Rationalizing the existence of God

[(Q)]

Not really, I'm naming things that are global and large scale in nature, but there are things happening in our neighborhoods, every day. Anywhere USA has its fair share of violent crimes, and problems. It just might not make headline news, like a George Zimmerman/Treyvon Martin case, etc...

That is baloney, they are not happening every day in our neighborhoods. There are crime statistics we can look at to know and understand that there are indeed a small amount of events occurring due to a very small minority of people. Global and large scale in nature? Hardly. :lol:

True. I'm not meaning to broad brush ...which is why I also stated that ''I believe in humanity,''in the same sentence, meaning that the spirit of mankind will prevail against these atrocities.

No, the "spirit of mankind", whatever you believe that is, will not prevail. Education and understanding is what will prevail, but you aren't showing any of that.

I visited a holocaust museum last summer, and one of the comments of the concentration camp survivors posted in the exhibit, I took particular notice of...''...No matter how bad things got in the camps, I still believed that the world was a good place.'' One should always hold onto hope, no matter how bleak things may seem.

That's nice, I have been to Auschwitz, I have been to Babi Yar. So what?

Speaking of broad brushing, not everyone who is a theist follows Christianity, thus not everyone sees themselves or anyone else as needing to be 'saved.'
The 'definition' of theism does encompass however, the three Abrahamic faiths. (not exclusive to those three though)

That's nice. However, it is the Abrahamic religions that cause the vast majority of conflict and grief in the world, and pretty much always have. They are indeed religions that cause good people to do bad things. If you want the bad things in the world to decrease, we need to get rid of the bad ideologies that cause them, like religion.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

ok, fair enough. let's start over then.

in your statements here, why do you feel that way? what are the two conflicting views, in your eyes?

wegs, the two conflicting views, not in my eyes, but in my thoughts or mind, are "evolution" and "creation".

And, wegs, you are more than welcome to skip over the part about human beings manufacturing theologies and the creation beliefs only fairly recently on the very long time-line of human evolution.

wegs, I believe you are entitled to the first move...to "start over then."...so...at your leisure.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Overlooking the Linnaean influence which was prevalent at the time (early 20th century), here is an interesting quotation: -


So let me ask: is atheism akin to a plant denying the existence of animals on the basis that it lacks the faculties to perceive and to comprehend them?

Atheism is a rejection of the thing you are complaining about. It not rejects the notion that the human creature can see beyond its visual scope, and it rejects all fabrications that purport to be able to do so. How you turn this into an argument about atheism is typical of a lot of twisted logic that accompanies religion, most notably fundamentalism and its similarly fallacious (and speciously so) brand of pseudo-science, Creation Science. Why in the world anyone would pick Linnaeus of all people to found a proposition like this is suspiciously Creation Science in construction. Linnaeus established himself as an inveterate naturalist and creator of taxonomy. It has nothing to do with speculations on atheism, and until proven otherwise he is unqualified to comment on the subject. In any case he only undermines your position anyway, so it makes no sense whatsoever to even bring him into the discussion.

The more relevant experts would be any of those authorities on exegesis of whatever religious doctrine you are proposing, and of course anyone established in the study of mythology, artifacts, cultural paleontology and anthropology of the whichever cults of antiquity you are enshrining. Evidently you are not proposing that the cosmos was created by the strewing of the body parts of the slain dragon-mother Tiamat across the sky, by her nemesis Marduk. That leaves you in the tenuous position of explaining why your particular view of a deity is any more valid than that one.

The key here, which is completely overlooked by Creation Science, is that all religions are nothing more than the perpetuation of myth, legend and fable passed down from cults of antiquity which were steeped in superstition and ignorance of the laws of nature. That alone is enough to set the basis for this thread since all you are doing (we must infer) is reacting to the evidence that your beliefs are confronted by the natural laws discovered in the last few centuries.

Without equivocating, it's safe to say that God does not exist for a multitude of reasons, but the overriding one - the one that makes all inquiry moot - is that this is nothing more than "hearsay upon hearsay" (Thomas Paine), that "men invented the gods" (Critias) and thus there is nothing for the lowly creature to reach beyond his grasp to discern, other than the fantasy that created all religions in the first place. Seek and ye shall find. Go tell us how many myths you have incorporated into your world view, and which cultures are known to have shaped them.

As for projecting this as some sort of statement about atheism, you are at best railing against windmills--the ones turning in your own mind, that is--but which have no ground in what atheists think. To be real--or should I say honest--you need to take up some substantial and relevant fact to validate your view, trace it to its ancient roots, and come to a basic understanding of how and why ancient cultures wove their myths, and how and why these alone have led you to you present world view. As long as you distance yourself from the historical reference for whatever religion you are pursuing (fundamentalism, evidently) you remain in denial. That makes all discussion here problematic for you.

Without a doubt atheism is unscathed by your specious attempt to exploit Linnaeus to advance the causes of fundamentalism. If anything, you've only demonstrated by example why so many folks take the atheist position in the first place. They have no stomach for dishonesty.

 

[wegs]

@ (Q) ... we have entirely different world views, so we will have to agree to disagree. I don't wish to convince you of mine, and you won't convince me of yours.

 

[(Q)]

@ (Q) ... we have entirely different world views, so we will have to agree to disagree. I don't wish to convince you of mine, and you won't convince me of yours.

Your worldview is not of reality, so it's not going to be convincing in the least. It is a very simple matter to look at crime statistics to show your narrow minded worldview is ridiculous at best and most likely reflects your religious views, that we are all evil sinners not worthy.

 

[wegs]

I never said anything of the kind; your mean spirited comments, I don't understand.
It's tiring to spar with someone who puts words in my mouth and then expects me to defend them. I'm not "religious" by the way. But...I digress. Your desire to make me look stupid and narrow minded trumps your desire for any meaningful exchange.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Your worldview is not of reality, so it's not going to be convincing in the least. It is a very simple matter to look at crime statistics to show your narrow minded worldview is ridiculous at best and most likely reflects your religious views, that we are all evil sinners not worthy.

Hi (Q) you must have been on sabbatical from the board to have racked up so many posts and I've not yet noticed you. While I would fully endorse your remarks if they were directed toward the typical anti-science religious cranks that typically troll sites like this, I want to point out that wegs is an entirely different class of religious persona. She's no fundie or crank. Among other things, she expresses the voice of humility which would not pass judgment on others. She certainly has a much broader mind than any fundie, and far more reasonable. Just thought I should give credit where due, even though I'm a devout atheist, and strongly opposed to fundamentalism and all of its anti-science and social conservative agendas.

 

[(Q)]

I never said anything of the kind; your mean spirited comments, I don't understand.

Sorry, it was YOU who was spouting off doom and gloom, hence that would 'mean spirited', if anything. Perhaps, that's why you don't understand.

It's tiring to spar with someone who puts words in my mouth and then expects me to defend them. I'm not "religious" by the way.

Then, you don't believe in gods? Are you an atheist, then? Funny, you sound just like a believer.

But...I digress. Your desire to make me look stupid and narrow minded trumps your desire for any meaningful exchange.

I'm not the one making you look like that. They are your words.

 

[(Q)]

She certainly has a much broader mind than any fundie, and far more reasonable.

I have not seen that, perhaps you're referring to someone else?

 

[wegs]

Hi (Q) you must have been on sabbatical from the board to have racked up so many posts and I've not yet noticed you. While I would fully endorse your remarks if they were directed toward the typical anti-science religious cranks that typically troll sites like this, I want to point out that wegs is an entirely different class of religious persona. She's no fundie or crank. Among other things, she expresses the voice of humility which would not pass judgment on others. She certainly has a much broader mind than any fundie, and far more reasonable. Just thought I should give credit where due, even though I'm a devout atheist, and strongly opposed to fundamentalism and all of its anti-science and social conservative agendas.

That's very kind of you to say, thanks.

 

[Combo]

Atheism is a rejection of the thing you are complaining about. It not rejects the notion that the human creature can see beyond its visual scope, and it rejects all fabrications that purport to be able to do so. How you turn this into an argument about atheism is typical of a lot of twisted logic that accompanies religion, most notably fundamentalism and its similarly fallacious (and speciously so) brand of pseudo-science, Creation Science. Why in the world anyone would pick Linnaeus of all people to found a proposition like this is suspiciously Creation Science in construction. Linnaeus established himself as an inveterate naturalist and creator of taxonomy. It has nothing to do with speculations on atheism, and until proven otherwise he is unqualified to comment on the subject. In any case he only undermines your position anyway, so it makes no sense whatsoever to even bring him into the discussion.

The more relevant experts would be any of those authorities on exegesis of whatever religious doctrine you are proposing, and of course anyone established in the study of mythology, artifacts, cultural paleontology and anthropology of the whichever cults of antiquity you are enshrining. Evidently you are not proposing that the cosmos was created by the strewing of the body parts of the slain dragon-mother Tiamat across the sky, by her nemesis Marduk. That leaves you in the tenuous position of explaining why your particular view of a deity is any more valid than that one.

The key here, which is completely overlooked by Creation Science, is that all religions are nothing more than the perpetuation of myth, legend and fable passed down from cults of antiquity which were steeped in superstition and ignorance of the laws of nature. That alone is enough to set the basis for this thread since all you are doing (we must infer) is reacting to the evidence that your beliefs are confronted by the natural laws discovered in the last few centuries.

Without equivocating, it's safe to say that God does not exist for a multitude of reasons, but the overriding one - the one that makes all inquiry moot - is that this is nothing more than "hearsay upon hearsay" (Thomas Paine), that "men invented the gods" (Critias) and thus there is nothing for the lowly creature to reach beyond his grasp to discern, other than the fantasy that created all religions in the first place. Seek and ye shall find. Go tell us how many myths you have incorporated into your world view, and which cultures are known to have shaped them.

As for projecting this as some sort of statement about atheism, you are at best railing against windmills--the ones turning in your own mind, that is--but which have no ground in what atheists think. To be real--or should I say honest--you need to take up some substantial and relevant fact to validate your view, trace it to its ancient roots, and come to a basic understanding of how and why ancient cultures wove their myths, and how and why these alone have led you to you present world view. As long as you distance yourself from the historical reference for whatever religion you are pursuing (fundamentalism, evidently) you remain in denial. That makes all discussion here problematic for you.

Without a doubt atheism is unscathed by your specious attempt to exploit Linnaeus to advance the causes of fundamentalism. If anything, you've only demonstrated by example why so many folks take the atheist position in the first place. They have no stomach for dishonesty.

I encouraged overlooking the Linnaean influence: the division of life into mineral, plant, animal, and human was typical of that period, however this does not distract from the core idea conveyed in the quotation.

You made many assumptions about me which reveal confusion and anger on your part. I forgive you.

The point is that we are surrounded by examples of life which are incapable of comprehending higher realities. The example of plants, and their inability to comprehend animals, is simple, accessible and fit for the purpose of the present discussion.

The argument here is simply this: if we accept that limitations of the human intellect and imagination exist, then must we not admit the possibility of the existence of realities superior to our own? Nature has provided us with endless examples of this, yet why does atheism -- which so often advocates empirical observation -- ultimately reject observations which, naturally, would suggest man may also have limitations and be incapable of comprehending higher realities? Agnosticism accepts the possibility, atheism rejects it.

We so often see atheists accuse theists of giving man a special place in the universe -- and this is often true -- but by rejecting the possibility of the existence of any reality not tangible to man, atheism is guilty of this also, as such a status is not accorded to any other species.

A cow in a field is the professor emeritus of atheistic thinking "I eat grass, I accept only that which is tangible".

 

[(Q)]

A cow in a field is the professor emeritus of atheistic thinking "I eat grass, I accept only that which is tangible".

A believer with their holy book is the professor emeritus of magical thinking, "I pray to God, I accept only that which is invisible and undetectable."

 

[Combo]

A believer with their holy book is the professor emeritus of magical thinking, "I pray to God, I accept only that which is invisible and undetectable."

Ah, but the statement about the cow is an accurate representation of atheistic thinking: indeed, several atheists have restated this philosophy in this thread alone!

 

[wegs]

I encouraged overlooking the Linnaean influence: the division of life into mineral, plant, animal, and human was typical of that period, however this does not distract from the core idea conveyed in the quotation.

You made many assumptions about me which reveal confusion and anger on your part. I forgive you.

The point is that we are surrounded by examples of life which are incapable of comprehending higher realities. The example of plants, and their inability to comprehend animals, is simple, accessible and fit for the purpose of the present discussion.

The argument here is simply this: if we accept that limitations of the human intellect and imagination exist, then must we not admit the possibility of the existence of realities superior to our own? Nature has provided us with endless examples of this, yet why does atheism -- which so often advocates empirical observation -- ultimately reject observations which, naturally, would suggest man may also have limitations and be incapable of comprehending higher realities? Agnosticism accepts the possibility, atheism rejects it.

We so often see atheists accuse theists of giving man a special place in the universe -- and this is often true -- but by rejecting the possibility of the existence of any reality not tangible to man, atheism is guilty of this also, as such a status is not accorded to any other species.

A cow in a field is the professor emeritus of atheistic thinking "I eat grass, I accept only that which is tangible".

This is well said, with an emphasis on the word, "possibility."
It goes without saying, as a believer in God, I can't offer proof of my belief. But, I'm open to the possibility that the universe has a Creator.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Ah, but the statement about the cow is an accurate representation of atheistic thinking: indeed, several atheists have restated this philosophy in this thread alone!

Combo, are you an Atheist? If you are not, how do you know exactly what "...is an accurate representation of atheistic thinking"?

Combo, who exactly are these "...several atheists (that) have restated this philosophy in this thread"?

And again, Combo, how does you or anyone else know exactly what the limits of comprehension or knowledge is anyone or anything of is, without communicating with that someone or something?

Combo, if all I had to go on was your Posts in this Forum Thread, other than the seeming ability to type that you seem to possess - I have met pets and wild animals that have shown more comprehension and , indeed, intelligence or knowledge than you have exposed in this Thread!

So...now...Combo, would you please apply what intelligence, knowledge and comprehension skills you may have...and tell me, am I, dmoe, a Theist, an Atheist, an Agnostic or...

Combo, I would really like an honest, thoughtful answer - but since you have ignored my other Posts and questions - I do not expect that you will deign to reply!

 

[wegs]

wegs, the two conflicting views, not in my eyes, but in my thoughts or mind, are "evolution" and "creation".

And, wegs, you are more than welcome to skip over the part about human beings manufacturing theologies and the creation beliefs only fairly recently on the very long time-line of human evolution.

wegs, I believe you are entitled to the first move...to "start over then."...so...at your leisure.

Re: manufacturing of theologies; interesting you say that. Dating back to the Paleolithic Era, mankind was noted as having a belief in shamanism ...a belief that was about altering states of consciousness, a "quasi" spirituality of sorts. And it begs the question, is mankind inherently curious as to why we are here and if there is a "higher power" than us?

Is it wrong to want to believe that?

So, to an extent, I have a belief system that has no proof, no tangible proof.
But, the feeling is real. When I pray, what I experience or feel is real.

I know that may sound trite to you, but that is how I can best express it to you.

I grew up in organized religion, but I've realized the fallacies and legalistic nonsense of it and feel that my faith is really more of a personal spiritual experience. There are still things I find redeeming in the bible, but the bible isn't God. Man wrote the Bible.

But the spiritual feeling of connectedness to a higher power has always lasted with me.

 

[Combo]

It's peculiar that an individual who selects the name 'dumbest man on earth' (a name I interpreted as humility with a measure of self-deprecating humor), would make such statements about the "intelligence, knowledge and comprehension skills" of another person. That aside, let's see:

Combo, are you an Atheist? If you are not, how do you know exactly what "...is an accurate representation of atheistic thinking"?

Does it have any bearing on the discussion what my own beliefs are? My dictionary defines atheism in just 9 words: "the belief or theory that God does not exist". The statements I have made on atheistic thinking follow logically from this premiss.

And again, Combo, how does you or anyone else know exactly what the limits of comprehension or knowledge is anyone or anything of is, without communicating with that someone or something?

We could go off on a tangent discussing this -- and some of the aspects you mentioned including chemical signalling between species are certainly interesting -- but it would be a distraction would it not? We surely can agree that a plant lacks the capacity to comprehend an animal?

 

[Sarkus]

Does it have any bearing on the discussion what my own beliefs are?

It does if they fuel what you consider to be factual without further support.

My dictionary defines atheism in just 9 words: "the belief or theory that God does not exist". The statements I have made on atheistic thinking follow logically from this premiss.

Your dictionary seems to be rather simplistic in its definitions, or are you choosing to omit other definitions offered by it?
Atheism, as most atheists understand and use the term, is not as clear cut as a positive belief in the non-existence of God, but covers the spectrum of people who merely do not have the positive belief in the existence of God.
Try reading wikipedia's article on the subject - it offers a reasonable encapsulation of the matter.
Theists tend to just argue against the "strong" atheists (i.e. those who have the positive belief in the non-existence of God), but unfortunately do not at the outset of their argument make that clarification, and as such draw responses from other flavours of atheist.

You also need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about why atheists hold the position they do - there is no wholly shared rationalisation of their position.

 

[(Q)]

Re: manufacturing of theologies; interesting you say that. Dating back to the Paleolithic Era, mankind was noted as having a belief in shamanism ...a belief that was about altering states of consciousness, a "quasi" spirituality of sorts. And it begs the question, is mankind inherently curious as to why we are here and if there is a "higher power" than us?

Is it wrong to want to believe that?

Of course not, lots of folks want to believe in all kinds of ridiculous ideas, but that doesn't make any of them true. It just tends to show that folks who are indoctrinated haven't developed their brains to use critical thinking skills. Instead, they use belief systems, which are often wrong.

So, to an extent, I have a belief system that has no proof, no tangible proof.
But, the feeling is real. When I pray, what I experience or feel is real.

You can't possibly know that any of those feelings have anything to do with gods. We all experience feelings.

I grew up in organized religion, but I've realized the fallacies and legalistic nonsense of it and feel that my faith is really more of a personal spiritual experience. There are still things I find redeeming in the bible, but the bible isn't God. Man wrote the Bible.

But the spiritual feeling of connectedness to a higher power has always lasted with me.

But, that is what you want to believe, you said the yourself. Growing up in an organized religion is merely indoctrination.

 

[wegs]

Of course not, lots of folks want to believe in all kinds of ridiculous ideas, but that doesn't make any of them true.

But, why is it ridiculous to believe in something that hasn't been proven? (or can't be proven)

It just tends to show that folks who are indoctrinated haven't developed their brains to use critical thinking skills.

lol, that's not true, (Q) Are you saying only atheists have the ability to use critical thinking skills?

You can't possibly know that any of those feelings have anything to do with gods. We all experience feelings.

Have you ever believed in the possibility of God's existence?

But, that is what you want to believe, you said the yourself.

I do wish to believe in something beyond the here and now, yes. But, I know I can't prove my beliefs, and I also don't push them on others.

Growing up in an organized religion is merely indoctrination.

That could be true. But, organized religion is not synonymous with spirituality. It's often riddled with legalism, and to me, it's one of the root causes of the ills we see in our world.