Limbo

[superluminal]

Drawing causal connections where none exist (superstitious behavior), becoming emotional when core belief systems are challenged, ritual behavior (which is just regimented living), etc... basically, I consider human behavior in general to be religious behavior. All people are religious.

I suppose for me the connotations of the word religious are very specific and seperate from other human behaviors, e.g. belief in god(s), belief in a "soul" or essence that survives death, and faith in general. The idea of faith is no stranger to atheists as you already know. Faith in a loved one for example. But as we've discussed before, the subjective faith that atheists admit to (I have faith in my wife...) is quite different from the faith in an objective entity known as "god" for which there is no objective evidence. Now I'm rambling.

I thought you would. You're a reasonable guy, and you missing something so obvious would surprise the hell out of me.

Thanks JM.

 

[superluminal]

Before there can be any serious discussion of god all atheistic arguments have to be exhausted - so if you don't have anything further evidence why god does not exist I guess we could proceed ......

I submit the dual of this statement right back atcha LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm really starting to doubt your intelligence, or at least, your honesty... Which I guess, genereally speaking rings true for theists anyway.

In my experience its best to try and avoid giving approximations of people's intelligence on debate forums - it just reduces the discussion to a battle of wills

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Fire

Both - just like the president

the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate ”

Anybody who has had access to a form of media over the past 6 years has directly percieved the existence of Bush. Since this is your latest strawman argument, I look forward to you putting George W Bush on an equal footing with god, so if you have any media footage of god stepping off Airforce 1 and walking through the pearly gates, I would dearly love to see that footage.

These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility

“ Not sure of that reputation.... ”

You know, when theists (including those that wrote scripture) made claims they were confident would not be proven false? Oh, now all of a sudden Adam and Eve are allegory

I am no expert in xtianity but I have respect for the bible as a means for approaching the path for knowing god - given the social environment that it was developed in I think it was more in to making a barbaric community more civil rather than illuminating universal truths

“ Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society? ”

Whoever it is you claim (falsely) are 'qualified' to judge gods existence.

I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with

“ The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone ”

Well this is very thinly related to the specific subject we were talking about.

If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views?

“ Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him) ”

But we've already established we don't need the president to be in a petri dish to establish his existence. Your analogies are equally as bad as yoru arguments.

You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem

 

[lightgigantic]

I submit the dual of this statement right back atcha LG.

But atheism has no advanced topics for discussion - like for instance if one accepts that god exists then the advanced topics of what is god, what is our relationship with god, what is god's relationship with the material world, by what processes can one understand god etc etc are revealed - what do atheists discuss when they get together that they cannot discuss in the association of a theist?

 

[baumgarten]

at the risk of using the word ontology, just because we may be in england we would not give a greater ontological status to england over china, just because we don't see china at the moment

Wouldn't we? Would a medieval Englishman with no knowledge of China give it an equal ontological sense? Would it be reasonable for someone with no knowledge of China to believe in such a land? Men on Mars? FSM? Emmanuel Goldstein? God? We are the same as the medieval Englishman, except we take the existence of one or more of these for granted as an act of faith in our teachers and public consensus. With no definitive knowledge of these things, however, the question of their existence is a legitimate one, regardless of how ridiculous it seems.

You may find it reasonable to believe in God because you believe you have evidence. But, as Jaster Mereel is so fond of saying, evidence for some is not evidence for others. Ignorance of something is not evidence of its existence for me. You can try to offer a convincing argument on other grounds, but offering to beat the same dead horse for people who are obviously unreceptive to your justification is futility. It is time for a different approach, one more sensitive to your target audience.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wouldn't we? Would a medieval Englishman with no knowledge of China give it an equal ontological sense? Would it be reasonable for someone with no knowledge of China to believe in such a land? Men on Mars? FSM? Emmanuel Goldstein? God? We are the same as the medieval Englishman, except we take the existence of one or more of these for granted as an act of faith in our teachers and public consensus. With no definitive knowledge of these things, however, the question of their existence is a legitimate one, regardless of how ridiculous it seems.

You may find it reasonable to believe in God because you believe you have evidence. But, as Jaster Mereel is so fond of saying, evidence for some is not evidence for others. Ignorance of something is not evidence of its existence for me. You can try to offer a convincing argument on other grounds, but offering to beat the same dead horse for people who are obviously unreceptive to your justification is futility. It is time for a different approach, one more sensitive to your target audience.

There is the example of the frog of the well - one day his friend comes back and says he has just seen a huge body of water (the pacific ocean) - the frog asks how big is it? Is it as big as the water in the bottom of his well? 3 times bigger? 10 times?

The problem is that you have persons who are not in ignorance of china but feel that they are sufficiently provincial enough to determine that china does not exist - in other words they assume that they are properly qualified to work with what they consider evidence of god

 

[baumgarten]

There is the example of the frog of the well - one day his friend comes back and says he has just seen a huge body of water (the pacific ocean) - the frog asks how big is it? Is it as big as the water in the bottom of his well? 3 times bigger? 10 times?

The problem is that you have persons who are not in ignorance of china but feel that they have sufficiently provincial enough to determine that china does not exist - in other words they assume that they are properly qualified to work with what they consider evidence of god

This is an interesting proposition. Rather than simply claim it, however, you should use reason to support it. Explain why this must currently be the case.

 

[Fire]

These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility

You see? This is the kind of silly argument that comes from furiously trying to prove the existence of god - it's funny. I could at some length, provide you with a mountain of evidence for the existence of George W bush, but I would find it embarrassing to lower myself to that extreme.

I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with

Sweeping generalizations are apt for religions since they all suffer the same problems of superstition, far-fetched tales, imaginary notions, failure to demonstrate evidence. Religion claims 'truth' without ever needing to justify how they came about their assumptions. Theists know only too well that they need to prove their beliefs, which is why you heard the sound of the bottom of a barrell when it looks like rational and scientific study could turn up something to support their beliefs. I have no doubt if there was a significant strand of evidence that theists would go to painstaking measures to find it, and despite what you may think, secular investigation would not dismiss it if it had weight.

If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views?

He is a brilliant scientist, intellect, author and has a great ability to detail his thoughts and gather sources... but for all that, is he really any closer to proving that god doesn't exist? No. And this is my point, someone who shares all his skills and was a theist who tried to prove gods existence would also hit a dead end.

You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem

Right, this is just so silly, I don't even know where to start. Even if I have not directly perceived the president (which I did just 10 minutes ago on TV), I would be satisfied with the evidence on hand that he does exist. Now we come to god and all of a sudden enter a vacuum. God and invisible unicorns however, are entirely on an equal footing. The president and god.... hmmm. No. Go back to sleep.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I suppose for me the connotations of the word religious are very specific and seperate from other human behaviors, e.g. belief in god(s), belief in a "soul" or essence that survives death, and faith in general. The idea of faith is no stranger to atheists as you already know. Faith in a loved one for example. But as we've discussed before, the subjective faith that atheists admit to (I have faith in my wife...) is quite different from the faith in an objective entity known as "god" for which there is no objective evidence. Now I'm rambling.

Well, I think that's just too specific a definition since just about everyone displays behaviors which one would normally associate with such beliefs, even if they themselves do not hold such a belief. I suppose I have dropped the idea that religiosity is defined by belief, and now I'm going on behavior. If you do it that way, then everyone is religious.

Thanks JM.

No problem.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility ”

You see? This is the kind of silly argument that comes from furiously trying to prove the existence of god - it's funny. I could at some length, provide you with a mountain of evidence for the existence of George W bush, but I would find it embarrassing to lower myself to that extreme.

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion

“ I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with ”

Sweeping generalizations

(I am surprised you can start like this and continue with )

are apt for religions since they all suffer the same problems of superstition, far-fetched tales, imaginary notions, failure to demonstrate evidence.

seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to

Religion claims 'truth' without ever needing to justify how they came about their assumptions. Theists know only too well that they need to prove their beliefs, which is why you heard the sound of the bottom of a barrell when it looks like rational and scientific study could turn up something to support their beliefs. I have no doubt if there was a significant strand of evidence that theists would go to painstaking measures to find it, and despite what you may think, secular investigation would not dismiss it if it had weight.

In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to.

“ If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views? ”

He is a brilliant scientist, intellect, author and has a great ability to detail his thoughts and gather sources

and these aren't qualifications



“ You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem ”

Right, this is just so silly, I don't even know where to start. Even if I have not directly perceived the president (which I did just 10 minutes ago on TV), I would be satisfied with the evidence on hand that he does exist.

My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception

Now we come to god and all of a sudden enter a vacuum.

Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god

God and invisible unicorns however, are entirely on an equal footing.

I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns

The president and god.... hmmm. No. Go back to sleep

.

If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god?

 

[lightgigantic]

This is an interesting proposition. Rather than simply claim it, however, you should use reason to support it. Explain why this must currently be the case.

well its not so easy since
- they reject the existence of god
- they reject the persons who claimed some direct experience of god
- they reject the processes advocated by such persons to perceive god
- they reject the institutions, even if the said instituitions ar e merely dabbling in mundane altruism, that are accredited with propagating such processes

If you or anyone can offer how a highschool drop out (or japanese 5th grader ... whatever doesn't irk you) can perceive an atom if they are adverse to professors and science text books perhaps I would have a different avenue to take.

 

[Fire]

Fire

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion

Yes, but it's actually nothing like the premises in theism. It's rather obvious the president exists and I'm not going to explain why, because that sets up your strawman beautifully when comparing him to an invisible god. At least 'directly perceiving' the president is not a subjective phenomena, whereas god totally is.

seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to

Since, as I've said, nobody has a clue about the origin of the universe, that sort of makes religion false already. I barely qualify religion as philisophical musings either since it is dogmatic. You certainly don't appear to show any doubt about the existence of god, at least not that you let on. An atheist appears to be more rational and even dares to question the existence of such a god. Theists have a bad rep because they never question the non-existence of such a thing, which is when I call them delusional.

In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to.

I don't need to. I could study all religions man has ever made, but since it would be a secular study, I would be without faith, thereby meaning I have no conclusion at the end of a big waste of time. If there was a religion with anything other than imaginary assertions, it would be headline news at some point, forcing secular intellects to take notice. If there ever is evidence of god, science will find it first, however.

and these aren't qualifications

Not qualifications to decide wether or not god exists. There is no such person who has ever lived.

My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception

Lets go to your electron you keep talking about. I have not directly perceived an electron, but am more than satisfied that science - being as impartial and rational as it is - has sufficiently provided more evidence than they need to. If however, science had thousands of varying descriptions of electrons (as religions do with 'god') then I would then have to question why this is. Rather like one day the president is George Bush and the next day he is someone completely different etc.

Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god

None of it is credible, thats why. Religions effectively don't describe anything, since what they are describing is non-physical which is why it won't be accepted by anybody without faith.

I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns

They might as well... afterall American's believe in angels more than they do evolution. This is why theists have somewhat of a bad reputation for their intellect.

If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god?

This is just a mind numbingly stupid argument. I've already explained why no human being will ever possibly be qualified to perceive god and rather than give these offensively stupid analogies, could you actually detail what makes a person qualified to perceive this non-physical/imagined entity? Because I look forward to using it as a means to become qualified in perceiving the celestial teapot.

 

[baumgarten]

well its not so easy since
- they reject the existence of god
- they reject the persons who claimed some direct experience of god
- they reject the processes advocated by such persons to perceive god
- they reject the institutions, even if the said instituitions ar e merely dabbling in mundane altruism, that are accredited with propagating such processes

If you or anyone can offer how a highschool drop out (or japanese 5th grader ... whatever doesn't irk you) can perceive an atom if they are adverse to professors and science text books perhaps I would have a different avenue to take.

The high school drop out thing doesn't irk anyone; I think those of us who have commented on it just find it funny that you use the exact same analogy every time you want to point it out.

I cannot reject any of those things until I have a good reason to, but neither can I accept them without reason. For what it's worth, I will listen openmindedly to whatever support for them you have, as will anyone here who's interested in the philosophy of religion, rather than mindless religious politicking. (Didn't someone in here say that religion doesn't belong in politics anyway?)

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Yea, it's kind of annoying when people reject the experiences of millions of people as simple delusions, since personal accounts are the only evidence that anyone claims is available for the existence of God. If you reject the only kind of evidence that is claimed to be available, of course you're not going to find any evidence.

I understand why LG is frustrated. It has been stated repeatedly that evidence for God/gods/the supernatural, etc can only come from personal experiences, and it seems to be ignored. You don't dismiss personal experiences (especially when it comes from so many people) as non-existent. Obviously something is happening, it's just not capable of being examined in the usual, rigid manner.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Fire

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion ”

Yes, but it's actually nothing like the premises in theism. It's rather obvious the president exists and I'm not going to explain why, because that sets up your strawman beautifully when comparing him to an invisible god. At least 'directly perceiving' the president is not a subjective phenomena, whereas god totally is.

Its not clear how directly perceiving the president is not a subjective experience

“ seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to ”

Since, as I've said, nobody has a clue about the origin of the universe, that sort of makes religion false already.

The only way you can make this statement is if you are currently omniscient and know everything that can and cannot be known in all time places and circumstances - either that or you are using your own limited self as a yardstick for determining the perimeters of knowledge

I barely qualify religion as philisophical musings either since it is dogmatic.

rather than trying to avoid the issue of philosophy with cop outs like this you should frame your opinions in premises - at the very least it seems that there is a substantial body of philosophical work in religion and to bypass it because you find religion challenges your personal value system certainly doesn't make for any sort of grand discussion

You certainly don't appear to show any doubt about the existence of god, at least not that you let on. An atheist appears to be more rational and even dares to question the existence of such a god. Theists have a bad rep because they never question the non-existence of such a thing, which is when I call them delusional.

So in otherwords the only correct answer is that god does not exist - how convenient

“ In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to. ”

I don't need to.

so in other words it is sufficient to judge a genre by its worst stereotype?

I could study all religions man has ever made, but since it would be a secular study, I would be without faith, thereby meaning I have no conclusion at the end of a big waste of time.

you also have the ability to determine your conclusion before you investigate it? - sounds like you are already pivoting on faith

If there was a religion with anything other than imaginary assertions, it would be headline news at some point, forcing secular intellects to take notice. If there ever is evidence of god, science will find it first, however.

well it kind of has been in the headlines for the past several thousand years ..... won't find anyone more famous than god

“ and these aren't qualifications
”

Not qualifications to decide wether or not god exists. There is no such person who has ever lived.

If that is true why would dawkins write a book at all?

“ My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception ”

Lets go to your electron you keep talking about. I have not directly perceived an electron, but am more than satisfied that science - being as impartial and rational as it is - has sufficiently provided more evidence than they need to. If however, science had thousands of varying descriptions of electrons (as religions do with 'god') then I would then have to question why this is. Rather like one day the president is George Bush and the next day he is someone completely different etc.

Actually there are controversies with electrons - if you get in to advanced quantum physics you will find several conflicting theories - they all however agree that electrons exist - in the same way the purpose or function of god and the living entity may vary amongst religions but they essentially agree on principle

“ Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god ”

None of it is credible, thats why. Religions effectively don't describe anything, since what they are describing is non-physical which is why it won't be accepted by anybody without faith.

you are also accepting an electron on faith (based on the credible via mediums in science) - hence my original point above - you think knowledge of god is a void because you reject the via mediums and are not willing to apply the processes reccommended for direct perception

“ I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns ”

They might as well... afterall American's believe in angels more than they do evolution. This is why theists have somewhat of a bad reputation for their intellect.

When you don't depart from your conclusion in order to present premises for an argument its called begging the question

“ If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god? ”

This is just a mind numbingly stupid argument.

Actually it deals with the epistemology for your statements

I've already explained why no human being will ever possibly be qualified to perceive god

which so far seems to be that you are somehow on an omniscient platform of knowledge and can therefore dictate what can be known or unknown in all time places and circumstances

and rather than give these offensively stupid analogies, could you actually detail what makes a person qualified to perceive this non-physical/imagined entity?

The mechanics of an analogy is that it enables a person to understand something that is unknown by presenting something that is known - that is why I mentioned the president - you get to know him directly by sharing his needs interests and concerns

Because I look forward to using it as a means to become qualified in perceiving the celestial teapot.

Then you will have to determine the needs interests and concerns of celestial teapots

 

[lightgigantic]

baumgarten

The high school drop out thing doesn't irk anyone; I think those of us who have commented on it just find it funny that you use the exact same analogy every time you want to point it out.

Maybe I could call the High school drop out the HSD to stand along the FSM

I cannot reject any of those things until I have a good reason to, but neither can I accept them without reason. For what it's worth, I will listen openmindedly to whatever support for them you have, as will anyone here who's interested in the philosophy of religion, rather than mindless religious politicking. (Didn't someone in here say that religion doesn't belong in politics anyway?)

So such theistic discussion is made up of Q's and A's - what's your specific Q regarding reasons for not accepting a theistic conclusion?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yea, it's kind of annoying when people reject the experiences of millions of people as simple delusions, since personal accounts are the only evidence that anyone claims is available for the existence of God. If you reject the only kind of evidence that is claimed to be available, of course you're not going to find any evidence.

I understand why LG is frustrated. It has been stated repeatedly that evidence for God/gods/the supernatural, etc can only come from personal experiences, and it seems to be ignored. You don't dismiss personal experiences (especially when it comes from so many people) as non-existent. Obviously something is happening, it's just not capable of being examined in the usual, rigid manner.

When there are uniform qualities of the perception of god that surmount boundaries of time, geography, language etc it tends to suggest that god (or alternatively whatever people are responding to that gives rise tot he notion of god) is objective

 

[Jaster Mereel]

When there are uniform qualities of the perception of god that surmount boundaries of time, geography, language etc it tends to suggest that god (or alternatively whatever people are responding to that gives rise tot he notion of god) is objective

Whatever gives rise to all experiences is objective. We cannot know objective reality because all of our experiences are subjective. We know reality through experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

Whatever gives rise to all experiences is objective. We cannot know objective reality because all of our experiences are subjective. We know reality through experience.

So a subjective experience can also be objective

 

[Jaster Mereel]

So a subjective experience can also be objective

No, the experience cannot be objective. That which gives rise to our experiences is objective.