For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[Yazata]

It doesn't have to be delusion, but it is most likely delusion. Delusion, insanity, mass hysteria, and hallucinations are common, but there is no evidence of the divine anywhere other than in the minds of men.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Goat. Of course, theists typically believe that the universe around us is evidence for the existence of God.

My point was that the delusions, hallucinations, or (just conceivably) experiences of transcendental realities are apparently totally convincing to the people that experience them. Religious experiences transform lives. So I can't agree with the presumption in some of the earlier posts that there's no evidence for the reality of God. There is evidence, and it can be devastatingly persuasive evidence to the person who experiences it.

Of course you and I might choose to interpret it in a totally different way. A schizophrenic's hallucinations and delusions are equally convincing to the schizophrenic, after all. It would be foolishness for us to believe everything that psychotics tell us because they insist that they experienced it.

But the point is that even in the case of schizophrenics, the fact that the delusions are convincing to the psychotic suggests that he/she isn't knowingly lying and isn't being 'dishonest' to anybody. The person who hears voices might be totally crazy, but that isn't necessarily equate to immorality.

This thread is confusing epistemological issues with moral issues.

More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

There's a huge professional literature on religious experience and much of it is rather skeptical and analytical. I'd be willing to bet that theists are well represented among those authors.

Meditation teachers have to counsel their students not to be too credulous about or be swept away by the powerful feelings of bliss that meditation can sometimes induce. Those emotional effects are said to be relatively early events in much longer and deeper paths.

Theistic and non-theistic religious traditions are often extremely careful when it comes to religious contemplation. It requires great discernment and should typically only be practiced under the guidance of a qualified meditation master.

Of course, these traditions do believe that these kind of practices can ultimately lead to an inner 'place' that's very important. And some of us might indeed protest that such a belief is an unjustifiable leap. But then again, the atheist certainty that none of this can possibly lead anywhere beyond navel-gazing might be unjustified as well, absent a worldview that already presumes that nothing is there to be found.

 

[NMSquirrel]

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.

typically when a person is anti-theist, they are atheist..
why do you have a thing for the term 'blind belief', you are using it so much it makes me think you are projecting..what is it that you have a 'blind belief' in? or is it more of a 'if i say it enough times, then it will be true' thing?

Your prejudiced mind filled in the blanks automatically.

pot/kettle..

Hence I believe that you are somewhat dishonest with yourself. You do not allow for conclusions outside your comfort zone.

actually that argument applies to atheist also, actually more so, as they won't accept any argument outside their comfort zone (evidence/proof).

It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.

and how many times have you used the word 'dishonest'?
projecting?
or was someone just recently that way with you and you are just venting here..


IOW..are you gonna be OK..?

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

How do you know God is not a biological entity? Surely, you have to admit at the very least, you don't know, and have to entertain this possibility.

I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal. That stands to reason, because no known animal is omniscient, omnipotent or supernatural, at least as far as I am aware.

But this is really another quibble over definitions. You haven't attempted to define "biological entity". It is possible that you might define that in wide terms to mean something like "living thing", but then you may need to explain what life is, and that is conceptually a very difficult thing to do.

Obviously, if God is omniscient, he can't see the world from the perseptive of an animal with eyes located in one place. So, if he is biological (whatever that means) then he is unlike a human being in this particular respect.

Hope this helps.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician:



I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal.

You are just making more claims that need more support. Please justify this position you hold.

That stands to reason, because no known animal is omniscient, omnipotent or supernatural, at least as far as I am aware.

But you can't rule it out.

But this is really another quibble over definitions. You haven't attempted to define "biological entity".

Nor have you, and you are telling me what God is, supposedly.

It is possible that you might define that in wide terms to mean something like "living thing", but then you may need to explain what life is, and that is conceptually a very difficult thing to do.

I wouldn't do that at all. It's supposed to be you telling me what God is. I'm just asking for clarification each time you make a definitive statement.

Obviously, if God is omniscient, he can't see the world from the perseptive of an animal with eyes located in one place. So, if he is biological (whatever that means) then he is unlike a human being in this particular respect.

Not really, because you haven't established God is omniscient. So can't really limit the other attributes based on that assertion.

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal.

You are just making more claims that need more support. Please justify this position you hold.

This is a silly conversation. Going back to my astronomy example, which you dishonestly ignored the first time I brought it up, our conversation would go something like this (with our roles swapped):

J: Do you believe in astronomy?
P: Yes.
J: Define astronomy for me.
P: Astronomy is the study of stars and planets.
J: So astronomy is not the study of black holes then?
P: Astronomers do study black holes, as a matter of fact.
J: Please re-state your definition of astronomy, because now you have added something you originally didn't say. I'm going to have to demand that you do this each time you add something new.
P: Ok. Astronomy is the study of stars and planets and black holes and some othere extraterrestrial things. It is not the study of beetles.
J: You just made an extra claim that you need to support. Please prove to me that astronomers don't study beetles. And don't forget to repeat all the statements you made earlier about astronomy, since my memory isn't very good. Please justify this position about astronomy that you hold.
P: Astronomy isn't the study of beetles because astronomers are physicists, not biologists.
J: That's another claim you'll have to prove for me. And don't forget to repeat all your previous claims! Also, you can't rule out the possibility that some astronomers do biology, can you?
P: Astronomers may study beetles in their spare time, but it's not their professional concern.
J: Oh, but you didn't say anything about professions before. You'd better add that as an extra claim. And don't forget to repeat all your previous claims now that you've changed your mind.
P: I didn't change my mind.
J: Yes you did. Yes you did! Caught you out!
P: I thought I could take it as given that astronomy is a profession.
J: No! You're telling me what astronomy is, supposedly. If it's really important that it's a profession, why didn't you say so at the start? I think you'd better start again from scratch and make sure you carefully state all your claims this time.
P: What a complete waste of time.
J: It's supposed to be you telling me what astronomy is. I'm just asking for clarification each time you make a definitive statement.
P: No you're not. You're just making me repeat myself by being a dumb arse and pretending not to understand common language and common knowledge.
J: See! I knew I'd prove you are dishonest! Nyah nyah nyah!

----
So, moving on from the idiotic stuff, let's tackle the one other point you made:

Not really, because you haven't established God is omniscient. So can't really limit the other attributes based on that assertion.

I didn't set out to "establish" anything. Remember, your job is to prove that I am somehow dishonest in my role as a theist. I have not said anything that makes me dishonest so far. As a theist, I believe in God. I believe he is omniscient. As an atheist, you are free to disbelieve. You can't prove that God is not omniscient any more than I can prove that he is. So, we're on an equal footing.

 

[phlogistician]

I didn't set out to "establish" anything. Remember, your job is to prove that I am somehow dishonest in my role as a theist. I have not said anything that makes me dishonest so far. As a theist, I believe in God. I believe he is omniscient. As an atheist, you are free to disbelieve. You can't prove that God is not omniscient any more than I can prove that he is. So, we're on an equal footing.

Equal footing? Sorry, but we already dispensed with the notion that the odds are 50/50, so we are NOT on a equal footing. The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant. I'm not trying to prove anything btw, I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant.

so prove your claim that all theist are dishonest.

I'm not trying to prove anything btw,

you should be, your the one who made the claim.

I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.

no you are only looking for a fight..you have NO desire to be convinced of anything.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

James analogy still stands..
you are incapable of being reasonable.

 

[Believe]

Equal footing? Sorry, but we already dispensed with the notion that the odds are 50/50, so we are NOT on a equal footing. The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant. I'm not trying to prove anything btw, I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

Who exactly established that the odds are or are not 50/50? Sciforums lol? Not exactly the place to get a reliable result. Honestly if you go by the amount of the world that believes vs. the amount of the world that does not the odds are distinctly not in your favor.

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

Fine. Next question, please.

 

[Gustav]

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

i thought astronomy was in large part, an inferential science
kinda like geology
my bad

you really have supernovas at your beck and call?

 

[phlogistician]

i thought astronomy was in large part, an inferential science
kinda like geology
my bad

you really have supernovas at your beck and call?

You do know when you make posts like that, you just compound my impression of you being a troll with a grudge?

 

[phlogistician]

Who exactly established that the odds are or are not 50/50?

I'll explain it to you, because clearly this has gone over your head. Why would the odds be 50/50? Because there's a pro/not pro divide? Oh hold on, are there just two positions? Just two gods? No, there are hundreds of gods. So each claim of a deity gets a slice of that pie, they jostle for likeliness, ... followers of the one God trying to pull percentage points from polytheists,... and back again. Do you get that?

Honestly if you go by the amount of the world that believes vs. the amount of the world that does not the odds are distinctly not in your favor.

So if we got the majority of the planet believing in the FSM, the FSM would be more likely? Do you realise just how absurd what you just said was? Do you not realise that beliefs in god(s) has changed over the millennia, from polytheism to the one Abrahamic God (and there still are polytheists), so does that mean the Roman and Greek Pantheons were real, but now aren't?

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician:

Fine. Next question, please.

If god is omniscient (not that you have established this claim) how can we have free will? And if we cannot, how can be judged for our actions?

 

[gmilam]

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

 

[phlogistician]

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

He didn't yet. The game is that James is playing the role of a theist, and I am asking James questions about his supposed theism, in the goal that he will satisfactorily answer all my questions, and demonstrate the point of view is honestly held.

So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.

I am now revisiting his claim God is omniscient. This is a classic conundrum, if God knows what we are going to do, and God created us, how can we have free will? We hear arguments about predicting other's behaviour, but these fall flat, because we are not omnipotent, nor did we create the others whose behaviour we predict. For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.

 

[phlogistician]

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.

 

[Lori_7]

hey phlog,

god told me once "there is no time here". if god is not subject to the time constraint, then god could very well be omniscient without hindering free will. i've expressed this more than a few times on this forum. i love how people flat out ignore it every time, you know, because it makes sense and then they'd have an answer to their question and no reason to argue about it.

 

[gmilam]

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.

I don't know that I've ever met a truly honest person - period. But I know many theists who are as honest as the rest of us (for a given value of honest). I.E. - They don't deliberately try to deceive anyone as to what they "believe" and/or why.

 

[gmilam]

He didn't yet. The game is that James is playing the role of a theist, and I am asking James questions about his supposed theism, in the goal that he will satisfactorily answer all my questions, and demonstrate the point of view is honestly held.

So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.

I am now revisiting his claim God is omniscient. This is a classic conundrum, if God knows what we are going to do, and God created us, how can we have free will? We hear arguments about predicting other's behaviour, but these fall flat, because we are not omnipotent, nor did we create the others whose behaviour we predict. For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.

Humans are quite capable of building elaborate labyrinths of rationalizations to hide their own contradictions from themselves. But I don't know that dishonesty with one's self equates to general dishonesty.

 

[sniffy]

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.

Have you ever met a truly honest human?

Hi, I'm sniffy pleased to meet you.

Could you define 'truly honest' for me please?