"There is no God" is an opinion, not a fact.

The BBQ Pit
221

Yes, it is perfectly logical to study without believing in a God and that was the point of my first post in that other thread. So while “There is no God” was only part of my answer, I think that statement along with the rest of what I said–

–addresses the question (“Theological study: why does it matter?”) quite directly. True, it is a not a complete dissertation on the subject. It’s more of a thesis statement.

There is no God*, yet theology matters because we can learn a lot about human nature by studying various myths and legends and how and why they were created.

But strictly speaking, the OP is right. “There is no God” is an opinion-- not a fact. Yet there are many different flavors of opinions.

I think that’s why the brilliant but under-appreciated concept of “The Invisible Pink Unicorn” is so illuminating. Theists like to hem and haw around whether or not it is ridiculous to hold the opinion that there exists such a thing as an IPU.

The reason they dodge it is because they can clearly see that they are giving up a large concession in the God/no God argument if they concede that the idea of IPU is ludicrous. Yet I believe that many of them feel that way.

Who doesn’t think that it’s pretty much crazy to truly believe in–much less worship–an IPU? Consider for a moment someone who truly believes with all their heart that an Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe and watches over us. Would you hire that person? Would you let that person take care of or teach your child? Would you fly on a plane that that person is piloting?

I think it’s preety clear that there is every bit as much evidence for any God as there is an IPU.*

Can someone remind me of that expression-- what is it? Something like, “Everyone disbelieves in a whole bunch of Gods, an atheist simply disbelieves in one more.”

Thus it’s ok to laugh at the idea of Apollo driving his flaming chariot across the sky every day, but to doubt a similar and just as unlikely story proffered by a Christian is somehow arrogant and unfair?

I know, many very rational people believe in the all-knowing, controlling, involved, Abrahamic-type God. I submit that they are simply not being rational about this specific topic, even if they are rational in just about every other way.

Even the best of us can have blind spots; can be irrational on occasion. I know that I am, and I’m certainly not among “the best of us”.

Just because your mother, or your father, or lots of nice people you know, and millions of people that have lived and died before you fervently believe in God does not make it so. It doesn’t even make it likely. And it certainly doesn’t make it rational.

This is in the pit. But this post doesn’t really read like a pit post. I have only read through the first page of responses to this thread, so I wanted to start out calmly.

If this turns into the shit-storm I expect, I can play like that too. After all, I have been pitted here. My dear OP-- you say this should not be construed as a pitting of me. I suspect you are being forthright when you say this. Instead, this OP is a pitting of not me alone, but of me and many other people too. I think it is a pitting of rational thought, actually.

But I have hope. Come what may, I trust in the wisdom of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to guide me through this thread.

*As usual, I will make my disclaimer that certain notions of God are quite reasonable. For example, if your notion of God is yourself, or the sky, or like in AA-- a ketchup bottle or a doorknob, these things clearly exist and can be shown to exist. Further, I believe pantheism–the concept that the entire cosmos is god is pretty tough to refute. Clearly, the Cosmos exists.

222

And I think you’re wrong. :smiley:

223

What if it is a delusion? (and by an objective analysis it seems to be as delusional as someone claiming that Martians created us) Is it respectful then? Can one ever claim that a person is delusional an still be respectful? Can a psychiatrist opine that his patient has delusions with out being disrespectful?

What does a Christian feel about someone who thinks that a panda created this world? Does he think he’s influenced by Satan? Does he just think he’s wrong? Could it be he feels that that person might be delusional-- at least about this one thing? Can’t we all still respect people who have some delusions?

224

We should also point out what, by all evidence, appears to be delusional behavior without being assholes. And if one presents that opinion in an honest, sensitive way then one shouldn’t be labled an asshole by default.

225

No. It is predicated by any evidence that can be offered within the range of current human understanding. If a man thinks that the government is sending commands by radio through his fillings we don’t need to absolutely prove that that is false in order to consider him delusional.

226

You’re an asshole, and I still think you’re wrong.

I can’t prove God exists, and I’m not even going to try. I probably couldn’t even come up with evidence that all of you would buy. But likewise, I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, and I’m not about to walk into a room full of fundamentalists and try to, for the same reason.

But I can’t believe you consider yourself an intelligent person if you think that everyone who believes in God is delusional. That’s saying that 90+% of the people that have ever lived are insane.

227

Of course we would. If a vast majority of people believed in the IPU, we’d have trouble not trusting them. Finding someone who did not believe in the IPU would be difficult.

If the majority of the people who believed in the IPU were otherwise fairly stable, functioning members of society, who had proven through a pattern of behavior to be able to perform their duties without flaking out, then there would be no reason not to deal with them or to trust them.

Moreover, it would seem foolish and a waste of time to take the opportunity to avoid them or treat them like deluded fools. A simple encounter with a believer in the IPU does not oblige a person to tell them how deluded they are. If they are treating you like a deluded fool, then they ask for the same treatment back. If they are not preaching or treating you with a lack of respect, to take the opportunity to tell them how deluded they are, or to make snide remarks about their sanity or stability, well, that makes you an asshole. (And this works both ways, of course. Plenty of assholes on both sides.)

228

Can you show me the rational evidence that suggests there is such a thing as a “God”?

And I’m sorry that I have written so many posts in a row. I keep meaning to compile my answers, but as I read these posts I just become so charged up to respond that I do it immediately–like a chat room.

I will endeavor to compile now.

229

doesn’t God tricking you make him seem a bit…dishonest?

on the subthread of evidence, I beleive it can be said that there is an equal amount evidence for a God and a lack of God IF NO CLAIMS ARE MADE ABOUT GOD

If one takes God as a generic being who created the universe and maybe determines an afterlife, then sure. Afterlives are utterly unprovable, can’t be shown either way. Similarly, any scientific theory on the creation of the universe can be met with “sure, God did it that way”

Problem is, that generic God is pretty meaningless. So, we’re attributing the creation to a being whose only attribute is that he created. great. Similarily, from an evidence standpoint, God basing an afterlife on being good is equally supported by evidence as God basing an afterlife on being good at playing the kazoo.

So people do attribute stuff to God, and very frequently that stuff is not supported by evidence. An example is any of the historical stuff that Diogenes presented.
Othersider already presented the counteragruments that much of those claims in the Bible are allegorical, or that God’s playing an elaborate practical joke. To this, I say that’s a matter of faith, not evidence.

A Bible that’s allegorical may be allegorical in it’s entirety, or only allegorical only where it’s in direct conflict with physical evidence. There’s no way to know, as only the historical events can have evidence, and the rest is entirely subjective, or one could say a matter of faith.

Similarly, if God’s a trickster, there can be no evidence one way or the other, and any belief must be based entirely on faith.

It may also be pointed out that a God who rewards goodness makes more sense than a God who rewards kazoo skills, however, feasiblity judgements like this are still subjective and faith based.

This may seem to ome down on the side of the agnostics, and it very well does so, but I must throw in a defense for the atheists.

When most atheists say “There is no God” they are not arguing against the generic, meaningless “god” that’s described in my first two real paragraphs, they are arguing against the existance of the Gods presented by religion, most of which do have falsifiable and somewhat falsified attributes to God.

230

Not insane, delusional. And actually, since we’re talking about delusional, I’d say 90% is probably a low-end figure.

231

We’ve talked about it in here - what it seems to come down to is, there are things many people consider “rational evidence in support of God’s existence” that many other people dismiss because of one reason or another. It boils down to what most of us already know, which is, the theist can’t prove God exists to the atheist, who can’t prove God doesn’t exist to the theist.

232

So if a majority of people are delusional, or if “fine upstanding citizens” are delusional then it doesn’t count? It’s a popularity contest? No. Delusion is delusion no matter how many “quality people” are delusional.

So true. And this is the situation we face today. One profits little by declaring that the Emperor has no clothes. So I, and most other doubters here probably, don’t run around saying this to our friends and family. But that doesn’t change the underlying reality. On a board like the SDMB people should feel intellectually free enough to share these thoughts. This board is not everyday life.

I’m not sure that I agree that presenting a rational case that a good chunk of humanity is deluded is being an “asshole”. OTOH, calling someone out to their face in public is another matter. A friend of mine may be profoundly retarded and discussing it in certain ways is necessary and appropriate. But walking right up to the guy and yelling, “You’re a fucking retard!” is pretty assholish. You and I agree on this point.

233

This is all very well but take it to its logical conclusion. You can sit on the same sort of fence over IPU’s, green headed monsters and Santa Claus. So is it inappropriate to say such things don’t exist if someone keeps bringing them up as the basis of their world view? Are we all to be utterly New Age about this, and just take the “mind so open our brains have fallen out” approach, by which unless something can be proven not to exist we must accept that it is appropriate to act like it does?

234

I haven’t read that yet but I want to. Tell me, is there a chapter that explains why people believe in weird things like God?

235

What’s so weird about a being that’s greater than we are, that created the universe?

236

I’m not asking or expecting that anyone change their minds about what is and is not delusional. They are your own opinions. You’re entitled to them. What you want to do about it and how you want to deal with it is another thing completely. Avoiding all “delusional” (90% of the population) or inwardly thinking of them as intellectual lepers doesn’t seem helpful or productive. Avoiding them (they’re delusional, after all) seems excessive, but if that’s what some people wanna do, they can knock themselves out.

When 90% of the population sees the clothes, no, I’d say there’s really no percentage on raining on their parade.

Your reality. Your opinion. Just like in my reality and in my opinion, anyone who enjoys Dr. Phil is deluded. But I’d be an asshole to tell them so, and you know what? If that many people love him (and they do, they do), then maybe they’re getting something out of him, and who am I to rain on their parade?

Oh, I know that. Free to be an asshole here, I see. There’s a difference between debating something, bringing up ideas and concepts and not being an asshole, and there’s a way to do it and being an asshole. Some here are opting for the “asshole” option. Their right, but hey. I’m obliged to acknowledge asshole behavior when I see it, offline or on.

Being snide, smug, and condescending in a forum where you know people who you deem “deluded” will read your (the “collective” you—I’m not singling you out specifically) opinion isn’t exactly the height of politeness. Hey, it’s your right to do so, but don’t be amazed when you ruffle people’s feathers. It’s human nature to bristle at the notion of being called delusional. Funny, how people will react that way, offline or on.

Well, sure. But whether offline or on, insulting or condescending behavior will get a reaction. It probably won’t sting as much to be told (in a smug manner) that you’re delusional by an anonymous stranger on a message board, but it’s not going to trigger a favorable reaction. Surely you can see that?

237

Stevie Wonder could see that. And don’t call him “Shirley”. :smiley:

238

Sorry. You are wrong. This thread was started to condemn MY positing that there is no God in a thread about the value of theology. It was NOT a religious thread. I didn’t hijack that thread at all. I merely stated that since there is no “God” the value of theology lies in it’s exploration of human motives in myth.

239

Absolutely. I’d be pissed if someone said I was delusional too. Doubly so if I actually was.

240

No, you didn’t hijack that thread - as it had barely been started - but you did sort of undermine the whole thing.

And I wish you’d stop saying things like “since there is no God” when we all know you can’t prove it. Every time you do I’m going to say something like “Since there is a God, he’s going to send you to hell”, even if I don’t believe it, just to get on your nerves when you get on mine. :smiley: