OK, I confess, you’ve exposed my true objective, I’m a proselytizer for broccoli. A lifetime of meditation and intimate association with broccoli has led to the realization that beyond our cosmic perception lays an eternal field of divine broccoli. The clincher was the realization that our brains were made in the image of this divine flower. The ultimate purpose of humanity is to facilitate the propagation of broccoli in our sphere of influence. Extraterrestrial civilizations are likewise tasked with this divine imperative, and spectrographic evidence of broccoli elsewhere in our astronomic field of view will be a strong indicator of intelligent life. Once broccoli’s universal dissemination is complete, our souls will be allowed to take root in the eternal field of broccoli and experience everlasting peace and contentment.
God is "dead"
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
- Status
Then i guess we have to ask why you are comfortable discussing various concepts about broccoli but not god, even though you have clear arguments regarding both
Apparently you missed the point of my broccoli revelation. Broccoli is God. Just think of your next meal of broccoli as partaking of Eucharist during Communion.
apologies
I never really know whether an atheist is purposely subscribing to inferior definitions of god for the sake of strawmen or if its something they really think is the working model for the subject.
That said, you shouldn't waste anymore time posting about the non-existence of God.
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Saint said IF God is alive. He/she is making a provisional assumption to ask a question: why doesn't he show himself? Now answer his/her question. It's really quite simple.
Last edited:
It's a stupid question, and not deserving of a serious answer.
If he doesn't believe in God, then there's nothing anyone can say or do.
But if he cannot even understand that to be the case, then all serious dialogue will be lost on him.
This is the only position any human can have, belief, or not.
Try and think seriously what that really means.
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
In other words there's absolutely no way to confirm the existence of God to a nonbeliever. Doesn't speak very highly for that belief does it? IOW, that's usually a sign of any false belief.
Objectively? No. But then religion falls within the purview of the social-sciences, which necessarily rely on subjective, self-reported data. Only actual evidence for or against can speak for some belief, and in the lack of evidence either way, there is no objective criteria whereby to determine the falsity of a belief.
You are not an Aspie, are you? The reason I ask is because Aspies, and other autistic-spectrum disorders, are know to have deficits in theory of mind ("the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.").
I suspect they can understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own. But what can be difficult is to make sense of this diversity and to be at peace in the face of it.
The whole modern movement for equality, tolerance, democracy is in fact attempting to do just that - trying to make sense diversity and how to be at peace in the face of it. Esp. how to be at peace in the face of it.
I think it would be fair to say that most people (not just those officially diagnosable with some mental disorder or deficiency) have some extent of trouble in dealing with diversity.
The empirical analyses of the social sciences do allow us to make objective determinations of how and why the erroneous mystical notions of religion originated, were socially incorporated and remain persistent today.
Whether we like it or not we are essentially on our own. We have nothing other than our essential selves. Spirituality is learning what that essence is.
There is no way anyone can confirm anything, fully, to anyone else. To the point where the reciever is in total belief of the point being made without doing anything for themself, to accept it.
Of course if you can contradict that, then be my guest.
I understand why you would label theism as ''false belief'', but the truth of the matter is you're deluding yourself. You want it to be so because you need to validate your own position, and the only way to do this is to totally ignore anything that contradicts it.
Ultimately, if you or Saint want the question answered, you only need to look in Bible (or any other God centered scripture). The problem with this is, that is not enough for you, because you want to destroy it. You are basically frustrated, or you have become caught in an ideology that cannot rest until total destruction has been acheived. This is the reality of atheism and theism, not a verbal confirmation on the part of the individual.
Have you come to a conclusion regarding God?
If you have, and you decide that God is dead, why can't you relax?
Why does it matter so much to you?
If it doesn't apply to you then the question goes to Saint or any explicit who wants to see the decline of theism (at best).
jan.
If the social sciences can't be technically regarded as objective, how on earth do you suppose an analysis of them can be?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Religion isn't content to regard itself as a mere subjective relativist social phenomenon. It makes certain absolute scientifically-testable claims about the nature of the physical world, the past, and the origin of living species. Its claims of miracles, supernatural intervention, divine creationism, and the existence of a soul all fall within the domain of science to be examined and tested. It used to claim that the mentally ill were possessed by devils. Disproven. It used to claim that the sun revolved around the earth. Disproven. It used to claim that God created all creatures out of dust 6000 years ago. Disproven. It used to claim people could be healed from disease by pouring oil on their heads and praying for them. Disproven. To the extent that religion makes ANY claim about objective reality, it IS subject to the criteria of science to validate itself. This it cannot do because simply put, it is a system of delusions and mythical narratives left over from a now extinct culture.
Reported for being an asshole prick..(note my acute awareness of your hostile mental state in posting that.)
[Warning: This is your last warning for name-calling, per "Behaviour that may get you banned - Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling." - http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=22]
Last edited by a moderator:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Bullshit. Confirmation of ideas, theories, facts, etc. by other people occurs all the time. In crime investigations. In court trials. In labs and scientific journals. In hospitals. In the classroom. Online. Even in our everyday lives. I watch the news a lot. Every time I have certain facts confirmed for me by the journalists. I am after watching the news broadcast in total belief of the points being made without doing anything for myself to accept it. We call this learning. How long's it been since you learned something new?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
There's a striking lack of clear and unambiguous evidence for the existence of God. Even many theists agree about that, hence theology's problem of the 'hiddenness of God'.
I personally interpret that lack of evidence as itself being evidence (not proof) that God probably doesn't exist.
For those who are more deeply embedded in the theistic tradition(s), especially those that ascribe "omni-" attributes to their deities, the question does arise of why God (hypothetically) chooses not to reveal himself unambiguously, choosing instead to remain hidden. That seems to me to be a problem for theists more than for me. I don't typically spend much time speculating about the hypothetical motivations of what seem to be non-existent beings.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I am relaxed. I'm also vested in the project of exposing the delusion of God for what it is-- a scam perpetrated by a firmly entrenched religious hegemony for literally thousands of years on the undereducated masses. I have a special burden for deprogramming people of the deceptions and lies of religion/pseudoscience having once been a victim of them myself. Does this bother you? Why? SHOULDN'T people use their own firsthand experiences to help teach others what they have learned?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that it's an excellent question. It's up to you whether or not you try to answer it.
From the point of view of an atheist like myself (at least an atheist regarding the personal theistic deities of the ancient scriptural traditions), the 'hiddenness of God' isn't a difficult conundrum. The non-existence of the deities would account for it very nicely.
From the point of view of a theist, the problem appears more difficult. If God exists, and if God could easily produce objective and unambiguous evidence of himself, then why doesn't he? There have been no end of proposed theological explanations for that one, speculating into God's hypothetical motives.
If he doesn't believe in God, then there's nothing anyone can say or do. But if he cannot even understand that to be the case, then all serious dialogue will be lost on him.
This is the only position any human can have, belief, or not.
Try and think seriously what that really means.
You can either discuss the problem of God's hiddenness, or not. If you choose not to discuss it, you may or may not choose to insult those who do discuss it. That's all up to you. As for me, I'll respect you a lot more if you choose to write something thoughtful. That's my choice.
Magical Realist, so...why use "other words" when making your statements? Is it because you are alleging that your "words" originate from the "other" person?
Magical Realist, is there any way to absolutely confirm/prove the existence of God to a believer?
Magical Realist, is there any way to absolutely confirm/prove the non-existence of God to a believer?
Magical Realist, is there any way to absolutely confirm/prove the non-existence of God to a non-believer?
Magical Realist, you never "speak very highly" of any "beliefs" that are not your own, do you?
I often wonder, when reading your Posts, Magical Realist, if your constant attacks on all other "beliefs" as "false", is not just a sign of your own failure to be confident in your own "false beliefs" or even possibly the absence of any "beliefs" of your own.
For instance, when Syne asked you this question...
You respond with...
So...Magical Realist, not only do you respond with an inane "Report" of an imaginary offense - you can not even do that without puerile name calling.
Then you go so far as to claim the "God like ability" to possess an "acute awareness" of someones "hostile mental state" merely by reading a few printed words.
Magical Realist, I find that to be a dubious and self-delusional ability that you claim to possess, simply by the proven inability of your claimed "acute awareness" to comprehend the difference between a question and a statement.
Magical Realist, if I am not on your "ignore list" (how many pages long is it, may I ask?) - I fully expect you to "Report" me for some "acute(ly) aware" imaginary reason that you deem offensive.
Will you be able to do that, Magical Realist, without also proffering childish name calling?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
MR said:
The Oxford Guide to Philosophy says (on p. 667):
Objectivism and subjectivism. Theories that various kinds of judgement are, respectively, objective, i.e. pertain to objects, or subjective, i.e. pertain to subjects (people). (1) 'Fish have fins' is an objective claim: its truth or falsity is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about the matter. (2) 'Raw fish is delicious' is a subjective claim: its truth or falsity is not thus independent, and indeed it is neither true nor false, even though taste can be sophisticated, discriminating, insensitive, etc. The statement (3) 'Most Japanese find raw fish delicious (while most Britons do not)' is an objective truth or falsehood about subjects.
I don't think that anyone disputes that it's a fact that theists believe in the existence of God. (Leaving aside the question of what they take the word 'God' to mean.) The question that MR was speaking about is whether the word 'God' refers to or names some divine object that has independent reality apart from theists' own subjectivities.
If all theists on Earth ceased to exist tomorrow and all recorded references to 'God' were erased, would God still exist? Or would God disappear along with the subjects who once believed in him? Put another more theological way, did God create us and is our being dependent on him, or did we create God and is whatever fictional being that God has dependent on us?
- Status