils, NOT GOD.
Compared to what? For all you know, people would be MORE evil if it weren’t for religion putting up necessary boundaries to prevent people from doing whatever they want. I mean what stops anyone with the “warrior gene” from killing someone these days? Oh wait, it’s the laws in place that do that AND religious laws.
It has not been “obviously false, and highly destructive” either. There was a time, where if you had lived then, you yourself would not ever have become an atheist, because the Bible would have been obviously true to you.
There is no evidence to suggest that the world would have been better off without religion, so it’s pointless to sit here and make claims one way or the other.
That’s a silly statement for a theist to make, I agree. But just because we can understand something through science, doesn’t mean it’s not God.
Well, I’m an agnostic, so honestly, the burden of proof falls to theists and atheists to persuade me one way or the other. So far, there is still not sufficient evidence to make a claim either way.
Nobody ever said anything about validating religion, bud. Nobody ever “demanded” anything. As others have mentioned, people have confirmation bias. They have perceived miracles that contradict what should have happened according to science, and have found solace in the belief that something has answered their prayers. It’s not some gimmick you can go around denying and expect everyone to agree with you on. Science can’t explain everything, so some people who have very busy lives, don’t have time to indulge in the in depth, time-consuming rigmarole of exploring God’s existence. They have families to take care of, problems to deal with, other interests, and are predisposed to their belief in God. So, if you’re going to try and enlighten those type of people, why waste their time slamming them by calling their belief “stupid” and using analogies like the IPU? Doing that is a form of ignorance in and of itself. If you actually give a damn about the “negative effects” of things, why would you go around doing things that probably fall into the category of “evil” like you say?
That’s great, but it’s not any other belief. Some people have their entire lives enveloped in religion. How could you possibly expect them to pull the rug out from underneath the foundation of their belief system and their thought processes? That right there would be more destructive than anything a normal person who is religious might do because of their religion.
Not necessarily. My beef with the IPU is with the specific way it was first presented. Now that all these amendments have been made to it, or “goalpost shifting” and “redefining” as Der Trihs would put it, it’s not that big of a deal. EXCEPT, an IPU is still not a reasonable replacement for the Christain God, because most Christians believe their God has no corporeal form, so praying, making wishes, and giving money to an IPU would be RETARDED compared to something that only takes on the form that an individual conceptualizes about it.
So what if the argument had validity in those other discussions? What does that have to do with this one? This entire above^^^ paragraph serves to make my point for me. I have already been very clear in my other posts about why the IPU is inappropriate. In your example, the IPU is clearly not inappropriate given those specific circumstances.
Okay, I see the difference now. I also said this:
"Our perception of time is essentially an illusion. Why would God share the same limited mind for understanding this world as we do? If the Universe were created by God, everything would have been preordained from the moment of creation. Meaning, God would not actively participate in anything(in a way). But, being the all-powerful being he is, he could orchestrate every possible scenario to happen simultaneously at all times in an infinite number of universes. "
He would essentially never be wrong on some minute level of fallibility like the one you have described. Or wrong at all for that matter. The fact that he is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time would mean that he would have to be capable of what i have described in the above paragraph.
(within the context of my argument which seems to be lost on all the cross-commenting that goes on from multiple posters) The point is that God COULD exist and that science has indeed not proven anything for certain. I was saying this to Der Trihs at the time when he claimed that science has somehow without a doubt made any notion of God “ridiculous, and blatantly obnoxious,” when in fact, science has not done that. I was just making a point in that regard, not asserting in any way that that very specific avenue of my point which you have latched on to, is significant to religion.
If they “seldom do that” then where are all the believers right now? I mean they do occupy a majority of the Earth’s population, and we as atheists and agnostic occupy a minority. So I ask you, where are all these people? I can honestly say that being raised a Catholic, then transferring to a non-denominational church, and finally becoming agnostic, that I have never directly experienced any blatant or obnoxious form of someone cramming religion down my throat.
True, it doesn’t always occur, but when it does, what causes it? We don’t know exactly.
No, it’s the truth; and rather obvious truth at that.
“God” is irrational in blatantly obvious ways, not in complicated ways we might be wrong about. To use the comparison that you keep ignoring, it’s just as silly as an adult in believing in Santa Claus (even sillier, actually); are you going to try to claim that Santa Claus might actually exist?
And if our “current logic” doesn’t apply to god, then we can’t say anything meaningful about him. No one really means it when they use arguments like this anyway, it’s just a rhetorical device; as soon as the skeptics shut up, suddenly everyone knows exactly what God is like and what God wants. And he is, yes, the Christian god and not the generic for-rhetorical-purposes-only-God that you keep trying to pretend this conversation is about.
He’s only vague and ultra-incomprehensible when someone is expressing doubt.
Your comparisons are ridiculous even if they were true. You are trying to compare something that is logically and scientifically impossible, something that is probably the most implausible, impossible and blatantly false concept ever created - God - to things that are known to exist and aren’t even all that mysterious.
If we can’t say that God is imaginary then we can’t say that anything is imaginary, because there just isn’t* anything* less plausible, more impossible or more obviously not true. Again; if God, why not Santa Claus? Why not elves? You keep outright ignoring questions like that - because they underline just how silly believing in God is. Which of course brings us back to the IPU, and why it is a good comparison to God.
The laws of physics.
Nonsense; religion causes immense harm, and it causes harm from the actions of non-extremists at least as much as from extremists. Not only do they participate directly, but they lend practical and moral support even when they don’t personally get their hands dirty. And the idea that the world would be worse off without something as incredibly evil, destructive and useless as religion is just silly.
And a morally bankrupt position to take; you might as well claim that the world would be worse off racism or some other equally evil belief system; you have just as much evidence and logical support for such a position after all. You are just making the unsupported assertion that despite the immense and obvious evil caused by it, that we can’t actually call it a bad thing because we can’t prove mathematically that it
doesn’t do some secret hidden good that balances it all out. A position that if actually taken seriously means that we can’t criticized anything at all.
Really? I’ve never fired anyone, beaten them, or murdered them for being religious. I’ve…argued with people on message boards about it. Truly, my evil knows no limit. :rolleyes:
No, because “God” is purely religious concept, and because we are all really just talking about the Christian god anyway.
Religion doesn’t put up “boundaries”, it corrupts people and grants them the moral license to commit any evil they wish if they scream the name of their god first. The first step towards any genuine moral code if to reject or sideline religion.
Or I’d have been killed for speaking out.
No, they have never perceived any miracles. And there’s nothing admirable about fraudulent solace.
Because it has a better chance of working than more “polite” methods. Which is why the believers hate it so much.
No it wouldn’t; the more wrapped up someone is in religion, the more they are living in a fantasy world and therefore the more dangerous they are to themselves and others.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. It’s a constant fight to keep them from putting Creationism into schools, and they are constantly pushing their hatred; for example, there’s the bans and attempts to ban same sex marriage. There’s the death/life imprisonment for homosexuals laws passed in Uganda, ion large part backed by American Christians.
The attempts of the believers to turn America and the world into a theocracy is constant and unrelenting. It’s not my fault that you apparently don’t notice that even when it makes front page news.
Get god out of public schools, off of our money and, while we’re at it no more preferential tax breaks for religions and we’ll see who’s minding their own business.
