I’d agree with that, and possibly I misunderstood Liberal’s posts. It seemed he was linking to Dawkins to avoid answering your assertion that there was little supporting evidence for god rather than because he actually agrees with Dawkins’ theories. If he does agree with Dawkins, it answers my question as to whether he thinks only those of faith can understand faith.
You came late to this discussion. Lib has quoted some Indian guy whose name I won’t bother looking up that the fact that spiritual experiences can be induced in the brain does not mean that they cannot also be the result of actual spiritual inputs. Which is clearly true. All that it means is that they don’t have to be the result of true spiritual experiences.
He’s had a spiritual experience. I haven’t. There are multiple explanations for this:
- Jesus decided to speak to him, not to me.
- Jesus was able to speak to him, but not to me because my temporal sensitivity is too low.
- Jesus didn’t try to speak to either of us, but is divine, and he thought Jesus did because Lib’s temporal sensitivity is high. (Substitute the god of your choice for Jesus here.)
- Jesus is dead, I gawrantee, and no one spoke to anyone, but Lib had a false spiritual experience due to his high temporal sensitivity, while I didn’t.
Me, I’m on the waiting list for a spiritual guide dog.
You have got to be joking.
You — and now Voyager, of all people — are defending Der Trihs’s endless sniping at people of faith, not just in the Pit, but in Great Debates and apparently wherever he pleases. And you call me snide? Der Trihs has called us everything from delusional to dangerous. He never posts on a religious topic without hurling one invective after another. There is no difference between what he does and what the white separatists do on Stormfront when they say every manner of nasty thing about Jews and blacks. He has never — never! — provided a single cite to me, even when specifically asked, to support his asinine and baseless assertions about faith, people of faith, and God. He doesn’t debate; he snarls and spits. Not being attacked my ass.
As to your post:
Why the “sic”? In the first place, it seems unnecessary. And in the second place, people who live in glass houses should throw stones. “Bible” should be capitalized. And so should “God” when using it as a proper name. To answer your quesion, I was challenging Der Trihs.
I do not take the Bible as the literal word of God.
Plenty of atheists understand the fact that science is not the right tool for examining God. Der Trihs is not one of them.
Falsifiability is applicable only to empirical epistemologies like science. And then only when accepting the premise of Karl Popper. Many science philsophers do not. (Note also that the philosophical concept of falsifiability is not itself falsifiable.)
Ridiculous. One can no more point to God than one can point to the square root of four. If you want a pointer, get a hounddog and go chase foxes. God is metaphysical. You do understand that, right?
Voyager, what on earth has happened to you? I do not recognized you in these latest posts. The “Indian guy” is VS Ramachandran. He is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and he is Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute. He is both a medical doctor, and holds a PhD from the Trinity College at Cambridge University. He is a life fellow of the Royal Instituion of Great Britain, and holds fellowships at Oxford and Stanford. He has won too many awards to list here. He has published almost 200 papers in scientific journals, including five invited review articles for Scientific American. He is a legend among his peers. The fact that you can’t bother looking him up, and that you would dismiss him as “some Indian guy” is just… bizarre beyond credulity.
What if the planet is not funked up, it is just your perception of it that is funked up. How do we know that God is supposed to “rescue” us from our own screwups as most people seem to believe. Why would we not be supposed to accept responsibility for the mistakes we make. If you screwed up and found yourself in trouble would your parents bail you out, and for how many times before giving up. I can’t speak for others but yes, I have tried the way of God, and yes it does work.
If god doesn’t see the world the way we see it (i.e., fucked up), then there’s not much point in trying to please him because we aren’t on the same page.
Your description of god as a father figure confuses me. Isn’t god supposed to be better and greater and more powerful than my dad? Wouldn’t a super power want me to understand the rules before I play the game? Seriously…if you’re going to apply human attributes to a god, how big or important can it be?
I assure you that in my business “some Indian guy” is not an insult! I was being flip - and busy, and didn’t have time to search on the name. I hope I got his general position right.
As for defending DerTrihs, I have always held that any god’s (wither God or another instance of a deity) impact on the world can be examined scientifically, even if God himself cannot be directly. That is certainly true if you wish to take any direction from God. Forget about literalism - if you follow the Bible in any way, you either must believe in the part you follow or have non-religious reasons for it. If the latter, you are no different from someone following purely secular ethics. If the former, you need to examine the correctness of the section scientifically (and historically) or you are not significantly different from someone taking ethics from a fantasy book.
Maybe the rules are too complicated for us to understand, and we need to try different approaches as in solving a puzzle? God the father is a common thought since we were created by Him, in His image. How big, and powerful God would you want? How easy a life would you have Him give you?
I must admit I do not know the fellow. In this thread his arguments have been cogent and civil.
Sorry. I did read a rule about not changing quotes and wanted to make sure you didn’t think I was taking you out of context. Also, people here seem to have a rabid preoccupation with spelling and grammar. I try to observe local customs.
Indeed. And I assure you that when I am referring to a specific god or bible such as Yahweh, Zeuss, Wotan, The KJV or the Book of Mormon I will capitalize them.
Thank you for the information. I’ll remember in the future.
I don’t know. I think Der Trihs agrees wholeheartedly with those atheists. The one thing to which atheists the world over agree is that it is not possible to measure that which does not exist.
Then it’s a good thing we’re not discussing philosophy. We are discussing the factually proven evidence that a god exists. Any god.
One can inded point at the square root of four. It’s two.
God* created the heavens and earth and everything in it. A thing created everything else. We can point at everything else. Where is the thing that created it all? God created man in his image. Or from pantheism, the gods created humans in their images as men and women. Gods and goddesses. All indicate gender. So we know that god(ess)s are things which have gender. That is not metaphysical, that is a physical statement. Show me that and I will be a true believer.
*whichever one to which you ascribe your flavor of belief.
What puzzle? You already claim to know there’s a god and also claim to know what he wants from us and what he’ll give us in return. My opinion or belief (as well as yours) is irrelevant, if god exists.
Whew. I’m very relieved. 
You and I agree that any physical effects are scientifically measurable. I mean, obviously so. But it’s the “from God” part that science doesn’t really address. It knows the effect is from something, but it doesn’t know from what. The only causes it can examine are those that are also physical. That’s why whether the brain is wired for God to communicate with man or for man to create God is a question that is not open to science. As Arthur Eddington put it, “Something unknown is doing we don’t know what.”
No one can agree on a proof…
It’s like String Theory
Yes, in this thread he has stopped short of calling me a raving lunatic to say only that my worldview is baseless and empty. From him, it was practically a compliment.
I don’t know what you thought needed changing.
Well, since you seem to enjoy semantic pedantry as much as I do, let’s discuss this. In English, it is typical for improper nouns to take articles, while proper nouns typically do not. So, if there is a guy named Guy, it is customary to write something like this: (1) I gave the book to a guy; or (2) I gave the book to Guy.
And so, when we write “If we are to take the bible as the literal word of god…”, then if we mean any old god, we should articulate the noun, as in “…the literal word of a god…”. Or if we mean the god a billion people call “God”, we should leave out the article as you did, but also capitalize the word as you didn’t.
(Bible is capitalized because that’s the name of the book.)
I’m here to serve.
Actually, it has been my experience that atheists (like everyone else) the world over can’t even agree on what exists means, let alone how to measure what it might be an attribute of. I think when people start waxing about broad philosophical things, like questions of ontology, they’ve veered outside the umbrella of science. Science is a small branch of philosophy — a sibling of logic and other epistemologies.
If we were talking about proof, we’d be using terms like “inference” rather than “evidence”.
You’re equivocating. By “point to”, I can’t believe that I’m the only one who thought you meant “show me physically”, as we would point to a rock or a tree. If all you meant was to give analytical equivalence, I could have pointed to “supreme being”.
No, you won’t. Or at least, you shouldn’t. Not from something that flimsy. Until God so rearranges your way of thinking that you cannot not believe in Him, only then should you believe. Puny magic tricks and sensory tautologies do not merit worship.
But what does merit worship?
In my opinion, to merit worship an entity must be three things: (1) ontologically necessary, (2) aesthetically essential, and (3) metaphysically eternal.
No, I’m pretty sure a=without, theism=belief in god(s). Atheists do not agree that gods cannot be measured by science because atheists do not believe gods exist. If someone believes something may exist which may or may not be a god but cannot be measured by scientific means, that person is by definition not an atheist.
Or if we were paying attention to the title and first post of the thread, we’d understand why I used those words.
No, just trying to make a small joke.
Indeed, I meant show me physically. If a thing is going to claim physical attributes such as gender that thing is physical.
What puny magic tricks? I was quite specific in my criteria. Rearranging thinking isn’t difficult. Torturers do it. So do psychologists. Good teachers, too. I don’t need a god for something that meaningless. People change the way they think all the time.
Huh. I’m not sure I can even imagine worshipping anything. I don’t know what the purpose of that activity is.
True, if God exists, then He sets the rules, and what we want or believe about Him is irrelevant as you say. But suppose most people don’t know what He wants them to do or to act, then what? What if He doesn’t put any “musts,” “shoulds,” beliefs on us? A father usually doesn’t demand His child worship Him, and usually doesn’t punish His child for things the child doesn’t know or has not learned. God as father don’t do these things either.
Science can, eventually, trace down where all the data the brain is processing comes from. If it’s all from physical things, then there’s no room for “communication with God”. And then there’s the problem that it’s the logical obligation of the believers to come up with evidence for their assertions, not for the unbelievers to disprove every baseless claim the believers make. Not that the believers ever acknowledge that; they want religion to have special privileges, to be assumed true until proven false.
Ugh. Assuming that was possible, at that point you should put a bullet in your head, not worship him ( because it’s not practical to kill God, instead ). There’s nothing desirable about being reduced to a puppet.
Assuming I could and would do so, how would you feel if I were to perform some brain surgery on you and forcibly make you into an atheist, whether you wanted it or not ?
Personally the concept makes my skin crawl.
You’re assuming that if a god exists that he’d care what you do. Evidence here on Earth indicates no such thing.