strawmen of god

[iceaura]

The point with the cargo cult is that the object of their faith can be contextualized without a heavy reliance on tentative arguments.

I doubt that, given your apparent conception of "tentative argument". Certainly your "rusted hull" approach is a wide miss of the mark.

Similar types of arguments directed against more regular types of theisms don't have that resource.

For instance in your statement about the rising dead, there is no observation of the intrinsic quality of life

You talked about rusted hulls, I talked about rotting corpses. If you had broached the topic of the intrinsic quality of cargo and resurrection, my response would have been appropriate to that, different, discussion.

So what are you denying - that there is evidence for the possibility that gods are projections by humans unto the natural world, or that such evidence favors atheistic comprehension?
”
does evidence that some scientists got it wrong indicate that all scientists are getting it wrong?

Its one thing to draw a conclusion in a particular circumstance.

Its another to extrapolate that to all circumstances.

You forgot to answer the question.

 

[lightgigantic]

I doubt that, given your apparent conception of "tentative argument". Certainly your "rusted hull" approach is a wide miss of the mark.

The deity of the cargo cultists is a documented product of industrial society that can be thoroughly contextualized in issues of production and commerce.

Even though such a faith may persist, it can be disregarded in light of that (although there is still the argument that it is simply a misapplication of a correct innate tendency, namely to recognize and worship something as greater than ourselves)

You talked about rusted hulls, I talked about rotting corpses.

actually you were talking about life.
I am pointing out that this is nowhere near as observable as transport vehicles, unless you can manufacture it in the same way.

If you had broached the topic of the intrinsic quality of cargo and resurrection, my response would have been appropriate to that, different, discussion.
You forgot to answer the question.

I did.

Is there evidence that gods are human projections?
Sure - I even opened up with the example of cargo cultists.
Just like there is evidence of scientific claims being nothing more than human projections.

Does such evidence support the claim that all gods a re human projections (aka atheism)?
No more than the evidence that some scientific claims are human projections paints all science with the same brush.

Its one thing to draw a conclusion in a particular circumstance.

Its another to extrapolate that to all circumstances.

 

[SnakeLord]

If the only hits come from persons who don't believe it (ie atheists playing coy) the idea is not represented in any form what to speak of any philosophical form...

1. Once again: Argumentum ad populum. You are presenting a fallacy. Kindly refrain from doing so. If you do not understand why and how it is a fallacy, some research might be in order.

2. You are being either dishonest or naive if you think leprechaun history is an atheist thing - not that it's of any consequence to whether leprechauns really exist or not, (no lg, no more argumentum ad populum please).

3. Maybe it is common for you to present fallacies as arguments - and maybe they even seem valid to you - but they're not and I would ask you to refrain from doing so, (or at least refrain from complaining about people presenting fallacious arguments while then presenting one yourself. At best you look like a hypocrite, at worst you look naive and inexperienced).

4. Given that you seemingly can't even grasp the very basics, (fallacies), you have no place to be using the term philosophical as if you're even remotely familiar with it.

which brings us back to the old issue of the requirements for evidence

This of course is a lengthy and completely different subject. Now at least you understand why the comparison is made and on what basis. It is not because gods and mermaids share the same sea or anything to do with gods having more impact upon the world.

since you have one party claiming that there is no evidence and the other claiming that there is

Don't want to drag this off-topic but then I would submit that the most pertinent thing we can do right now is sit down and come to an agreement on exactly what constitutes 'evidence'. Unfortunately you'll find that as far as it goes, god claims are supposition, not evidence - based upon ignorance and god of the gaps, (both fallacies).

However, I am open to your statement as to what exactly constitutes 'evidence'.

 

[iceaura]

The deity of the cargo cultists is a documented product of industrial society that can be thoroughly contextualized in issues of production and commerce.

That and a buck fifty will get you a decent cup of coffee, most places.

The deity of the Lutherans is a documented product of medieval European society that can be thoroughly contextualized in issues of trade and war between kingdoms.

Does that mean we can disregard it?

You forgot to answer the question.
”
I did.

No, you did not answer the question.

Is there evidence that gods are human projections?
Sure - I even opened up with the example of cargo cultists.
Just like there is evidence of scientific claims being nothing more than human projections.

And due to that evidence, presented with solid argument, most of us have come to agree that science is "nothing more" than human projections.

Does such evidence support the claim that all gods a re human projections - - ?

Yes.

(aka atheism)

No.

No more than the evidence that some scientific claims are human projections paints all science with the same brush.

And no less.

 

[lightgigantic]

1. Once again: Argumentum ad populum. You are presenting a fallacy. Kindly refrain from doing so. If you do not understand why and how it is a fallacy, some research might be in order.

Its not so much that more persons vouch against leprechauns than for them, but rather that no one vouches for leprechauns (aside from atheists playing coy of course)

2. You are being either dishonest or naive if you think leprechaun history is an atheist thing - not that it's of any consequence to whether leprechauns really exist or not, (no lg, no more argumentum ad populum please).

At least as far as sci is concerned, the only people vouching for them are atheists (atheists playing coy, to be precise)

3. Maybe it is common for you to present fallacies as arguments - and maybe they even seem valid to you - but they're not and I would ask you to refrain from doing so, (or at least refrain from complaining about people presenting fallacious arguments while then presenting one yourself. At best you look like a hypocrite, at worst you look naive and inexperienced).

will the irony never end?

4. Given that you seemingly can't even grasp the very basics, (fallacies), you have no place to be using the term philosophical as if you're even remotely familiar with it.

This of course is a lengthy and completely different subject. Now at least you understand why the comparison is made and on what basis. It is not because gods and mermaids share the same sea or anything to do with gods having more impact upon the world.

the comparison is made by one party because they think there is no evidence ... and that claim is refuted as a strawman by the other, because they claim there is

Don't want to drag this off-topic but then I would submit that the most pertinent thing we can do right now is sit down and come to an agreement on exactly what constitutes 'evidence'. Unfortunately you'll find that as far as it goes, god claims are supposition, not evidence - based upon ignorance and god of the gaps, (both fallacies).

weell , yeah, but if you remove the issue of application from any evidenced based claim, you can deliver the same sound bite.

However, I am open to your statement as to what exactly constitutes 'evidence'.

Its a consequence of application, which in turn is framed by theory ... which commonly tend to the be the first and second bases that atheists screw up on.

 

[lightgigantic]

That and a buck fifty will get you a decent cup of coffee, most places.

The deity of the Lutherans is a documented product of medieval European society that can be thoroughly contextualized in issues of trade and war between kingdoms.

Does that mean we can disregard it?

Perhaps, but it can't be documented - for instance I can indicate a ship from its beginnings in raw materials to the point where it gets loaded up wit cargo.

All you can offer is a host of tentative arguments and circular reasoning

No, you did not answer the question.
And due to that evidence, presented with solid argument, most of us have come to agree that science is "nothing more" than human projections.

well if science is nothing but human projections, we can throw away your scientific explanations that religion is a socially contrived phenomena, along with a host of other scientific achievements (which are nothing but expressions of human excitement)

case closed.

 

[swarm]

But you do have to consult philosophy in order to determine what is real ...

No you don't, not in the least. You consult your senses in order to know what is real. Philosophy is fun, but ultimately its just a bunch of chatter which doesn't determine anything.

If you want to comment on a literary idea

God is just a literary idea?

what do you think brahman is?

I don't think anything in particular about it. What about you?

false god would be one that did not have access to all potencies

How is it you know which gods can access what?

But since you are in the know, pick a god with no or less "potencies."

 

[iceaura]

Perhaps, but it can't be documented - for instance I can indicate a ship from its beginnings in raw materials to the point where it gets loaded up wit cargo.

So?

All you can offer is a host of tentative arguments and circular reasoning

Better than no argument at all, and completely missing the point. I can document a human body's life from its conception to its burial. Are you impressed? Persuaded? Shaken in your faith? I would offer somewhat more than such an empty and meaningless accumulation of data, if I were atempting to persuade you of anything.

well if science is nothing but human projections, we can throw away your scientific explanations that religion is a socially contrived phenomena, along with a host of other scientific achievements (which are nothing but expressions of human excitement)

I'll keep 'em, thanks. The fact that they are human constructions and human models and human intellectual contrivances or explications of natural phenomena does not reduce their value to me.

As Einstein put it: God does not do calculus. God calculates empirically. Calculus is a human invention, its use a projection unto the natural world of human intellectual framing and analytical format.

Does the fact that your theistic beliefs are human contrivances and explications and models of natural phenomena reduce their value to you?

 

[scifes]

most problems and conlflicts, solve them selves when they are presented in a crystal clear way, and analyzed to it's most basic components.

where god and the bunch differ:
#most people believe god exists--most people believe the bunch is fictional.
#there is claimed evidence for god--there is no claimed evidence for the bunch.
#if the different versions of god unite in containing his main definition which is great power+creation of nature or part of it-- the shared thing between the bunch is absolutely nothing other than they bring the word "fantasy" to mind when they are mentioned*.

what god and the bunch have in common:
#neither have been seen with the naked eye, heard directly by an ear, felt by a hand, smelled by a nose or tasted by a mouth.. or any other direct sensory method.("then they both don't exist!!" is the mental exclamation of some atheists upon reading this, which clearly exposes their stupidity and short sightedness for using such a tactic in an argument)
#atheist believe neither exist.( so OF COURSE comparing them to each other, is not a strawman. also revealing the subjectivity of some atheists.)
#atheists acknowledge evidence for neither. which would make it not a strawman, if no evidence was offered for neither.


so, what they have in common vs what they don't, which is more important depending on how the comparison is used in an argument?

ps:nice pic LG

*which is the point atheists are trying to make, but their method in this case is fallacious, which is the point of the thread.

 

[Hapsburg]

Wrong again.

They were all inventions to explain the world.

I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, the existence of deity is an unprovable thing either way. You can't prove a negative, so you can't demonstrate it to not exist; and if one's conception of deity is as something that exists outside of the physical, then it's outside of empirical study.

In the end, you have no reason to worry about what other people believe in. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

 

[lightgigantic]

No you don't, not in the least. You consult your senses in order to know what is real.

... or so the philosophy of empiricism tells us ... and of course such a philosophy is subject to a host of criticisms

Philosophy is fun, but ultimately its just a bunch of chatter which doesn't determine anything.

What activity of your senses confirmed to you that the persons who you accept as your biological parents are actually so?
Did you see them conceiving you?
Or maybe you heard them?

Which sense of yours brought the revelation who your parents were?

God is just a literary idea?

No God, like many other topics, is something that has an abundance of literature as a response ... much like science or the sale of pink flamingos for one's garden.

I don't think anything in particular about it. What about you?

that's my point.
Because you don't have an idea what it is, you're simply lost in the exoticism of the language.

You might also say that there is also a complete absence of "jal" in the culture that you are familiar with ... until of course you comprehended that its just a bengali word for water.

How is it you know which gods can access what?

I guess their descriptions are a good place to start

But since you are in the know, pick a god with no or less "potencies."

well for a starter, all of the Olympian (or even ancient Germanic) pantheon you mention are subservient to the time factor and the material manifestation. Plato, however, in the Theogeny, mentions how all such personalities owe their cause to the chos ( a word from which we get words like "chasm"), which is quite similar in many regards to brahman.

 

[lightgigantic]

So?

I can directly indicate the object of faith at any time, between a pile iron ore rubble to a rusted hull. No tentative arguments required

Better than no argument at all, and completely missing the point.

actually a tentative argument is only slightly better than no argument at all.

I can document a human body's life from its conception to its burial.

but at no point can you document the life, the dynamic essence of the form

Are you impressed? Persuaded? Shaken in your faith? I would offer somewhat more than such an empty and meaningless accumulation of data, if I were atempting to persuade you of anything.

Not at all, because regardless whether life actually is composed of the same essential stuff as the gross body it occupies, you have no means to establish it outside of tentative arguments.

I'll keep 'em, thanks. The fact that they are human constructions and human models and human intellectual contrivances or explications of natural phenomena does not reduce their value to me.

That's just your mundane excitement coming to the flurry I'm afraid

As Einstein put it: God does not do calculus. God calculates empirically. Calculus is a human invention, its use a projection unto the natural world of human intellectual framing and analytical format.

then you're alluding to something other than human projection being a sufficient indication for a fault .... so the statement "god is a human projection" becomes bereft of any derogatory connotations (since human perception is capable of penetrating issues that are essential to reality)

Does the fact that your theistic beliefs are human contrivances and explications and models of natural phenomena reduce their value to you?

Does the fact that they are make them any less in your view?

 

[iceaura]

I can directly indicate the object of faith at any time, between a pile iron ore rubble to a rusted hull. No tentative arguments required

No, you can't.

I can document a human body's life from its conception to its burial.
”
but at no point can you document the life, the dynamic essence of the form

Exactly. So the error is familiar to you, and you can correct it in your handling of cargo cult religion.

then you're alluding to something other than human projection

Nope.

Does the fact that your theistic beliefs are human contrivances and explications and models of natural phenomena reduce their value to you?
”
Does the fact that they are make them any less in your view?

No.

See how easy it is to answer a question? Your turn.

 

[SnakeLord]

Its not so much that more persons vouch against leprechauns than for them, but rather that no one vouches for leprechauns

Lol, that's inconsequential unless you intend to keep using the same fallacy all year long - which certainly seems to be the case. In fact, you don't even address the issue, you just keep repeating the same fallacy under some bizarre delusion that it's going to become less of a fallacy the more you say it.

Once more for the sake of the inept: It is inconsequential whether nobody bothers studying leprechauns or mentioning leprechauns or whether everyone does. It says nothing of their existence or non-existence. Whether nobody believes it or everyone believes it is of no consequence to its truth or lack thereof. For the final time: Kindly stop making a fallacious argumuent.

weell , yeah, but if you remove the issue of application from any evidenced based claim, you can deliver the same sound bite.

This, with respect, is meaningless waffle. Accept the offer - let's sit down and come to agreement of what consititutes 'evidence'. Doing research, (application), is not 'evidence', it is doing work to gather evidence. That I'm even having to address this shows some serious problems with your level of understanding or English comprehension.

With all due respect but I get the distinct impression that you've got about 5 or 6 responses stored in notepad that you just paste without even really understanding what it is you're pasting. Nobody said one does not apply himself, one does not research. That is in fact the very basis of evidence gathering. What I asked you and I to sit down and discuss - although it seemingly got lost in translation - was for us to come to an agreement on what exactly constitutes 'evidence'. Kindly pay attention and address what has been requested. Many thanks.

Its a consequence of application

My point again. You seemingly just paste the same old garb without knowing or caring whether it's even relevant to what is being said and asked. I didn't suggest that 'evidence' just pops out of the blue without any work ever being done. Why are you continuing with irrelevant blather? I am becoming more convinced that my earlier statement is factual.

Now, kindly stop. Close your copy/paste notepad and pay attention to what is being said. Use a translator if you need to:

Let us sit down together here and now and come to an agreement on what exactly consitutes 'evidence'.

Kindly do not respond until you're awake and understand what has been said. Many thanks.

 

[scifes]

snakelord, the amount of people believing in them isn't the only difference, and that difference's implications are more than proof of one or the other's non/existence.

stop trying to form it in an ad populum format so you can easily refute it, which is btw called a strawman .

the ad populum format is a narrow view of a sub case of comparing god to leprechauns.

 

[SnakeLord]

snakelord, the amount of people believing in them isn't the only difference

I didn't suggest that it was - in fact I pointed out various differences, (mermaids live in the sea, gods do not). Sure, there are countless differences. The one that LG has got copy/pasted onto is unfortunately a fallacy.

Every single individual on the planet could believe, contest and write that the planet is flat as a pancake. It is utterly inconsequential to the truth of the matter. Arguing that something has no validity/isn't true because it has no followers or people that write about it is a fallacy. Nothing whatsoever changes that fact.

No, that fact does not suggest or state that there aren't "other differences".

and that difference's implications are more than proof of one or the other's non/existence.

Kindly learn that the word 'proof' is not something that has any valuable scope beyond mathematics or alcohol.

Be us human or gods, absolutes are something entirely beyond us. To use an example that would relate to gods:

This universe, including the god of our universe, is a computer simulation created by what we'll refer to as god-god. Now, god-god made this simulation and created it such that it would contain a being that was 'god'. This being was omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent within the simulation. This 'god' can know nothing about anything beyond it - aka genuine reality. It can only operate within the realms of its programming. In that programming it thinks that it is the ultimate being but it's just a simulation.

You see, even a god cannot make claim to absolutes because it will always be confined to having no knowledge if it were anything else.

So, what do you mean by "proof"? You don't mean absolutes, you wouldn't even know it was absolute if it happened to be so.

You obviously don't mean empirical evidence because there is no such thing for gods and cannot be such thing for non-gods, (non-existent god skeletons anyone?)

So what exactly do you mean? Some time spent explaining black and white swans will clear up the issue. It comes down to claims:

1. All swans are white
2. There is a black swan in Australia.

Number (1) cannot be verified. Should you search the entire universe and not find a non-white swan, it could be that the only non-white swan moved elsewhere just before you got there. It can however be falsified simply by showing the existence of a non-white swan.

Number (2) cannot be falsified. Should you not find a black swan in Australia, it could simply be that it flew away before you arrived or that you didn't look hard enough. It can however be verified simply by showing this black swan.

So it comes down to the nature of the claim. "God exist", (or "a leprechaun exists"), are of the second type. They cannot be falsified, (if you search the entire universe but find none it could simply be that they didn't want to be seen), but they can be verified, (by showing the existence of a god or leprechaun).

This of course goes completely against science, (which relies upon falsification), but - that aside, it shows that the onus is entirely upon the theist making the claims to positive existence of an entity, (be it leprechaun or god).


Hence ultimately is the point of the comparison. You could no more disprove the existence of a leprechaun, (unless using lg type fallacies which don't disprove anything in fact simply provide evidence that lg is a moron), than you could a god - simply because of the nature of the claim. It is not falsifiable - only verifiable.

If you care to verify.....?

stop trying to form it in an ad populum format so you can easily refute it, which is btw called a strawman .

I'm not "trying", it as just so happens to be - as explained in great depth above this. Now, I would suggest that you at least take the time to understand what 'strawman' even means because your statement here gives the impression that you haven't god the slightest clue. In fact, I would submit that the majority of people would agree that you haven't got the slightest clue and therefore it is true, (populum). Hopefully now you'll grasp the concept.

If you have anything of actual substance to add...?

 

[earth]

I didn't suggest that it was - in fact I pointed out various differences, (mermaids live in the sea, gods do not).
If you have anything of actual substance to add...?

I'm not actually disagreeing with you and haven't any actual substance to add, but...........

Poseidon the ancient Greek god of the sea

Neptune the ancient Roman god of the sea

 

[SnakeLord]

Very true, I apologise for overlooking that gods - like mermaids - have indeed been known to dwell in the sea.

Umm.. well, so much for differences

 

[wynn]

Does the fact that your theistic beliefs are human contrivances and explications and models of natural phenomena reduce their value to you?

I am amazed by the certainty with which you speak about another person's beliefs.
This certainty of yours is either a rhetorical strategy, or you are nothing short of enlightened ...

 

[swarm]

... or so the philosophy of empiricism tells us ... and of course such a philosophy is subject to a host of criticisms

Sorry LG, you consult your senses long before any philosophy tells you anything. Empiricism is just and attempt to understand the implications.

I'm sorry you don't know who your parents are LG. That's too bad.

No God, like many other topics, is something that has an abundance of literature as a response

So little precision. The topic of deities has a lot of literature, but so does the topic of Vorlons. Anyone can write literature on any fictional topic they care to - doesn't mean squat.

Because you don't have an idea what it is, you're simply lost in the exoticism of the language.

Don't you wish it were that simple. But you wouldn't need to weasel so hard if it was.

I guess their descriptions are a good place to start

OK, Qerg is a nonexistence god with full access to not only all potencies, but the source of all potencies. Qerg did away with all previous, current and future deities and then did away with itself.

Gee, maybe descriptions in and of themselves are worthless.

well for a starter, all of the Olympian (or even ancient Germanic) pantheon you mention are subservient to the time factor and the material manifestation.

Thor isn't.

Plato, however, in the Theogeny

Plato was drunk at the time and just trying to impress his new boyfriend.

Sorry LG, words in and of themselves are empty. You can't just talk things into existence.