cool skill said:
<img src="http://winace.andkon.com/pics/delusion_invitation.jpg">
Saving Theists a Ton of Grief
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
<img src="http://winace.andkon.com/pics/delusion_invitation.jpg">
superluminal said:
This is a set of beliefs to explain why other people believe in God, it is not evidence. However, I'm pleased you are still in the debate - I think SkinWalker has lost language skills altogether (probably the flugrumple)!
What I find "irrational" in your argument is that you agreed that:
1) "God may still exist in "objective" reality" and
2) "the evidence for his existence is a "subjective truth"." and therefore
3) "For such a person belief is based on evidence and is not irrational (even if it is unprovable to anyone else)."
...however, in the same post you then conclude that belief in God is:
1) Not a working hypothesis, but an occasional speculation by anyone with a shred of imagination.
2) Not the possibility that it might be wrong, but the probability that it is almost certainy wrong.
3) I see nothing but an accumulation of evidence that supports a cosmos that requires no god to explain it.
Which completely contradicts what you agreed earlier! Doesn't it? Subjective experience is perceived directly. A pseudophysical thing like a mirage or a ghost might be a delusion, but you cannot be mistaken about a subjective mental experience such as a thought or a feeling or a pain?
superluminal said:
If you are the only one who sees the flugrumple (or FSM or IPU) and it has no discernable positive effect in your life, or maybe you show other signs of mental illness - I would probably agree. The "significant difference" is that many sane people from many religious backgrounds have had experiences of what they would call God or Atman or Buddah Nature which profoundly change their lives for the better. People find forgiveness, self acceptance, inner peace, contentment, zest for life etc. as a result of such experiences. It is as nonsensical and insulting to dismiss them as delusion, as to dismiss your love of your family as "sentimental schmultz".
Last edited:
superluminal said:
you lost alot of respect i had for you before, by making this statement. you have an absolute predisposition toward a position, which is hardly scientific.
the rest of the post i agree with, however. that is why you will never see me discussing "qualitative" experiences on this board.
Funny I did the same thing with the words "origin of god" and found that a being simply can't create itself out of nothing either. :bugeye:
Energy is superior to any notion of your god, Energy is what created existence, if god exist, it needs energy to exist, it needs energy to create, energy is superior to the entity of god.
So god is non existent, cause no entity can create itself without energy.
Godless
Godless,
Your statements in that last post were silly. I don't believe that you have contributed anything to this discussion. Sorry.
Your statements in that last post were silly. I don't believe that you have contributed anything to this discussion. Sorry.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Godless' statement is silly. It follows the same logic as leopold99's statement.
If there *is* a god, there must have been a god that created it, creating a paradox in an infinite universe of an infinite number of gods. Strange, we can't even find a single one. It follows that a universe capable of creating a god that is omniscient/omnipotent must be capable of creating itself.
There simply is no need for a god in a universe capable of creating a god.
If there *is* a god, there must have been a god that created it, creating a paradox in an infinite universe of an infinite number of gods. Strange, we can't even find a single one. It follows that a universe capable of creating a god that is omniscient/omnipotent must be capable of creating itself.
There simply is no need for a god in a universe capable of creating a god.
That wasn't my point, SkinWalker. The very concept of god supposes some kind of existence outside of the physical universe, so using that kind of logic won't get you anywhere. In fact, using any kind of logical argument against the existence of some kind of deity is completely fruitless because most people who believe in a deity believe that such a deity exists outside of the realm of logic. It was a complete waste of time to type that, and it was only designed to be inflammatory and to provoke the people who hold such beliefs, as are most of the statements denying the existence of god around here.
I think it's funny that I, personally, end up arguing with the atheists on this forum so much when I am not even a theist. Perhaps the disrespectful, inflammatory tone taken by most of you guys toward believers upsets me a little bit, or perhaps there is another reason... it doesn't really matter.
I think it's funny that I, personally, end up arguing with the atheists on this forum so much when I am not even a theist. Perhaps the disrespectful, inflammatory tone taken by most of you guys toward believers upsets me a little bit, or perhaps there is another reason... it doesn't really matter.
The existence of a god still implies that it was created. "Outside the physical universe?" What's that look like? Another, bigger universe that this one is in? Doesn't that simply imply the same paradox of who created the creator?
Anwsering these questions and questions about gods in general with "its magic" doesn't wash.
And you argue with atheists because you're a theist. Saying you aren't doesn't wash anymore than the "it's magic" argument.
Anwsering these questions and questions about gods in general with "its magic" doesn't wash.
And you argue with atheists because you're a theist. Saying you aren't doesn't wash anymore than the "it's magic" argument.
I didn't say that I believed it, I said that's what theists believe. I was taking issue with inflammatory statements that are made when you know that's what they believe.SkinWalker said:
Again, I wasn't arguing "it's magic", I'm saying that's what theists believe and that you ignore the belief completely when you start making statements like the ones usually made.
You arrogant little piss-ant. How dare you tell me what I believe and what I dont? You know absolutely nothing about my personal beliefs. I do not believe in a god. I do not practice religious rituals, or profess belief in myths. More often than not, I am on the side of those who rely on logic and reason to discuss issues, i.e. the vast majority of atheists. I do not identify myself as an atheist because I feel it is a limiting word. The reason why I argue with atheists on this message board is because the vast majority of you assholes aren't actually here to discuss anything in a civil fashion, but rather are here for the kick you get out of arguing and pissing religious people off, and that makes me angry because that's not what your position is supposed to be about. Most of you can't even acknowledge that you believe there is no god, which means that you suffer from the same narrow-mindedness that the vast majority of theists suffer from. You make the same kind of bland, sweeping statements of absolute truth that makes me angry at religious people, and so I treat you the same way as I treat religious people. Do you know why? Because you are.
Of course I have a position. A very firm one. I've already done the research over decades of life. I'm not trying to discover some new truth here for myself. I am completely objective regarding evidence. Show me new evidence of a deity and I will weigh it like I weigh any evidence. I am not, however, unsure of the state of evidence for deities. Therefore, my objectivity does not encompass being genteel about things of which I have examined a thousand times and found completely inadequate.The Devil Inside said:
Do people here ecpect all of us to be "virgins" in our attitudes toward religion? In the physics boards, I've participated in many discussions of relativity being "wrong" and perpetual motion machines being possible. Imagine me, an engineer, putting up with repeated assertions that these assertions are "correct".
Diogenes' Dog said:
I beg to differ. While they may not be evidence as in physical evidence, they are certainly more than beliefs. They are hypotheses supported by research into evolutionary psychology, supported by observational evidence and experiments.
Well, let's see. Maybe I did.
1) "God may still exist in "objective" reality"
and
1) Not a working hypothesis, but an occasional speculation by anyone with a shred of imagination.
This is simple "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I already said that while gravity is the most fundamental of things, an exception is not ruled out by this. That would be silly. We may discover an exception to the law of gravity tomorrow and I would expect researchers to be all over it, testing it in every concievable way. Same for god.
2) "the evidence for his existence is a "subjective truth"."
and
2) Not the possibility that it might be wrong, but the probability that it is almost certainy wrong.
In objective reality. I think we may be having a problem with the pragmatic concept of objective reality vs subjective experience, which is "real" to the experiencer but completely without objective, measurable properties. I understand that the subjective experience can have great effects on the individual, and indeed translate to objective effects on the world through his behavior based on the experience. This is not the same as the experience itself being an objective thing obviously.
3) I see nothing but an accumulation of evidence that supports a cosmos that requires no god to explain it.
and
3) "For such a person belief is based on evidence and is not irrational (even if it is unprovable to anyone else)."
I meant to say that it is not irrational to the person. To claim, however, that "it" exists in reality, without credible evidence, is irrational. The claim that god exists as an objective entity, because they had a vivid subjective experience, is irrational.
I completely disagree. Let's change "delusion" to "common mental experience, possibly culturally influenced, based on innate brain mechanisms placed under stress by disease or environmental events". This is not nonsensical or insulting. It is supported by a growing body of neurobiological evidence.
People can take whatever they wish from a mental experience. What has that to do with whether the experience points to something objectively real? My love of my family is "sentimental schmultz". What of it? It would only matter if I was required to prove it to some government agency or something.
Jaster Mereel said:
First, that you would infer the statements made by myself or godless with regard to the logic of creators, gods, etc as inflammatory is, in itself, reason to believe you are theistic. Only believers allow themselves to become upset or offended when those that refuse to buy into their superstitions and beliefs question or criticize them.
Jaster Mereel said:
I don't "ignore" the belief, I criticize it. I question it. I say its bollocks. If you argue from the point of view of the believer, you deserve to have the illogic of the belief thrown in your face just for asserting the belief as valid.
Jaster Mereel said:
I dare because you argue from the point of view of the silly superstitions. Indeed, I probably confused you with another member whom I remembered as stating their beliefs to include a god. I checked and came back here to edit my post but you already replied. For confusing you with someone else, I offer my apologies. But I must say, your response is quite telling. You may not be a believer in gods (and just like to argue their beleifs for them -an apologist's apologist?). A quick review reveals that you're just the guy that asserted Star Wars wasn't science fiction!
Jaster Mereel said:
Most likely because you're a theist in denial. But that's just my opinion.
Jaster Mereel said:
Now who's the "arrogant little piss-ant?" What's my "position" supposed to be about? And why is it supposed to be taboo to question and criticize the very beliefs of religious nutters who are asserting these beliefs as a means to codify them in our government? Many of the hot topics in the so-called culture wars today involve religious superstitions being applied to legislation that will affect all of society, regardless of religion or creed. Somehow its okay, even appropriate to criticize others for their political ideologies, but taboo to even question the religious positions and assertions of others.
I don't buy it. Religion is too pervasive of a human characteristic to let go unchecked.
Jaster Mereel said:
I don't believe there is a god. I could never say that a god or gods don't exist, but I've seen no evidence to suggest one is even necessary much less in existence. What you mistake for "narrow-mindedness" is critique and inquiry on a human institution that too many simply tolerate without question and inquiry. NO human endeavor deserves such carte blanche, particularly one that has historically been the root of the most evil and despicable human actions through wars, genocide, inquisition, and oppression.
Jaster Mereel said:
I say you're full of it and I re-assert that you're probably a theist in denial. First, you react to simple logical statements of godless and myself as if it were a personal attack on you -and they were very logical observations that don't have satisfactory answers. You offer the "it's magic" argument, which you backtrack on and state isn't your own. You assert that we're making "sweeping statements of absolute truth" but don't offer any example or even try to refute the statements with any argument other than "it's magic" (which you claim isn't your argument).
I keep coming back to the basis of all of this.
It seems that some posters feel that every time a theist begins claiming thus-and-such about gods, etc. we should all reboot and begin discussing with them from first principles. Seems a bit like having to go back to Pythagoras to begin every new discussion of modern building construction. It's kind of a given that we have the basics in-hand. Here are some givens:
1) Atheism is a word that means "without theism". For most of us it includes a very high certainty that there is no god. This is not arrogance. It is simple observation and statistics. Very simple. Some will say with absolut certainty that there is no god. But to use my gravity example, that's like saying there will never be an exception found to gravitational law. Just an note though. Moust of us at one time or another can be heard to say "there is no freakin' god you numbnuts". This is almost always frustration raising it's head.
2) Most of us understand completely that people have subjective experiences in their minds. We all do. The phenomenon of calling some insanity, or delusions, while others are revered as religious visions or life-changing experiences, is, in my opinion, largely cultural and based on predispositions of evolutionary psychology.
3) The requirement for evidence is not fanatical or arrogant. Everyone - theists included - require evidence for claims made in their everyday lives. Some of the sharpest businessmen are theists. They do not "trust to faith" their business dealings. In a court of law, the theist and atheist are both subject to the weight of "evidence" brought to bear for or against them. It's fundamental.
4) The claims of theists regarding gods as totally subjective or spiritual experiences is bollocks. Otherwise, why would a theist then need to discuss this completely subjective experience with others? Why would a theist try to influence anyone based on something that had no objective reality? Why would I try to influence you into accepting my love for my family as an objective reality and ask you to base your actions around it? No. Theists believe their god has an objective reality and affects the world. This leads to #5.
5) Given #4, it is good and right to question the statements and actions of theists the instant they move from the realm of subjective mind exercises to objective statements and behaviors. This is not about the philosophical meanderings of gods in the human mind. It's about the human mind projecting god into politics, education, public and governmental policy, and scientific decision making.
Sheesh.
Edit:
Regarding the FSM my assertion is that, except for a cultural tradition of revering established religious doctrines, and a few more writings devoted to traditional religions, the FSM has as much validity as any subjective claim without evidence.
Please refrain from dissing the FSM without first considering why the FSM is any less likely than the god(s) of traditional religions.
It seems that some posters feel that every time a theist begins claiming thus-and-such about gods, etc. we should all reboot and begin discussing with them from first principles. Seems a bit like having to go back to Pythagoras to begin every new discussion of modern building construction. It's kind of a given that we have the basics in-hand. Here are some givens:
1) Atheism is a word that means "without theism". For most of us it includes a very high certainty that there is no god. This is not arrogance. It is simple observation and statistics. Very simple. Some will say with absolut certainty that there is no god. But to use my gravity example, that's like saying there will never be an exception found to gravitational law. Just an note though. Moust of us at one time or another can be heard to say "there is no freakin' god you numbnuts". This is almost always frustration raising it's head.
2) Most of us understand completely that people have subjective experiences in their minds. We all do. The phenomenon of calling some insanity, or delusions, while others are revered as religious visions or life-changing experiences, is, in my opinion, largely cultural and based on predispositions of evolutionary psychology.
3) The requirement for evidence is not fanatical or arrogant. Everyone - theists included - require evidence for claims made in their everyday lives. Some of the sharpest businessmen are theists. They do not "trust to faith" their business dealings. In a court of law, the theist and atheist are both subject to the weight of "evidence" brought to bear for or against them. It's fundamental.
4) The claims of theists regarding gods as totally subjective or spiritual experiences is bollocks. Otherwise, why would a theist then need to discuss this completely subjective experience with others? Why would a theist try to influence anyone based on something that had no objective reality? Why would I try to influence you into accepting my love for my family as an objective reality and ask you to base your actions around it? No. Theists believe their god has an objective reality and affects the world. This leads to #5.
5) Given #4, it is good and right to question the statements and actions of theists the instant they move from the realm of subjective mind exercises to objective statements and behaviors. This is not about the philosophical meanderings of gods in the human mind. It's about the human mind projecting god into politics, education, public and governmental policy, and scientific decision making.
Sheesh.
Edit:
Regarding the FSM my assertion is that, except for a cultural tradition of revering established religious doctrines, and a few more writings devoted to traditional religions, the FSM has as much validity as any subjective claim without evidence.
Please refrain from dissing the FSM without first considering why the FSM is any less likely than the god(s) of traditional religions.
Last edited:
leopold99 said:
You said:
leopold99 said:
And godless said:
godless said:
His statement follows the same logic as your own. We should all question the origins of life -that's how discovery is made. You won't find evidence in google, but you may find clues through the data compiled by others in primary literature. This data has led to several models that are viable and have demonstrated that life can emerge from chemical processes that would include substances that would previously be considered not alive.
Since there's simply no way to know precisely what processes really took place 3.8 to 4 billion years scientists can only come up with plausible reactions applicable to early Earth scenarios and based on available evidence of what the composition and conditions of early Earth may have been. But doing so reveals much. Even looking at extreme environments on modern Earth we can learn about prebiotic conditions and evolution.
There probably is no *one* model that will ever be agreed upon, nor is it necessary that there was only *one* process that occurred in prebiotic Earth. The important thing is that it has been clearly demonstrated that such processes can occur and these processes are demonstrated without a doubt. I recommend perusing the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres for many articles written on just such demonstrations -the methodologies are plainly described and ready for your refutation if it's possible.
then explain this:SkinWalker said:
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
edit
now tell me skinwalker what is so illogical about me saying that i cannot find any evidence that life comes from non life?
give me just one verified link that life has been created from the elements.
Last edited:
You're missing what I was saying. I said that godless' statement followed your logic. Nor is there any evidence that life did come from non-life. But there is evidence that life can come from non-life. You won't find the evidence at a link, you'll need to review the primary literature and the journal I offered is a good start.
Really? Do bibles come with detailed methodologies that can be reproduced by peers? If so, please demonstrate how the stop-the-earth-from-rotating-for-a-day thing works.
Don't talk to me about wanting to refute that which you don't bother to educate yourself on. At least when I refute biblical superstitions, I'm doing so from the perspective of one who has read them.
Don't talk to me about wanting to refute that which you don't bother to educate yourself on. At least when I refute biblical superstitions, I'm doing so from the perspective of one who has read them.
it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of brains to figure out that science cannot prove their assertions when it comes to lifes origins.SkinWalker said:
to be frank all i see is a bunch of hot air.
you talk about being reproduced by peers, since when has anybody taken the peer reveiwed material and created life from the elements?.
your peer reveiwed book says it happened so why can't it be reproduced?
ah i see it takes millions of years
but skinwalker computers can compress millions of years into 1 or 2 days.
let me ask you a question skinwalker
what would it take to convince you your child is guilty of murder?
would you settle for a book full of explainations that cannot be proved?
but you are willing to accept that life comes from non life even though there is no proof of it. oh i'm sorry an explaination that can't be proved.