God is "dead"

[Magical Realist]

I did not say god does not fall under the purview of science, only that it lacks the objective evidence to be accessible to anything but the social sciences. Do you have a problem conflating different branches of science too?

So what objective evidence for the entity called God is there in the social sciences? I took a sociology course in college and don't remember anything about God being an emergent collective being.

You really have a problem parsing sentences, huh?

Directly correlated to your inability to make a clear statement without going back later in the thread and revising it to mean something else.

I said, "God could be an emergent phenomena", not that god was. You are the one advocating that religion and god are, at best, byproducts of evolution. As such, they are emergence phenomena evidenced by their ubiquity in the world.

Cancer and viruses evolved too. They're also quite ubiquitous. So what? Hey! Maybe God's a brain virus!

"Dawkins defines the "symptoms" of being infected by the "virus of religion", providing examples for most of them, and tries to define a connection between the elements of religion and its survival value (invoking Zahavi's handicap principle of sexual selection, applied to believers of a religion). Dawkins also describes religious beliefs as "mind-parasites", and as "gangs [that] will come to constitute a package, which may be sufficiently stable to deserve a collective name such as Roman Catholicism ... or ... component parts to a single virus".

Dawkins suggests that religious belief in the "faith-sufferer" typically shows the following elements:

It is impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, the believer feels as totally compelling and convincing.

The believer typically makes a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, despite it not being based upon evidence.

There is a conviction that "mystery", per se, is a good thing; the belief that it is not a virtue to solve mysteries but to enjoy them and revel in their insolubility.

There may be intolerant behaviour towards perceived rival faiths, in extreme cases even the killing of opponents or advocating of their deaths. Believers may be similarly violent in disposition towards apostates or heretics, even if those espouse only a slightly different version of the faith.

The particular convictions that the believer holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, are likely to resemble those of the believer's parents.

If the believer is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may be cultural transmission from a charismatic individual.

The internal sensations of the 'faith-sufferer' may be reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love.

Dawkins stresses his claim that religious beliefs do not spread as a result of evidence in their support, but typically by cultural transmission, in most cases from parents or from charismatic individuals. He refers to this as involving "epidemiology, not evidence". Further Dawkins distinguishes this process from the spread of scientific ideas, which, he suggests, is constrained by the requirement to conform with certain virtues of standard methodology: "testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on". He points out that faith "spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues"."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, there very well may not be any objective evidence that would satisfy a materialist. In the lack of any objective evidence, a subject such as religion can only be examined using the self-reported data largely relied upon in the social sciences. An inability to model those beliefs leads to an a priori dismissal of them as delusional or false, which necessarily undercuts any objective examination.

Actually social sciences like anthropology and cultural studies model beliefs quite successfully while viewing them as myths and narratives. There is no need to admit that Zeus was an actual objective being to make sense of greek mythology and Hellenistic culture. Wow! God as a mythical character endemic to a certain culture and historical epoch? Who woulda thunk it? lol!

 

[Syne]

I did not say god does not fall under the purview of science, only that it lacks the objective evidence to be accessible to anything but the social sciences. Do you have a problem conflating different branches of science too?

So what objective evidence for the entity called God is there in the social sciences? I took a sociology course in college and don't remember anything about God being an emergent collective being.

I have repeatedly said that there is likely no objective evidence for a divine entity. The methodology of the social sciences is largely subjective survey, which evinces the concept of god.

Directly correlated to your inability to make a clear statement without going back later in the thread and revising it to mean something else.

Yet you never bother to show where this supposedly happened. Just empty accusations in an attempt to poison the well. Ho-hum.

I said, "God could be an emergent phenomena", not that god was. You are the one advocating that religion and god are, at best, byproducts of evolution. As such, they are emergence phenomena evidenced by their ubiquity in the world.

Cancer and viruses evolved too. They're also quite ubiquitous. So what? Hey! Maybe God's a brain virus!

That would seem to be an underhanded ad hom in lieu of any actual argument.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually social sciences like anthropology and cultural studies model beliefs quite successfully while viewing them as myths and narratives. There is no need to admit that Zeus was an actual objective being to make sense of greek mythology and Hellenistic culture. Wow! God as a mythical character endemic to a certain culture and historical epoch? Who woulda thunk it? lol!

Once again if you want to use the example of Zeus to have some bearing on the discussion, we would have to ask you in what manner you are defining god for your assertions ..... a question you haven't, can't and probably won't answer.

:shrug:

 

[Magical Realist]

only that it lacks the objective evidence to be accessible to anything but the social sciences.

and then...

I have repeatedly said that there is likely no objective evidence for a divine entity. The methodology of the social sciences is largely subjective survey, which evinces the concept of god.

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. lol!


So what about evincing a concept has anything whatsoever to do with validating the reality of what the concept is about? Does evincing the concept of angels entail that angels actually exist too? How about devils? You know..all those OTHER parts of religious lore theists embarrassingly avoid ever mentioning.

 

[Syne]

Actually social sciences like anthropology and cultural studies model beliefs quite successfully while viewing them as myths and narratives. There is no need to admit that Zeus was an actual objective being to make sense of greek mythology and Hellenistic culture. Wow! God as a mythical character endemic to a certain culture and historical epoch? Who woulda thunk it? lol!

While it is true that modelling belief does not necessitate any admission of actuality, any a priori assumption about their validity, either way, are necessarily biased and unscientific. The to maintain objectivity, social sciences only deal with the objective traditions, without judgment as to truth value. Science is not about "truth" and has nothing to say about such subjective value judgements.

 

[Magical Realist]

Science is not about "truth" and has nothing to say about such subjective value judgements.

On the contrary, Science makes very specific truth claims all the time. Truth claims based on evidence, logical induction, and logical deduction. If it didn't do this it wouldn't be very useful to us, now would it?

 

[Syne]

So what about evincing a concept has anything whatsoever to do with validating the reality of what the concept is about? Does evincing the concept of angels entail that angels actually exist too? How about devils? You know..all those OTHER parts of religious lore theists embarrassingly avoid ever mentioning.

I never said it did. And not all theists are Christians, who espouse belief in angels and the like, so that supposed embarrassment is irrelevant to non-Christian or even just non-literalist Christian theists. Your arguments always return to refuting a very narrow scope of theist claims.

 

[lightgigantic]

On the contrary, Science makes very specific truth claims all the time. Truth claims based on evidence, logical induction, and logical deduction. If it didn't do this it wouldn't be very useful to us, now would it?

and what we are painfully trying to bring to your awareness is that the evidence and logic that drives such scientific "truths" cannot even conceptually approach the ultimate subjects of religion.

 

[Magical Realist]

I never said it did. And not all theists are Christians, who espouse belief in angels and the like, so that supposed embarrassment is irrelevant to non-Christian or even just non-literalist Christian theists. Your arguments always return to refuting a very narrow scope of theist claims.

LOL! "Very narrow" my ass. I think 2.18 billion theists is certainly enough to prove my point.

 

[Syne]

Science is not about "truth" and has nothing to say about such subjective value judgements.

On the contrary, Science makes very specific truth claims all the time. Truth claims based on evidence, logical induction, and logical deduction. If it didn't do this it wouldn't be very useful to us, now would it?

At best, science makes provisional truth claims that are expected to be revised in the future. These require qualifying all such scientific claims as "current understanding" or "suggested by evidence". Science cannot objectively make hard and fast pronouncements, like yours about god. And you seems to have completely avoided the point about subjective value judgements.

 

[Magical Realist]

Science cannot objectively make hard and fast pronouncements, like yours about god.

Scientists can confidently proclaim that there is no evidence for the existence of a God. That's a good enough reason to be atheist for me. What more do YOU require?

 

[Syne]

LOL! 2.18 billion theists is certainly enough to prove my point.

1. Cite your source when quoting statistics.
2. If you want to debate them, go find them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Scientists can confidently proclaim that there is no evidence for the existence of a God. That's a good enough reason to be atheist for me. What more do YOU require?

You are confusing atheists with scientists

:shrug:

 

[Magical Realist]

1. Cite your source when quoting statistics.
2. If you want to debate them, go find them.

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Actually, the number of angel and devil believing theists goes up to 3.6 billion when you include Muslims too. Forgot about them. Oh and lets add 15 million Jews. That makes it roughly 3.615 billion.

 

[Syne]

http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

Actually, the number of angel and devil believing theists goes up to 3.6 billion when you include Muslims too. Forgot about them. Oh and lets add 15 million Jews. That makes it roughly 3.615 billion.

First, not all Christians believe in angels and demons:

Similar patterns exist with respect to beliefs about the existence of angels and demons. Nearly
seven-in-ten Americans (68%) believe that angels and demons are active in the world. Majorities
of Jehovah’s Witnesses (78%), members of evangelical (61%) and historically black (59%)
Protestant churches, and Mormons (59%) are completely convinced of the existence of angels
and demons. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf​

Second, you add the total population of Jews, even though:

In stark contrast, majorities of Jews (73%), Buddhists (56%), Hindus (55%) and the
unaffiliated (54%) do not believe that angels and demons are active in the world. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf​

So yes, you are refuting a narrow scope of claims seemingly not represented by anyone in this discussion. And if your "objectivity" with these numbers is any indication, there is no reason to trust your integrity on much else.


But regardless of how you are blatantly misrepresenting the numbers, the fact remains that you do not seem to be debating any of these people here, so such arguments are pointless. And assuming anyone here should, for whatever reason, defend these beliefs is a strawman no more valid than a theist using an appeal to popularity in their arguments.

 

[billvon]

Scientists can confidently proclaim that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.

Science can confidently proclaim that there is no evidence for dark matter. Still, it would probably be foolish to therefore staunchly believe that there is no such thing as dark matter.

 

[Magical Realist]

Science can confidently proclaim that there is no evidence for dark matter. Still, it would probably be foolish to therefore staunchly believe that there is no such thing as dark matter.

Science proclaims there is no evidence for dark matter? Since when?


https://www.google.com/search?num=4...ken=la...0...1.1.32.hp..8.16.3053.cWL_Xv4lAws

 

[Magical Realist]

So yes, you are refuting a narrow scope of claims seemingly not represented by anyone in this discussion. And if your "objectivity" with these numbers is any indication, there is no reason to trust your integrity on much else.

3.6 billion theists. That's not a narrow scope by any means. And for the record, I'm not refuting any of the vague concomittal "theists" posting in this thread who can't even offer a definition of what they mean by God. I'm refuting theism itself, something you apparently know very little about.

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

In stark contrast, majorities of Jews (73%), Buddhists (56%), Hindus (55%) and the
unaffiliated (54%) do not believe that angels and demons are active in the world.

I see. So half of all Buddhists, Hindus, and the unfiliated and 37% of all Jews DO believe in angels and demons? That increases the numbers even more. Thanks for confirming that. lol!

 

[Syne]

3.6 billion theists. That's not a narrow scope by any means. And for the record, I'm not refuting any of the vague concomittal "theists" posting in this thread who can't even offer a definition of what they mean by God. I'm refuting theism itself, something you apparently know very little about.

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism



I see. So half of all Buddhists, Hindus, and the unfiliated and 37% of all Jews DO believe in angels and demons? That increases the numbers even more. Thanks for confirming that. lol!

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists...

Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism​

Do you reject the definition of atheism in that same link?

You also seem to be employing the no true Scotsman fallacy when defining theists, as well as seeming to have missed all the types of theism listed in your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism#Types And I have provided a definition of god several times:

God is often conceived as the Supreme Being ... Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes ... Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God​

So did you have a point about how many theists there are? Seems more an argument for theism.