Why the Atheist’s Obsession with God?
I recently received this question on Facebook from someone I used to work with:
When I was at uni I wrote a thesis on religious connotations in science fiction films. I also don’t believe in god but find it fascinating how those that don’t believe in god seem so interested in the belief of god itself. No question here really apart from to ask why do think that is? We don’t believe in something but still obsess about the question?!?
I am one of those people: I obsess over the existence of God, and am obsessed with those who believe in a deity and why they do so.
I think the simplest explanation is that we are fascinated by people who are different to ourselves. In this way, I have been interested (at different points in my life) in the causes of homosexuality or autism and reasons for adhering to politics unlike my own, amongst other things. We, as humans, are always hankering after understanding of the unknown, and other people are unknown to us, especially if they explicitly believe different things to us, or behave in different ways.
The basis of this is that we think, by default and rather obviously, that we are “right”. If we didn’t, then we would have some serious issues with our sense of self and self-esteem. In fact, when we have mental health issues, it is often precisely because we think we are “wrong”. In a rational sense, I obviously think I am right all of the time, otherwise I wouldn’t be arguing so much over these things and trying to convince people who are wrong, and I would have to admit that my rational faculties were faulty.
Now, with something like homosexuality, it is not really a rational choice, but, more often, a biological or genetic scenario. For other things, like belief in God or a political worldview, they are rational choices (built on foundations of psychology, or even following psychological commitments – so a veneer of rationality). As such, we think we are right in our rationalising a conclusion (even if this actually happens to be post hoc rationalisation – rationalising after the prior psychological commitment to make that commitment look rational). If we think we are right, then we think those who think differently are, in some sense, wrong. If they are wrong, how is it that people so seemingly similar to ourselves can conclude antithetically?
This is the obsession with God.
But you will also need to add to that the joy of solving puzzles. Puzzles of evidence. Puzzles of logic. Puzzles of thought and the mind.
And then there is the strangeness and otherworldliness of the supernatural.
Then, there is the joy of debate. Good old arguing. We love it.
Soooo…: You’re wrong – how is it that you, so similar to myself, can be so wrong? Look, I’ve studied these puzzles, and I have come to these conclusions about these crazy apparent phenomena. And now I’m going to convince you to conclude as I do.
What’s not to love?
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
426 visitors
... and maybe also just a teeny tiny bit of a question: And if I'm wrong?
I am one of those people: I obsess over the existence of God, and am obsessed with those who believe in a deity and why they do so.
Mmm, no, no, no ! Let it go.
So, where are those 'handy' red-box rules plus when you need them?
I don't always include them. I'm running an experiment to see if I get more asinine Replies with or without Red Rules.
So what does this article think about "puzzles of faith"? I really wish your article to succeed.
It's not a choice at all. Anyone who thinks it is a choice, is, by definition, bisexual. Used to sneak off with the neighbor girl and kiss when we were 5 years old. [at her insistence!] My orientation has never been a choice, and must assume it's the same for homosexuals.
Belief is not really a choice either. Can you 'believe' that the moon is made out of Hershey chocolate simply because you want to? Can anyone really make that 'choice?'
all sexual behavior is a choice. the overwhelming population have the moral discipline to not yield to that particular sexual perversion. All behavior is a moral choice.
Homosexuality isn't a 'behavior' either, Larry, it's an orientation, just like heterosexuality. People may have no sex life at all, no behavior to point to, but will still have their orientation. So, you have to 'discipline' yourself to not have gay sex? I don't. Perhaps you should consider that you may be bisexual.
E.A Lets do a Fact check:
When is a:
Murderer a Murderer when they THINK off it or when?
Murderer a Paedophile when they THINK off it or when?
Murderer a Rapist when they THINK off it or when?
Murderer a Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] when they THINK off it or when?
Murderer a Homosexual when they THINK off it or when?
That makes even less sense than EA's comment, and that's saying something!
E.A One is Storgy
The Other is Phillia
Homosexuality is not " Love " but a Perversion and they stole the words as Gay ( Happy ) and Rainbow ( Signs of NEW Life ) as well as " Love "( Agape, Phillia, Storgy, Eros) to mean the Opposite of the original meanings
Just to help those that can not comprehend Parallism:
I used " Murdered" since one can not be a Murderer unless they are convicted of a Crime!
Now a " Human Being " Seems to be a point of debate, so for clarity I avoided that, But add it at Your Risk in place of a " Murderer ", what does that change, since NO " Moniker " ie " a Brain Surgeon " is not one that thinks about the Brain, right, now I know I am asking a LOT for some, but give it a try :-)
Is being sexually attracted to someone a behavior?
Tried to google that, nothing came up. Then typed "Storgy love" and storge came up. Another term for love.
E.A yes and it has nothing to do with " Sex " right it is one of those " Royal Loves " what so many are trying to avoid!
NB: No love is " Unconditional " that is an Oxymoron!
Behavior is a choice. Orientation is not. And who are you to decide what is "perverted" or moral or not? If such "behavior" is between consenting adults, what's the problem?
Yes
Jesus declared that even having thoughts where you consider that behavior is equal to engaging in it
I didn't decide what is moral. God made that determination. it is true it's between two consenting adults. I'm not talking a legal standpoint. I'm talking about the moral standpoint.
Jesus was a homo.
Are you meaning "of" each time you say "off"? Your questions make no sense.
Which God? There are thousands of deities people believe in, some are okay with homosexuality and some are not. Once you decide which God and prove that God is real, then you can claim that it made that determination as to what is "moral".
E.A If that is what you wish.
But think about it, is a Good Judge All Forgiven? if yes, then we have the state of what is around us, more crooks, then Law abiding Citizens?
In Nature, are all " animals in a Group treated the same " if not why not?
E.A The " god of evolution " is not ok with Homosexuality, see how he deals with then with Pathogens!
then=them
Morality is subjective. There is nothing immoral about relationships between consenting adults, regardless of their orientation. From a legal standpoint, your god, morality, or religion is all irrelevant, and applies to no one but you. And prove there's a god!
So when did you choose to be gay/straight? Did you discuss it with your parents first or did you try both sexes to figure out which one you liked best? You know, like test driving a car. Or, did you, like everyone else on the planet, figure out that you were attracted to one sex and not the other? As has been pointed out, there is a difference between BEHAVIOR and ORIENTATION.
So you need some imaginary being to tell you the difference between right and wrong? Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] And when you have, "devout Christians" like roy moore, how can Christians claim ANY moral superiority? Mike Pence? Lies constantly, where in the bible is that hailed as a virtue?
There is only one God. 2000 years ago He came to earth and took on the form of mankind. Jesus called all people to repent and receive Him as Lord and Savior that they might have life. He affirmed the moral standards He established first with Noah and then with Moses. But He also said that no longer would sacrifices be made, that He Himself would be the sacrifice for all who believe and trust in Him.
it is a perversion of the very principle of morality that there is any subjectivity. This is the rationalization of mankind who want to deny God's sovereignty.
Hitler established a moral subjectivity regarding murdering anyone he felt were not worthy of the Reichland. Genocidal maniacs have done similarly over the ages of man.
the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
No it did not, the existence of god is no more than a bunch of tribal lore passed down verbally around the campfire over a period of thousands of years to attempt to explain themselves and the world around them. Then people that wanted power collected this lore, wrote out their version, preached it to the masses, punished non-believers cruelly and ultimately the god concept became a part of our society.
So basically you're basing your opinion on the highly edited campfire stories of a primitive society. Lol and we all know campfire stories are likely to contain exaggerations even outright fibs (honestly the fish that got away was this <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>> big)
No, sexual orientation is not a choice, but sexual behavior is.
I have been straight as far back as I remember, never came a day when I had to choose.
That is because the first inclination in our minds is to do what is morally right. that is also what keeps most from murdering or stealing when anger or temptation arises. Those who engage in homosexual behavior refuse to engage in moral self discipline. Just like the murderer or the thief.
Clearly if there is objective morality it would have to come from an absolute arbiter of morality - God. So let's assume you are correct, God exists and has established absolute morality.
What are God's moral guidelines? What is the single, unambiguous source for objective morality?
If you answer 'the Bible' you have offered a book that has and is interpreted in many ways - with substantial contradiction. Demonstrably, the Bible fails as the moral guideline.
In other words, THE source for absolute morality must, at the very least, be clear (not vague) if it is to be of any value as a guide.
How do you explain the fact that some institutions that were acceptable in Biblical times are not acceptable today? Slavery and polygamy, for example.
Wow, you're actually equating homosexuality to murder or stealing? Really?
The wise man says, "show me the proof!"
Sounds like an ad hom attack!
You are not born with a set morals....genitals, yes, but morals....no.
Sorry, but morality is not objective or absolute. Neither are your your imaginary god the arbiter of what is moral or not!
Prove there's a god then! Because a rational mind questions outrageous claims like a god.
You just proved my point about morality being subjective.
Thought and action are two different things. The idea that they are the same is absurd to say the least.
And add to that, "free will". If 'god' issued all these commandments and morals, why give us free will to violate them? The bible and dare I say all religions are just one contradiction after another.
Funny you should mention that. in 1348, Christians murdered over 80% of the Jews in Europe because they were sure that the Jews were spreading the Black Plague.
Jesus didn't write the dictionary.
MUVA clearly distinguishes between emotion and action when explaining why loving his male relatives doesn't make him homosexual (while conveniently ignoring the difference between familial and romantic love), then turns right around and includes attraction (emotion) in his later definition of "homosexual".
Indeed, the contradictions imposed by free will are numerous. Typically when presented with such contradictions the theist response is a cloud of smoke.
Demonstrate.
That right there is a moral judgment.
My obsession revolves around incredulity - that people are willing to not take their beliefs to their logical conclusions. Heaven would be every bit of a horrible eternal fate as hell. The key to this lies in the word ‘eternal’. Any sane person would eventually want to cease existing. To have no choice but eternal longevity would eventually be your own eternal hell.
The only just reward for living a life of virtue, would be to be given the opportunity to recycle into another life, with no connection or memory of the past life. But that isn’t the reward that most mainstream religions promise.
Wow, one of the most self hating statements I've ever read.
So you want to exist as a sentient being forever? Not 200 years, not 1,000 years, not 100,000 years, not even 1,000,000,000 years - but forever. Enjoy that misery of experiencing everything there is to experience until nothing is left but eternal repetition. I'm sure you will never get bored.
Hal,
Why do atheists usually accept the most fundamentalist notions of heaven and hell? It's incoherent. On the one hand, you reject the existence of God, and on the other you adopt the most primitive of theist ideas.
Try this:
And because God is Love, Hell cannot be eternal...
(Don't ask for details... I haven't seen the blueprints!)
You actually think atheists accept that there is a heaven and hell? I've never met one or even heard of one. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you are mistaken, but am having a real hard time believing that you actually think that. Who are these atheists you claim believe in an afterlife? Are there any here at NV?
In conversations, atheists often argue against the existence of God by citing the absurdity of heaven and hell. They are usually categorical, imposing their definition of heaven/hell on the conversation, and that's usually angels with harps and fire and brimstone. It's a strawman, but hey!
Thinking that the idea of a heaven and a hell is absurd, means you believe in heaven and hell? Sorry Bob, that makes ZERO sense.
Incredibly, it is actually fairly common for theists to argue that atheists believe in God, which makes about as much sense as arguing short people are actually tall.
Exactly. But that's what happens with an unsettling frequency: The atheist proclaims disbelief, while adopting a portrait straight out of the Old Testament.
That reminds me of an old episode of Star Trekindle Voyager where the crew comes across a Q imprisoned in a comet by the Continuum because he got bored with existence after experiencing everything from being immortal and he wanted to commit suicide.
Not at all.
I'm saying that aguing against fire and brimstone is too easy. Running up the score against a kids' team.
Your using a false assumption, you're thinking time in heaven is like a clock, tick tock tick tock. However there is no time you would be one with God past, present, and future, you could let eternity pass in a blink of an eye or you could watch electrons revolve around an atom.
This is similar to another false assumption by a certain religion of 72 virgins, your gonads don't go with you.
“Why do atheists usually accept the most fundamentalist notions of heaven and hell? It's incoherent. On the one hand, you reject the existence of God, and on the other you adopt the most primitive of theist ideas.
Try this:
God is Love.
Heaven is being joined to God.
Hell is not being joined to God.”
Bob, ridicule is not acceptance.
Secondly, what you have suggested couldn’t be more primitive of a thought. It’s just another ‘buck stops at God and forget about it’ proposal.
What is it supposed to mean to “be joined with God”? Theists put all their eggs in this basket, but have no explanation for what this eternal fate will mean for them. So you’ve joined God, now what? Eternity isn’t just a long time, it is time. What is there to do in this forever plan?
This concept of heaven makes our entire existence on earth meaningless and trivial. It’s not even a blink of the eye in comparison, and it would all be forgotten quickly during the eternal ‘joined with God along with trillions of others’ odyssey. Yet religionists are willing to live this one present existence that they are certain of, in bizarre, ritualistic, and constrictive ways - just to assure themselves of eternal who knows what, without even thinking of the monumental and relentless boredom it would most certainly have to eventually amount to. It’s not the atheist who is thinking primitively here.
“Your using a false assumption, you're thinking time in heaven is like a clock, tick tock tick tock. However there is no time you would be one with God past, present, and future, you could let eternity pass in a blink of an eye or you could watch electrons revolve around an atom.”
You are a human, like the rest of us, and as such, time is a ubiquitous factor of your entire existence. Yet you speak with such certainty that there’s a realm where the one single constant that permeates everything you have ever known and experienced, is not a factor. Why? That is just the epitome of wishful thinking. If you have to make up such mental gymnastics just to make the preferred narrative more paletable, you should rethink the narrative you would actually prefer.
it would be impossible to be bored in the presence of God. First of all, time in the Spirit is nonexistent.
It must be miserable to think that your life is so worthless as to be discarded in one short lifetime.
When did you become God and obtain all knowledge about eternity that can be known? Why aren't the media and scientists researching this unique ability you have?
E.A Or to be hoodwinked by the Satanic Lie!?
Lol sounds like a cross between being the Borg and communism.
Lol - when did you? It’s the theists that are making the insane argument.
It must be miserable to think that your life is so worthless as to be discarded in one short lifetime.
Not half as miserable as it is to have to make up fairy tales about how special you are. Nearly two people die every second on earth - but you are going to meet God and learn all the answers in a realm where God can be a pathetic invisible friend to everyone all the time! Oh wait - not all the time, because there is no such thing as time in your lala Land.
To be honest, it's rather scary.
You can be scared if you want, but we are all in the same boat. Every human that has ever been born is terminal. Make the most of it while you are on this side of the grass. If you want to spend some of the limited amount of time you have here in church, funneling money into ornate buildings filled with gory depictions of a strung up dead guy, so be it. I’ll be sleeping in, and spending my Sundays doing the things that bring me joy.
Not quite what is going on Bob. If an atheist cites disbelief and offers an example from the OT (ostensibly part of God's divine word) that is illogical, inconsistent or even absurd that does not mean the atheist adopts the idea. It means the atheist has offered -as an example- one of many common interpretations.
If one focuses on the NT one has the same problem albeit to a lesser degree. So let's go with your view:
Literally taken, you offer God as a synonym for Love. Thus, literally, a sentient entity known as 'God' is not necessary - what we call 'God' is the emotion Love (better: compassion). From there we find that Heaven is equivalent to having Love for one another and Hell is not having Love for one another.
The above is not a theistic view. It is not even deistic. It is more like Buddhism.
I suspect you have a different interpretation of 'God' but it is not possible to discern it from your three points - a bit more qualification is needed.
There is something to be said for the Pascal wager.
I think the word you’re looking for is “nonsense”.
Not at all. First of all, I'm accepting the logical and rational evidence of God and his promises.
Secondly, the proof of God is Jesus who is God appearing in the flesh to mankind.
I confirm my faith and trust in God and His promises based upon a juridical stance
The fact is that belief in Jesus as the Christ and as God in the flesh as He declared is based not on circular logic but examination of the evidence, experience, and faith.
Blind faith is faith without evidence, which would be superstition. The Bible does not call us to blind faith. The Bible calls us to faith in evidence. We submit that various truth claims, including Christianity, should be evaluated on the evidence.
On the other hand, because the atheist must attempt to prove a negative, circular reasoning is the only avenue available.
Some of the Greatest legal minds have examined the evidence for Jesus as having resurrected as He promised (therefore validating His claims). They have concluded that the juridical evidence for the resurrection is more than sufficient to meet the legal standards of evidence.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence", considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf was an atheist who believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection -- Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice." In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history! And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!
Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts. Professor Arnold, stated, "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
After investigating the evidence of the resurrection, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, stated, ". . . there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."
Hugo Grotius, the father of International Law and the author of "The Truth of the Christian Religion".."Arguing against the theory that utility makes right, Grotius says that men may not simply seek their own advantage because we are social creatures and need one another. He then shows that we are also bound to limit our behavior because of God:
"Since we are assured [of the existence of God] partly by our reason and partly by constant tradition, confirmed by many arguments and by miracles attested by all ages, it follows that God, as our creator to whom we owe our being and all that we have, is to be obeyed by us without exception, especially since He has in many ways shown himself to be supremely good and supremely powerful. Wherefore, he is able to bestow upon those who obey Him the highest rewards, even eternal rewards, since He himself is eternal; and He must be believed to be willing to do this, particularly if He has promised to do so in plain words; and this is what Christians believe, convinced by the indubitable faith of testimonies."
John Warwick Montgomery (Ph.D., Chicago; D.Théol., Strasbourg; LL.D., Cardiff; Dr. [h.c.], Institute for Religion and Law, Moscow) is Emeritus Professor of Law and Humanities, University of Luton, England, and Director, International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism & Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. His legal specialty is the international and comparative law of human rights and he regularly pleads religious freedom cases before the European Court of Human Rights. He is a U.S. and U.K. citizen, the author of some fifty books in five languages ( www.ciltpp.com ), and is included in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in France, the European Biographical Directory, Who's Who in the World, and Contemporary Authors.
Dr. Montgomery is the author of more than forty books in five languages. He holds ten earned degrees, Including a Master of Philosophy in Law from the University of Essex, England, a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, a Doctorate of the University in Protestant Theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, and the higher doctorate (LL.D.) from Cardiff University, Wales.
John Warwick Montgomery once told Contemporary Authors: "My world-view was hammered out at university; there I became a Christian. . . . Like the late C. S. Lewis (one of my greatest heroes), I was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom by the weight of evidence for Christian truth."
Montgomery asks people to consider several things: the "ancient documents" rule (that ancient documents constitute competent evidence if there is no evidence of tampering and they have been accurately transmitted); the "parol evidence" rule (Scripture must interpret itself without foreign intervention); the "hearsay rule" (the demand for primary-source evidence); and the "cross-examination" principle (the inability of the enemies of Christianity to disprove its central claim that Christ resurrected bodily from the dead in spite of the motive and opportunity to do so). All these, writes Montgomery, coalesce directly or indirectly to support the preponderance of evidence for Christianity, while the burden of proof proper (the legal burden) for disproving it rests with the critic, who, in 2,000 years, has yet to prove his case.13 We must, then, emphasize that to reject the New Testament accounts as true history is, by definition, to reject the canons of legitimate historical study. If this cannot be done, the New Testament must be retained as careful historical reporting.
An interesting question. The gnostic position is untenable, right? Who can make such claims since no human being (best we can tell) is omniscient? Better we stick with what we know about God - nothing - and admit that any specifics about God are coming from our minds as far as we can tell.
With that in mind, I offer this example of gnostic theism:
How much did Pascal know about particle physics? Do you honestly think that if Pascal had exposure to the current understandings of nature, that he would still stick by this ridiculous assumption? If he could see the damage that religious fundamentalism has done, my guess is that he would definitely join the ranks of skeptics.
I didn’t intend for my comment to be taken personally. I have no idea if you attend church, or devote significant time towards faith. I was speaking to anyone who does, in a general sense.
Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument and logical fallacy.
We can start with: there is no compelling evidence to believe in a creator entity (although that is a possibility). Further, there is logical evidence against the existence of the Abrahamic God because of the way said entity is defined.
Those type of things may be nothing more than the brain trying to deal with trauma, loss, pain, fear, ect.. Such things are also quite subjective and not experienced by everyone. It's certainly not valid evidence of anything spiritual or god.
That's probably one reason why people adhere to religion. It provides emotional comfort.
Depends on whom you ask.
The life we have is all we have too. Best to make the most of it.
Again, depends on whom you ask. Many theists think the soul is an actual thing which resides in our body, to be released upon physical death. Some might use "soul" as an umbrella term to describe our personality, character, conscience, emotion, ect., although such usage does not necessarily invoke a religious or spiritual connotation.
That is your belief.
What "evidence" would that be exactly? Experience is subjective and anecdotal. Faith is nothing more than mere belief and wishful thinking.
Again, what evidence? Any faith is accepting something for which there is no evidence. Using the bible as evidence is circular logic.
See previous statement. There is nothing rational about believing in god/s, especially when there is no evidence.
There is no evidence that Jesus was god or the son of god, not to mention no evidence to support claims of his supposed "miracles." That is just mere belief.
When you have any valid evidence to present, let us know. So far, all you've offered is nothing more than your own belief.
And you base that assumption on what exactly?
It must be miserable to think you're so miserable or worthless that you need a god or afterlife to have worth. But your statement is a perfect example of people needing an emotional crutch through religion or belief to get through life.
This is the key, I think. You (and many of your brethren) define God and the Word of God and whatever else you wish to define in a spiritual universe that, at the same time, you declare does not exist. The strawman to end all strawmen! "The world is more than 6000 years old, so God does not exist!" (Yeah, ok... not quite that blatant... but basically, that's what you're doing.)
You (almost) always debate with fundamentalists/inerrantists. That's shooting fish in a barrel.
--
This is very interesting, and I half-agree with half of it, but I'm not sure which half!
I do not presume to define God. I'm pretty sure that God is quite beyond anyone's understanding. What is "sentience" in an omniscient "being"? If we assume that every instant of free will gives rise to another universe on another track, then there are zillions of universes being born every second, and "omniscience" means knowing all those tracks. I admit that I kinda sorta lose... track...
What does omnipotence mean in a universe of free will?
"God is Love" is impossible to understand, equating two notions that are individually impossible to understand. At best, perhaps we may catch glimpses of meaning. "Being part of God/Love" is equally impossible to understand.
So?
Faith is not reason!
And if Christ leads me to Buddhism... well... that must be a nice place!
Best we can tell death-bed visions are just that. Note that when people speak of spiritual encounters they frequently deal with situations where the human mind is not fully conscious - e.g. waking up to see a vision of a dead loved one, near-death, etc.
This is an important question, and I do not know how to answer it. An obvious answer is reincarnation, but that's really just a stopgap. Your question is delayed, but remains.
So "I don't know how God solves this conundrum, but I have faith that She does."
Not very satisfying, I'm sure... but that's often the case.
since as a scientist, he KNOWS the theory can neither be proved nor disproved. Without the ability to PROVE the theory, it is neither true nor false. Any scientist will acknowledge that.
Anyone can make a theory about anything - that doesn’t make all theories equally implausible. If I have a theory that there is a cheeseburger buried 1,000 feet deep somewhere on Europa, it doesn’t carry the same weight as the theory of relativity. Nor is it plausible enough to devote any amount of time towards gathering evidence of its truth. Yet that is precisely as valid as the belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, infallible, yet eternally noncommunicative entity that created itself and everything else in the universe from nothing.
I simply take the most likely definition of God given the context. If someone were to actually offer their definition of God I would follow with comments regarding that definition. Thus, if someone defines God as Jesus I would make one comment. If God is defined as Allah I would make a different comment. God, unfortunately, is an overloaded term and is thus inherently ambiguous. Not my fault (or the fault of my 'brethren').
I hope you do not really think that is the argument people make. If you do then I need to explain the argument. If not, then you (ironically) made a strawman argument claiming a strawman that does not exist. :)
On your claim (quoted) the argument is actually 'the Earth is well over 6,000 years old so the Bible -taken literally- is clearly wrong" followed by "if the Bible is wrong on at least one point then it is clearly errant" followed by "It is a mistake to accept as truth words written in an errant book".
Nobody that I know concludes that God does not exist simply because the world is older than 6,000 years.
This summarizes your explanation so I quoted it. What value then is it to offer 'God is Love' (as you oft do) if you know that the statement is meaningless?
With my encounters, I have been fully awake. Didn't, actually, see the person. Only happened three times. I believe our energy lives on for awhile after death. That's all I know from my own experiences.
If one is debating to 'win' then I agree, the aforementioned's positions are a great debate disadvantage. One might also engage in debate to make a point to the readers. (hint)
Also, from a different perspective, if a non-fundamentalist, non-inerrantist wishes to debate I am quite willing to do so. Those folks just do not seem to care to debate. I suspect a good number of them are agnostic theists.
Note also that you are not a fundamentalist nor are you an inerrantist and I never shy away from discussing / debating this topic with you. So ... what point were you making? :)
Good point.
It's just one more item that will make my head hurt if I try to think about it too much... but hey!
Experience is subjective and anecdotal.
This is key. We all have a brain that literally speaks to us, and only us, inside our head. The theist is convinced that sometimes it’s not their voice, but the voice of God - because that thought gives them a positive feeling. But if you put together a random group of devout Christians, give them all a single random question for them all to pray to God for an answer - it quickly becomes clear that the voice in their head is their own.
I once worked with a guy who claimed that he and his fellow parishioners do this regularly, and tend to get identical answers to things they collectively choose to pray over. That is just an exercise in brainwashing.
This is the essential dialog of the deaf.
A person of Faith says, "You're blind!" and you answer "Imaginary!"
There can be no agreement here, because the two parties have different realities. I believe in God because I have faith. You do not believe in God because you do not have faith. Simple.
I have no "evidence" of God's existence, and I need none... but for you "evidence" is a necessity.
You cannot convince me, because I "know"... which drives you nuts because there's no "evidence". That's life!
Gee... such brilliance!
Admirable!
You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile! Right? LOL
Good question. It's a "new" idea. More recent than the Bible, in any case. Back then, there was no notion of an identifiable "something" that might endure after death. It's one of many topics that make my head hurt if I think about them too much...
Indeed. It's either self-delusion and/or a psychological issue, with a need for emotional comfort.
But they'll probably say something alon the lines of "god spoke to them." See previous statement.
And indoctrination.
Reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat. But theories are not about being proven. They're about the degree of probability.
I would ask you to elaborate but from practical experience nobody ever does - the accounts are always left vague.
What I understand from your comment is that you have had experiences (no details) while wide awake and believe it was an encounter with the 'energy' of someone who has died.
What part of logical fallacy did you not understand?
Can you prove there's a god? Didn't think so!
Experiences where you consciously witnessed a decidedly supernatural event?
I was being (partially) facetious, of course... but...not all that much.
It is in fact quite common to see people say "the God described in God's own book doesn't exist" and from there primly conclude that God does not exist. I'll try to remember to copy/paste for you the next time I see it.
Some people actively discriminate against entire demographics, because they have faith. Faith does not necessarily produce positive results.
Why does life need to have a meaning? House flies have life, and they are amazingly complex creatures.
Oh!
Do you really expect anyone to not notice that you are equating "impossible to understand" and "meaningless"??
Excellent effort, though!
No details because IMO it would be useless. Suffice it to say, I had tangible proof and the last was so intense that I don't want a repeat.
I've gradually come around to the point that I really, truly do not try to convince anyone of anything. I want to hear what they have to say, in case it's something new for me. I have found, though, that many people only dig into their own thinking when they are pressed a bit.
"I know what I think!" ... ... "I just don't know why I think that..."
Are you not a Christian, then. Christ based his promises on Love, not Law.
Is that why your last few "RBR" articles have more (deleted) comments than anything else? Looking at those I'd say your statement is false.
Be nice.
Very true. "Knowing something without evidence" is a very slippery slope!(At the end of which we will find Donald Trump!)
There is a very good means for clarifying where faith may apply and where it may not: Faith concerns the spiritual, not the physical. In our decisions in our real, physical world, we should be guided by evidence and reason.
You'd be wrong.
There is a very good means for clarifying where faith may apply and where it may not: Faith concerns the spiritual, not the physical. In our decisions in our real, physical world, we should be guided by evidence and reason.
It is the job of religious moderates to sway their fellow religionists towards those ends. They won’t listen to to the godless.
Thank you
I wouldn't. You locked your last seed because there were more "(deleted)" comments. Telling me that you threw yet another temper tantrum because the conversation was not going the way you wanted. You threw a temper tantrum when somebody reseeded an article without RBR because there were more "(deleted)" comments because you tried to control the direction of the comments. Two more of your seeds under your RBR have what 4 comments total?
Then on this you try to tell us you are open to other's opinions? Typical adolescent leftist mentality. Do us a favor and peddle your lies somewhere else.
You're kinda sorta off-topic, no?
No, it's just flawed and illogical, period. If you understood logical fallacies, you would know why.
The onus of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim. You can believe whatever you want. But belief does not equal fact!
I must have hit a nerve. Not like I care.....
We know chemical imbalances (natural or artificially induced) in the brain can cause hallucinations, delusions, or other psychiatric abnormalities. Brainwashing, indoctrination, and self delusion can also account for it.
See previous statement. Besides, 50 million out of over 7 billion people constitutes only 0.7% of the total population.
Subjective and anecdotal, as well as wishful thinking and emotional comfort.
42.
How do you know they are not God? How do you know I am not God?
There is no proof or evidence of an afterlife. Just old stories passed down in myth and in a book of lies written by HUMANS 400 years after Christ died.
No. You served the purpose of demonstrating the necessity for Red Rules.
Thank you.
This is important... but I'm not sure how.
Auto-suggestion exists, so there's no way to be sure of what's happening when "someone has a revelation". If Paul on the road to Damascus was a case of auto-suggestion... All of organized church history is a fraud. Yikes! (Fortunately, I'm a Christian, not a Paulian...)
At another level, studies have shown that we have a gene-level preconditioning to "believe".
So I must constantly doubt my faith... but can I draw any useful conclusions from any of this? Would faith have any value without doubt?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
Asking for evidence when a person's knowledge is faith-based is irrelevant. Dialog of the deaf.
Asking for evidence when a person's knowledge is faith-based is irrelevant. Dialog of the deaf.
Faith is not required to believe what is true.
E.A Aside from " Hitch hikers of the Universe " want to hear what I get from/to it?
Sometimes syntax is awkward when writing of God in terms familiar to one's counterpart without sounding as though one believes in said God. Adjectives such as 'supposed' and 'presumed' cannot realistically appear everywhere they should.
If a phrase is impossible to understand, the phrase is meaningless. The subject is the phrase 'God is Love'.
And it was not an 'effort' it was an honest observation.
Understood, but vague commentaries ultimately serve to discredit these types of claims. I presume you understand that so I will not explain.
Agreed. That is the way most atheist - theist debates end when they end on a civil note. Many such debates unfortunately end with an emotional flareup.
Could you parse that sentence, please? What do you mean by "faith"? What do you mean by "believe"? And what do you mean by "true"?
Not simple...........
Semantics is a bitch!
By 'vague' I was referring to how they are described to others.
... and syntax can be a bitch too.
There are several fine online dictionaries that should be able to adequately define those terms for you Bob.
E.A Six (6) World wide by many cultures is ascribed as Man/Woman Number.
Seven (7) is seen as the " Universal Perfection "
6 X 7 = 42
The Number of life!
Or the " The Meaning of life "
No.
It is impossible to understand. "Impossible" is "beyond the capability to". We cannot understand. That does signify meaningless. Too wide, too vast, ...
E.A Yw,, keep looking!
Sure. But we all use words in our own way. I'm not trying to trick or trap. I'm just trying to avoid semantics. The quickest way to run aground is to use the same words while understanding them differently.
The words I cited are "loaded". They may mean very different things to different people. I can work with whatever you define, but I don't want to waste time.
As long as you recognize your stipulation that human beings cannot understand the phrase 'God is Love' means that the phrase has no meaning to human beings then that suffices. If you choose to now argue that the phrase 'God is Love' has meaning to human beings after all then please explain the phrase. (Back to my opening response.)
Details, details...
That we cannot understand a thing does not equate to that thing's being meaningless.
Well, personally I'm not interested in discussing whether god exists or not. But how about other things that cannot be explained using logic. For example ESP ("Extra-sensory-perception"-- although I think that term is no longer widely used-- its now mostly called "psychic phenomena"). Or, for that matter dreams and other things like precognition? (Knowing something will happen before it does. Knowing b efore-- and with no logical way to explain how it works).).
Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be other dimensions of consciousness besides "ordinary waking consciousness"?
And when he gets called on it, he sadly deflects with the "off topic" statement.
Something that needs more attention to, I think. I have read some very extraordinary accounts from people and talked to some in person.
I think most people don't believe in that sort of thing because they haven't experienced that sort of thing themselves/
(I have gotten into discussions (arguments) with people who are sure something doesn't exist-- because they haven't experienced it. Or-- because they just don't know about it. They are the "Horatios" of the world:
Some people only admit that something can exist if A-they can prove it "logically", or B-They have experienced it themselves.
I have had a few myself.
I'm not to surprised. Why? Well, my unofficial motto is "question everything". But I have found the MBTI system of personality classifications to be somewhat useful. Basically, it posits that there are 16 basic personality types.
(And of the 16, the word "psychic" is used in the description of only one of the 16 types. Guess which one that is?).
Space, the final frontier.
and of course it can be done without Ayahuasca ... but it takes a lot longer and a lot of discipline. And distraction arise on that path....
This is silly. You either will explain the meaning of 'God is Love' or you will not. My bet is that you choose to not explain so let's get off this merry-go-round.
Sure. Anything is possible.
Not sure what I am to do with these bits of partial information. I understand that this was a personal experience and that you did not want to divulge details. I accepted that and have not asked you to explain yourself. This means, however, that tidbits of your experience collectively provide yet another vague description of an experience. I am content to leave it at that.
My guess is that even if she did explain it, you would still not fully understand it. Why? Because she experienced it and you didn't. (If you were to experience that or something similar, you would instantly know what she experienced-- but until you do it will remain ineffable).
Being curious, I wonder why you discuss things in the way that you do. (I'm not judging it). I could be wrong, but based on your "style" my guess is you are an ENTP personality type:
ENTP PERSONALITY (“THE DEBATER”) .. . [Link}
The ENTP personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. Unlike their more determined Judging (J) counterparts, ENTPs don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. No one loves the process of mental sparring more than ENTPs, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points.
An odd juxtaposition arises with ENTPs, as they are uncompromisingly honest, but will argue tirelessly for something they don’t actually believe in, stepping into another’s shoes to argue a truth from another perspective (. )
What I find interesting here is that we've got possibly 4 ENTP types here debating together! (You, myself, Badfish, and TiG).
And if you are an ENTP, it explains why your style of debate (and sometime's BF's as well) piss people off so much. (Again, I'm not judging-- just trying to understand "what makes people tick")
I was abducted by aliens once, yep, they took me to Canada and, then brought me back, they kept ending every sentence with "eh", I don't know why.......oh wait, my bad.
Would you include yourself (and, indeed, every other human being) in the list of those who would still not fully understand the experience?
Definitely!
I just re-read my comment and realized it wasn't clear. I was not directing it at you specifically-- rather I meant to say that anyone (including me) who didn't experience it could not fully understand it.
In other words, there are some experiences that someone has had that other people can not fully understand unless they've actually experienced the same thing. (In fact, there are some things that most people would believe are not possible unless they themselves have also experienced them).
But if someone were to describe the experience we would understand it better than if it is left in vague terms. I suspect you agree with that (seemingly obvious) logic, but here is an illustration:
Someone claims to have an experience which has the following properties:
Now there really is nothing one can say about vague descriptions like my illustration. And if someone does not want to elaborate on the experience there really is nothing interesting to note other than this is yet another vague description of a 'supernatural' experience.
But if someone were to seriously elaborate and answer the questions that would naturally follow, observers would likely better understand the experience.
My overall observation is this. Virtually everyone I have encountered withholds the truly interesting details and is not interested in discussing what they characterize as a personal thing. I respect their privacy but have learned nothing new.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC. jwc2blue . The answer to your question could be found there. This is not meant as an insult or attempt to skirt the coc. These are real and sometimes easy to spot with knowledge of the condition.
It's a reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
I simply call it BS! And anytime I hear someone claiming to be a psychic or have psychic powers, I have to simply roll my eyes, if not laugh out loud.
A function of the brain.
I call it a good guess.
Would that be a dominant or recessive trait?
That's up o you.
Faith has as much value as the person who has it wants.
I cannot explain. That does not mean it cannot be explained.
I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't aware that I had a "way of discussing". My objective is always to understand what the other person(s) think, and why they think it. The problem is that people very often do not know "why", and get very upset when faced with the fact.
Humans pride themselves on being rational creatures, but they are not, most of the time. Almost all of what we think is derived from irrational sources -- tribal identity, "values" learned in childhood, ... -- and then backfilled with a "rational justification". It is this process that fascinates me.
Exactly.
For something to be true, it needs to be supported by facts or evidence. Otherwise, how do you know it's true?
If something is true, then it is true regardless of evidence.
Or... we're not using "true" in exactly the same way. That's why I asked lennylynx to define the vocabulary he is using. Semantics can be very tricky...
But you don't know for certain it's true unless you have something to establish it as such. Otherwise, proclaiming something to be "true" is just an empty claim, with no reason to accept it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are using "true" in the way to mean something that is factually correct.
Darn those semantics!
As long as we stay calm, semantics can actually be fun. We don't realize how many assumptions are hiding in every word!
What is "factually correct"? Was Ptolemy factually correct with his epicycles that explained all the little perturbations in the planets' orbits around the Earth? Was Newton factually correct?
Is "truth" what really is, or is "truth" our best approximation? Either definition is acceptable, but if one person is using the first, while the other person uses the second... BOOM!
What a bunch of nonsensical psychobabble. Words mean what they are defined to mean. Not adjusted to fit some bigoted, biased and partisan propaganda someone happens to be pushing at the time.
The definition of "faith" is clear and understood by most of us. No need to "redefine" it to suit our needs useless of course the purpose is to push some BS narrative.
So ..... there you go Bob.
Be happy!
When has that ever been the case in discussions such as these?
Until they're not.
It can make misinterpretations problematic.
Something that can be reasonably and logically demonstrated.
Ptolemy's geocentric universe was reasonably and logically demonstrated.
"Spontaneous generation" was reasonably and logically demonstrated.
... and so on...
What we believe to be "correct"... may not be... Doubt and skepticism must guard our certainties!
Bob, when an individual writes something such as 'God is Love' most readers presume (expect) the author able to explain his own words. Your argument that you cannot explain your own words but that your words are potentially explainable borders on nonsense. It is at the least pointless. As is the forthcoming denial.
In fine, you require evidence. You require a scientific proof. You're never going to get it.
If you consider what I say to be pointless, then... do you also consider anything that is a bit mystic to be pointless?
That's quite alright, but (IMNAAHO) a bit presumptuous.
Speaking for myself, there are some debates that I find enjoyable, but they are necessarily logically challenging (and the participants need to be honest - no slimy games afoot). The average religious 'debate' barely qualifies even as a debate. To me it is not a debate but rather a routine - in many cases it is simply raising the obvious in the hopes that readers will at some time down the road consider it.
For example, take free will. On one hand it is commonly held that God (in this case we are talking about the Abrahamic God but not the Allah variant) purposely provided His creatures with free will - the ability to make their own choices. Yet God is also held to be omniscient and thus knows all choices His creature will make. If God knows what you will do then you do not have free will - you are deterministic (at least by God). Applying this to the Bible we see the problem manifests immediately in Genesis where an all-knowing God is disappointed that His creatures chose to eat the forbidden fruit. Omnipotent God created Adam and Eve - the creator (God) is the source of all that they were - they did not choose their nature, God made all the detailed calls. Yet the omnipotent and omniscient creator of Adam & Eve either made a mistake (failed to be perfect) or set Adam and Eve up for failure.
There are quite a few logical points such as the above. The best counter argument IMO is that these are all mere parables - that they should not be read too carefully ... just get the basic idea. Okay. Then let's treat the Bible as a book of parables written by imperfect human beings and not interpret the contents of the Bible as the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent supreme entity.
Then, discredit it. I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. My remarks were in reference to the conversation. They weren't meant to convince anyone one way or the other.
The problem is it started with the false assumption of the Earth being the center of the universe. So a false assumption led to a false conclusion.
Again, that was another assumption.
Fortunately, the scientific method is the means by which we can achieve greater certainty (or probability).
Actually, on my part it has nothing to do with privacy because I have written about it before.
The difference here is, for me, you would like it to be shown so that you can continue with discrediting anything that is said and continue on.
Lol .... more psychobabble rap from you ...
If my purpose was to ridicule then I could have made quite a few snarky comments on your experience. I did not do so. So cease with the attempt to impugn my character.
Based on your comments (over time) I recommend that you not elaborate. If you think your details will not hold up to scrutiny then stay silent. I am not going to try to pull information out of you because I am not here to ridicule but to analyze and challenge. If you offer details I will respond. If not, I will continue to respect your silence and leave it at that.
My point, mag, has been that these experiences are always vague descriptions of what people think they saw and as soon as one applies scrutiny the discussion shuts down. And, in the larger context, there is not a single credible formally documented case of supernatural experiences. In a world of 7.4 billion people - most of whom are religious - one would expect countless certified credible cases with verified evidence of the claims. We have plenty of claims (we also have plenty of ghost and Elvis sightings) but in the entire planet not a single documented, verified, evidence-based account of a supernatural experience.
No doubt quite a few people totally believe that what they experienced was real (not an illusion). My opinion is that you are convinced that your own experience was not an illusion. One of many undocumented accounts where all the evidence is strictly in a single mind.
I know. So drop it.
My comment had nothing to do with your character.....it had to do with your comments regarding this topic.
BTW, my husband was there and there was tangible proof left behind.
If that ever happens again bring others (scientific authorities) in to see the tangible proof. Outside of the fame (if that is of interest to you) there is monetary benefit to an individual who produces hard evidence of a supernatural experience.
I will certainly keep that in mind. Thank you.
You're limiting the notion of omniscience. Real omniscience wouldn't be "what will happen", but "what might happen": all the myriad permutations and combinations. Free will is not limited.
Yes. I agree with everything you say here.
My point is that we sometimes we "know" stuff that isn't true.
It's easy to discuss these things, with science as the vehicle, but if we try to have the same conversation around politics, it would probably go south in a hurry.
Your definition of omniscience is more limiting than mine. You turn omniscience from deterministic to probabilistic.
By the way ... omniscience ( Oxford ):
... and ( Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ) ...
In short, the definition of omniscience I offered is not of my making.
We're talking past each other.
Knowing "everything that might happen" (including all ramifications) is vastly more "everything" than knowing just the single track of what actually will happen.
So if we agree that omniscience is maximum knowledge...
If to you omniscience means knowing everything that could happen as well as knowing what will actually happen then I certainly agree.
In contrast, if an entity knows everything that could happen but does not know which of the possibilities will actually happen then that is more limiting. We agree?
Are the two compatible?
Knowing what will happen implies that the future is already determined. Knowing all that might happen implies that the future is not determined.
What will happen is one of the infinite number of possibilities, so it is known, along with all the might-have-beens.
Given we are speaking of an omniscient, omnipotent creator of everything either everything is deterministic to God (albeit not to us) or God created an absolute randomness that even She cannot comprehend. :)
Now we are segueing a bit into my field - computer science. Consider what it means to produce something that is truly random (arbitrary). To human beings, the concept of random means 'beyond our comprehension; unable to predict'. But everything we consider random could indeed be deterministic (see: Laplace's Demon ).
If an absolute randomness does exist then the creator of everything one would necessarily have created this arbitrary dynamic. How does a creator of everything ever produce something (regardless of the level of detail) that She does not understand (cannot predict)?
I'm not particularly talking about God. As I have said, I don't pretend to begin to understand Her. I was just talking about the idea of omniscience.
How so? I don't know if God created the universe, or vice versa or if the two were born of the same primordial egg, or... whatever... But if God set off the Big Bang, and then one thing led to another, and here we are... How much of that past is "random"? And if we (in the largest sense of "we", all across the universe) have free will... how much of what happens every instant is "random"?
The first few billion years were random, but when life appeared, along with a will to live, events were no longer strictly random. And as life became more intelligent, events became less and less random. No?
In any case, omniscience would mean knowing all of that... and all of the tracks that were not taken.
It is not possible to discuss omniscience sans the only entity that could possibly be omniscient.
If you do not want to discuss this topic then continue to play games Bob. Clearly I posed 'God' only to have the means to discuss omniscience. If you want to make misleading quotes and go off on a tangent about what God might or might not be then we obviously are in another discussion entirely.
Again, how could THE supreme entity (omniscient and omnipotent) create a randomness that it cannot understand?
What rational and logical basis for god are you referring to?
I don't see why the two must necessarily be linked.
You know i don't...
Not clear to me. I would have no problem discussing omniscience without discussing God. I repeat for the Nth time: I do not pretend to know Her contours. Discussing any attribute as being God's is, for me, very artificial.
You brought up "randomness". I then tried to understand how randomness fits with God and/or omniscience. I thought I was following you, not setting off in another direction!
OK... I'm lost. Why do you say "cannot understand"? I've been saying that omniscience would be knowledge of all possible outcomes of all tipping points large and small.
I'm assuming that the universe is not predestined, so omniscience would include knowing the track that is ultimately followed (among all possible tracks), but not knowing that it is THE track, until it is followed. I don't see how "understand" applies.
For many, some part of them clearly does. Very often, their primary arguments for atheism have to do with a criticism of how eternity, God, or the afterlife are said to work. For example, "God cannot exist because no real God would permit the suffering that goes on." Or as we see above, (paraphrasing) "Eternity can't be real because it would be boring."
Those arguments don't reflect a disbelief in God. They reflect a dissatisfaction with God. Such an emotion kind of requires - or at least heavily implies - a belief. Otherwise, the nature of God or eternity wouldn't matter to the atheist.
Those things are only bad where the participants are unwilling. If everyone involved totally trusted everyone else and they all loved the rules, then it wouldn't be considered an awful existence. It would be paradise.
Not so. "Soul" is all over the Bible.
It might be good for some, I personally would not be a fan of the apparent loss of freedom and individualism. Bear in mind that my original comment was meant purely as a joke and not a jumping off point for a serious discussion.
The word "soul" is English. The Bible was not. Translation can be hard. Anachronisms can slip in...
Don't take my word... Google it.
100% false. If that were true, no document - ancient or otherwise - would be useful as evidence of anything.
I'm sorry, I know you really want to be right on this (for some odd reason) but simply closing your eyes and declaring "I see nothing" is not an argument.
It's thoroughly rational and there is tons of evidence. Or is it your contention that the people cited by livefreeeordie are not rational people? Will you support that contention with evidence beyond "they disagree with me?" Will you dispute the arguments of evidence and how it is treated in historiography?
There is no evidence you would accept as valid. I and others have presented you with pages of evidence and you deny them all. Yet you won't or can't define what evidence you would accept. It's time to either admit your mind and heart are closed to a real consideration of the evidence or actually try engaging with the evidence with a genuinely open mind.
Blaise Pascal died in 1662. Do you understand how much human knowledge has changed in the proceeding 350 years?
Are you aware of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy?
That's the whole thing. You'd have to be happy living without those things.
It's still there, though. To the extent that anachronism exists, I think it's mainly that modern people often think of people as having a soul instead of being a soul, which I think is a better representation of the idea as presented in scripture.
If you do not include knowledge of what WILL occur along with the knowledge of what COULD occur you are implying that the supreme entity can create a non-deterministic reality that even She cannot understand sufficiently to predict.
( It is akin to the notion of God making a rock heavier than He can lift. )
A supreme entity (by definition) could indeed create a reality that is (to all within that reality) non-deterministic. But to define a supreme entity as omniscient yet able to create a reality that She cannot predict is contradictory. Whatever happens is the will of the supreme entity. Nothing just 'happens'. If there is an absolute random then God made it. If God made it then it is illogical to suggest that God does not understand how it works to the smallest degree and thus can predict it.
Bad read.
Those arguments are simply using theistic claims against a theistic argument. For example, if God is the supreme entity - the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator of all things - then God gets what He wants. There is no higher authority. Whatever happens is by definition the will of God.
Evil exists because evil is part of God's will.
This is simply logic. It all boils down to how one defines God. The Bible is particularly bad at defining God in a way that avoids logical contradictions. The Qur'an does a better job given it largely defines Allah as unknowable.
Clearly you don't understand what circular logic means.
That's because I am. Sorry if you can't see that.
believing in imaginary deities is about as rational as believing in fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes.
Such as?
If they believe in nonsense like god/s, then yes, that is not rational.
Where's the evidence to validate belief in god/s?
Sure there is: objective and empirical!
Because whatever "evidence" you presented is not evidence. It's nothing more than mere belief. But by all means, list your evidence now. Let's see it:
I just did. You simply can't or won't provide such evidence.
Are you open minded enough to accept the possibility that your (or anyone's) belief in a god is wrong and/or that there is no such thing as a god?
Really? Whom? Atheists do not accept claims nor have any belief in heaven or hell.
See previous statement.
Guess what? It doesn't!
You are a wise man Bob. LOL
More like we like to assume or think we know stuff. The more we think we know, the less we actually know.
Science does make for an objective starting point.
Any conversation having to do with politics (or religion) already starts way south. Just look at this article alone.
If you apply the scientific method to it, it somehow becomes much easier to discern. Imagine that
Hi kat, long time no see. How have you been? I hope all is well. Holidays treat you well?
Until you apply his wager to any other god dreamed up by humans.
And then you have us, just to be on the safe side, worshipping every god and goddess in every religion's pantheon.
But what happens when some religions declare the worship of other religions' gods to be blasphemy?
What a dilemma.
Indeed. How do you know if you're betting on the right god?
Yup. Therein lies the logical fallacy you mentioned - Pascal, like many here, oversimplifies by reducing the number of possible answers to 2 - there is a god (only the Abrahamic one), or there isn't. The number of answers is actually the number of all the gods we have or will dream up, plus one (the absence of gods).
Hal, what if heaven is an eternal now? You assume people in heaven would with dread be counting the days left in eternity, which seems like a limited perspective.
Hal, what if heaven is an eternal now?
I’m not sure what that means. I like my “now”, but I certainly wouldn’t want to spend an eternity in it. I imagine that any Christian whose life is awful would agree.
If it was always now, you wouldn't experience the passage of time, so "eternity" would not be a consideration.
Time is ubiquitous is every single thing a human can relate to. It permeates every experience, such that the absence of time is an impossible thing to even consider. When the only things you can think of that provide you joy are inseparable from the concept of time, how can anyone jump to the conclusion that a realm independent of time would be a positive thing? It might just be the polar opposite.
You are making assumptions that you probably cannot justify. Descriptions of 'heaven' are man made, and thus inadequate. If there is "eternal life" as a reward, I would assume it is not unpleasant.
If there is "eternal life" as a reward, I would assume it is not unpleasant.
But even attempting to describe what it might be like in the absence of time is impossible. Think of things that bring you joy, and what they would be like in the absence of time. It doesn’t even make sense. I love a good glass of wine, from the moment the cork is pulled, to the finish that lingers after it leaves my taste buds. Without time, none of that means anything. It’s all dependent on the passage of increments of time.
Seems Bob's seed has turned into a debate on homosexuality ...
Back to the topic, some of us are simply interested in how modern people can believe some of the things they believe in spite of rather solid evidence to the contrary.
For example, take the flat earthers. Next consider the Heaven's Gate cult who committed mass suicide in order to catch the next UFO to Heaven. Then we have the young earthers who hold (seriously and doggedly) that the Earth is ~6,000 years old strictly due to a literal interpretation of the Bible. This latter example is particularly interesting because about 10% of the nation believe in a young Earth and blatantly deny the overwhelming findings of science which show the Earth to be 4.55 billion years old.
To me it is fascinating what the human mind is capable of believing - at how selective we can be with our inputs (confirmation bias), and the extraordinary effect that culture (especially during the formative years) has on shaping our beliefs.
E.A like an ANUS is an Anus and has a Purpose, and a Vagina has one as well, and that they, are NOT interchangeable, right?
I guess that would depend on what the individual is into.
He's always implying something about AIDS and sex organs and what not.
Well a vagina has more than one purpose. One might call it three purposes, one of expelling bodily liquids, experiencing pleasure/arousal, and giving birth. The anus expels solid waste but apparently can also experience pleasure/arousal. Not sure what your point is.
E.A ok I will take this trip::
Tell me what is special about Vaginal Fluid?
The Anus is an Extension of what Body part?
The Gut lining does what with Proteins?
The Gut and Anal Membrane allows Proteins to enter the Blood flow, what dangers does that provide?
To Be Continued!
I guess we have an idea as to what he's into. To each is own. LOL
E.A a Real Dumb " Philosopher " Dirt track full of Pathogens " Life Robbers " only for suicidal maniacs!
Dr. David Relman, a microbiologist and infectious disease specialist at Stanford and the Palo Alto VA, agreed: “This really suggests they may be traveling with the cancer.”
Dr. Meyerson and his colleagues also transplanted human colon cancers into mice. The cancers grew. The scientists plucked out pieces of the tumors and transplanted them to other mice, where once again they grew.
The researchers did this repeatedly, moving the cancers through four generations of mice. The Fusobacteria remained with the cancers.
...
“We don’t know enough yet to be able to predict the effects of a given antibiotic, and since everyone has a different gut microbiota, such a therapy will likely be hit and miss,” she said.
Another problem, said Dr. Holt, is that patients would have to take the antibiotic indefinitely, because Fusobacteria are constantly being reintroduced into the mouth. If a person stopped antibiotic treatment, the bacteria could once again get into their tumor cells.
As for a vaccine, Dr. Allen-Vercoe said, not all strains of Fusobacteria are linked to cancer. “Of the few strains that are, there is no clear consensus on why they are behaving pathogenically,” she added. “And so there is no clear target for a vaccine strategy.”
Are you going to credit the source of this quote?
An anus is an anus and a vagina is a vagina and never the twine shall meet!
E.A SO close and YET so Far!!!
The article stated that homosexuality is a choice, so I voiced the standard, accepted view that it is not. How is it off topic to contest something claimed in the article?
Also, if it wasn't for the interest in the debate around sexuality being a choice or not, there would be almost no interest in this article at all.
E.A OFF topic for those that do NOT want to hear the TRUTH, it spoils their Nightmare!
What "truth" would that be? Some of us prefer actual facts!
So what? It's in the article, a false claim is made about it while making a 'comparison to the main thrust of the article' as you say. I repeat, how is it 'off topic' to contest something claimed in the article? Can you point to a site rule that makes my comment off topic? Sounds to me like you want to be able to make bullshit claims without anyone being allowed to push back on them. Sorry pal, when an article makes a bullshit claim, I WILL push back on it and it's NOT off topic to do so.
I've left this conversation and a couple others more or less without moderation, just to see/show how fast the conversation degrades. This conversation is interesting because we see two different types of derail. On the one hand, we have a couple of visitors who are obviously just vandalizing... but I think there are others who don't mean any harm...
Serious conversation requires discipline. Either self-discipline or... Red Rules.
You disagree that it's not off topic to confront bullshit claims in an article? Interesting. Thanks for further justifying my contention that you want to be able to post bullshit without being challenged.
Not exactly. The problem is that if one member posts a Comment that is both off-topic and BS, and then another member posts a correction to the BS... that correction is also off-topic. It's a tactic that is used all the time to vandalize.
Your correction was true. But off-topic. As I said, I have left this conversation without Moderation, as a demonstration of how fast things go downhill. Under normal circumstances, I would have asked for deletion of the first off-topic, thus obviating the need for yours.
Do you have a B.S or higher degree in one of the physical sciences, medicine or psychology?
The article is simply one persons confession that he has a problem obsessing with God. He could possibly have an additional problem obsessing with a thought that others are obsessing the same without any factual data to back up the claim. He could possibly have an obsessive disorder. Jonathan Pearce should seek professional help in dealing with hiis problem.
Why The Atheist’s Obsession With God?
I think it's more an Atheist questioning why somebody would want to follow such a "God". Time and time again we hear it from the religious that "God is love" and "God is all forgiving". So when an Atheist looks all this up in the bible we find that claims like that are nothing more than cherry picked statements. The very books (Bible and Quran) depict "God" and a vengeful, malevolent. It's made even worse when the very book that the religious claim talks about "Gods love" condones rape, murder, genocide, slavery, pedophilia, incest, kidnapping and prostitution.
In most cases Atheists keep to themselves and really only speak up when something as twisted as religion is forced upon them. Examples would be things like the 10 Commandments outside government buildings, unfounded claims that Christmas is the birth of Jesus or the religious demanding special treatment. That is usually when Atheists and other groups speak up. Suddenly these religious fools start making unfounded and ridiculous claims of persecution. Just so you know, the religious are not special nor are they deserving of special treatment. Not everybody want's to see a corpse on a torture device or your god's demands everywhere as a reminder that if you cross him, he will in fact slaughter you (again).
You claim a "personal relationship with God", well do us all a favor and keep it that way. And keep in mind that usually when an Atheist speaks out against your religion is more than likely they have had enough of it being forced upon them.
You claim a "personal relationship with God", well do us all a favor and keep it that way.
To whom are you speaking?
Anybody and everybody how claims to have a "personal relationship with God".
if the burden of proof rests on the production and proof of works? I offer this :
God exists in the heart of man, the work of God is seen by the hands of man.
if you are looking for the singular "natural" God ? check this out.
good - god = o
devil - evil = d
od: is defined as the natural energy present in all things...
personally, I reckon the god known as "our creator" is just an alien genetic scientist who screws up as often as we do.
we ate from the tree of knowledge, became godlike, genetically engineered a bee that was too aggressive... opps.
the killer bee? the killer man? are both genetically engineered screw ups.
regardless of it all... real or fantasy, as long as our rights come from a god and not man?
no mere man can take our rights away without us feeling free to push them off this rock so they can find out in person if god is real or not.
just the notion of a god is a tyrant's worst nightmare
The notion of a god is what a tyrant uses to oppress his people.
You actually believe this shit, don't you? That's sad.
Who was Paul oppressing from his jail cell?