The joys of life without God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
KennyJC said:Being an atheist is not joyful at all. I have noticed that the stronger my atheism became, the more and more cold/flu/viruses I suffered to match the growth of atheism.
This could be considered evidence that God curses the infidel.
Kenny, you've just handed it to the theists on a plate! Watch them pray to the God of the common cold. If it's true that modern medicine has yet to find a cure or vaccine for the common cold then this must also be proof that God uses it to punish the infidel!!
Damn you KennyJC. You are strictly forbidden to divulge statistics such as those according to the holy atheists book of... stuff. You are forthwith banned from atheism for 30 days and required to attend the church of your choice for the duration.KennyJC said:Being an atheist is not joyful at all. I have noticed that the stronger my atheism became, the more and more cold/flu/viruses I suffered to match the growth of atheism.
This could be considered evidence that God curses the infidel.
Ah. That pseudo-epistemology again.
KennyJC said:
Kenny, I thought you were a Pastafarian?
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/spaghetti-monster-p1.php
What more proof do you need???
lightgigantic:
No, but you'd think there'd be some incontrovertible evidence of his bare existence...
Notice that Shermer nowhere denies the possibility that God exists. What he says, explicitly, is that the evidence isn't strong enough for him to believe.
What are the "relevant methods"? You look deep inside yourself and try to "feel" the presence of God? Or you read a book which somebody told you was written by God? Or what?
How do you explain the wildly differing conceptions of God across different religions? They can't all be different aspects of the same thing, because they directly contradict each other. They don't even agree on such basics as how many gods there are.
What are you claiming here? That Christianity was common in India 1000 years ago? Surely not.
Obviously, you can test the efficacy of headache tablets using established methods of scientific investigation. But what happens when you do that with gods?
How do you reach that conclusion from the mere fact of existence of a star?
Please explain.
He is saying humans create their own meaning.
It's simple. If God acts in the universe, then he must leave physical signs of his actions. If there are physical signs, then they are susceptible to scientific study. Without any such physical effects, there's no need to invoke the existence of a god.
Do you believe that the theory of evolution explains how complex life developed from simpler forms on Earth? Or are you a creationist, perhaps?
I think you missed his point. He is saying that we can't know whether there is an afterlife or not. If there isn't, then we'd best make the most of our short times on this Earth. This may be the only chance we get. We wouldn't want to waste it hoping for some kind of better life in a heaven which may not exist.
You seem to be asserting that there can be no morality or meaning without God to tell you what to do and what not to do.
Would you be immoral if there was no God?
Shermer never claimed to be unbiased. The title of the article is, after all "The joys of life without God". Shermer says quite clearly that he doesn't believe in God. He isn't pretending.
On the other hand, supporters of Intelligent Design pretend that religion has nothing to do with it, despite the fact, as Shermer notes, that they are all committed Christians and they admit that no evidence could ever change their beliefs.
There's a difference between influencing society and imposing religious controls on it under which infidels and people who are not considered faithful enough are persecuted.
No, but you'd think there'd be some incontrovertible evidence of his bare existence...
Notice that Shermer nowhere denies the possibility that God exists. What he says, explicitly, is that the evidence isn't strong enough for him to believe.
What are the "relevant methods"? You look deep inside yourself and try to "feel" the presence of God? Or you read a book which somebody told you was written by God? Or what?
How do you explain the wildly differing conceptions of God across different religions? They can't all be different aspects of the same thing, because they directly contradict each other. They don't even agree on such basics as how many gods there are.
What are you claiming here? That Christianity was common in India 1000 years ago? Surely not.
Obviously, you can test the efficacy of headache tablets using established methods of scientific investigation. But what happens when you do that with gods?
How do you reach that conclusion from the mere fact of existence of a star?
Please explain.
He is saying humans create their own meaning.
It's simple. If God acts in the universe, then he must leave physical signs of his actions. If there are physical signs, then they are susceptible to scientific study. Without any such physical effects, there's no need to invoke the existence of a god.
Do you believe that the theory of evolution explains how complex life developed from simpler forms on Earth? Or are you a creationist, perhaps?
I think you missed his point. He is saying that we can't know whether there is an afterlife or not. If there isn't, then we'd best make the most of our short times on this Earth. This may be the only chance we get. We wouldn't want to waste it hoping for some kind of better life in a heaven which may not exist.
You seem to be asserting that there can be no morality or meaning without God to tell you what to do and what not to do.
Would you be immoral if there was no God?
Shermer never claimed to be unbiased. The title of the article is, after all "The joys of life without God". Shermer says quite clearly that he doesn't believe in God. He isn't pretending.
On the other hand, supporters of Intelligent Design pretend that religion has nothing to do with it, despite the fact, as Shermer notes, that they are all committed Christians and they admit that no evidence could ever change their beliefs.
There's a difference between influencing society and imposing religious controls on it under which infidels and people who are not considered faithful enough are persecuted.
superluminal
No I don't claim that - I claim that the observation for the observation of the objective world is dependant on training (hence epistemology), otherwise there would be no need for a physicist to study physics.
You are claiming that there there is only one epistemology for observing things in the world. Care to explain why?
To start with the word hindu wasn't even prevalant since the moguls weren't due to start their conquests for about another 200 years - anyway its a whole historical topic about the plurality of religious practice in medieval india that has since got simplified down to contemporary "hinduism". Also the greek orthodox christians might have already arrived in south india by then too.
Does this meaning we give it affect what or where the star is? - I guess it boils down to the idea whether you accept that design and purpose are inextricably connected
And he didn't establish that allocating meaning to the universe is futile earlier?
evidence or tentative suggestions?
lol - well prove to me the uniformity of time and space oh upholder of axiomatic truths
And your philosophy is fanciful because you assume humans can somehow centralise around normative values without a clear centralising basis
I never claimed to be
My point is that the above statement of a fair society is a contradiction - it is you who are the dominating fanatic if you try to edge my views out of the arena by a battle of wills - and I would also suggest that the phrase "prosperity for everyone" actually means "prosperity for persons possessed of the same value systems as myself", after all there are numerous theisticly minded scientific researchers who have contributed to the progress of science
No I don't claim that - I claim that the observation for the observation of the objective world is dependant on training (hence epistemology), otherwise there would be no need for a physicist to study physics.
You are claiming that there there is only one epistemology for observing things in the world. Care to explain why?
To start with the word hindu wasn't even prevalant since the moguls weren't due to start their conquests for about another 200 years - anyway its a whole historical topic about the plurality of religious practice in medieval india that has since got simplified down to contemporary "hinduism". Also the greek orthodox christians might have already arrived in south india by then too.
Does this meaning we give it affect what or where the star is? - I guess it boils down to the idea whether you accept that design and purpose are inextricably connected
And he didn't establish that allocating meaning to the universe is futile earlier?
evidence or tentative suggestions?
lol - well prove to me the uniformity of time and space oh upholder of axiomatic truths
And your philosophy is fanciful because you assume humans can somehow centralise around normative values without a clear centralising basis
I never claimed to be
My point is that the above statement of a fair society is a contradiction - it is you who are the dominating fanatic if you try to edge my views out of the arena by a battle of wills - and I would also suggest that the phrase "prosperity for everyone" actually means "prosperity for persons possessed of the same value systems as myself", after all there are numerous theisticly minded scientific researchers who have contributed to the progress of science
James
And how do you propose to determine that evidence if you refuse to apply the relevant epistemology? He relies on the evidence that people prayed to god (perhaps for anything and everything except the purity of self to properly perceive him) and they didn't get what they prayed for - On what authority does shermer assume that god is duty bound to supply whatever people pray to him for?
He doesn't say god does not exists - what he does say that phenomena related directly to the internal potency of god are not factual because he has never seen them - hence my post
The later would be a good starting point - I mean if you want to know something about physics you would also probably pick up a book somebodytold you was written by a physicist - but then otherfactors come in to play, the first and most primary being, a qualified teacher - there is a whole thread on the correct epistemology for perceiving god, and you probably wouldn't appreciate me dragging it in here.
So if one person perceives fire by smoke and another perceives fire by heat and another perceivies fire by the brightness of flame they all relating qualities towards fire that are completely divergent and incompatible?
Obviously I am also indicating that there are established methods of scientific investigation - more onthe epistemology thread
It means for a start that it owes the atmosphere that it exists in to a superior intelligence ”
How do you reach the conclusion that anything of any level of complexity does not owe its source to intelligence - for instance why is a crayon picture of a star indicative of intelligence and an actual star itself, which is countlessly billions of times more complex, bereft of an intelligent designer - what intrinsic qualities does the realstar have?
Please explain
Doesn't explain why he insists on taking god out of the picture though ”
It's simple. If God acts in the universe, then he must leave physical signs of his actions. If there are physical signs, then they are susceptible to scientific study. Without any such physical effects, there's no need to invoke the existence of a god.
But he does leave signs - many philosophers, scientists included, perceive many clues of god's existence given through the structure of creation - now if you are after direct perception of god through such means that is another epistemological fallacy - god is a conscious entity and reserves the right to whom he is displayed - just like one can only perceive the president, directly, according to his will - one cannot demand to see th epresident because he is ontologically superior (in a sense) to us - we can however surmise something something about the existence of the president by surveying the order of his management of civil affairs etc
As for explaining all causes without god, why is it that if you take ANY cause back far enough you arrive at something with a cause you cannot trace
“ “ In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts. ”
Well that's what the material world is all about - the opportunity to be immoral because god has the illusion of non-existence. Without a consciousness of god's existence anyone would be immoral
Then why does he propound that a theist having an agenda is biased as if an atheist is automatically unbiased - doesn't he suggest that science would be better off without theism? Isn't this a bias?
But he is advocating a type of religious control also - whats the difference?
And how do you propose to determine that evidence if you refuse to apply the relevant epistemology? He relies on the evidence that people prayed to god (perhaps for anything and everything except the purity of self to properly perceive him) and they didn't get what they prayed for - On what authority does shermer assume that god is duty bound to supply whatever people pray to him for?
He doesn't say god does not exists - what he does say that phenomena related directly to the internal potency of god are not factual because he has never seen them - hence my post
The later would be a good starting point - I mean if you want to know something about physics you would also probably pick up a book somebodytold you was written by a physicist - but then otherfactors come in to play, the first and most primary being, a qualified teacher - there is a whole thread on the correct epistemology for perceiving god, and you probably wouldn't appreciate me dragging it in here.
So if one person perceives fire by smoke and another perceives fire by heat and another perceivies fire by the brightness of flame they all relating qualities towards fire that are completely divergent and incompatible?
Obviously I am also indicating that there are established methods of scientific investigation - more onthe epistemology thread
It means for a start that it owes the atmosphere that it exists in to a superior intelligence ”
How do you reach the conclusion that anything of any level of complexity does not owe its source to intelligence - for instance why is a crayon picture of a star indicative of intelligence and an actual star itself, which is countlessly billions of times more complex, bereft of an intelligent designer - what intrinsic qualities does the realstar have?
Please explain
After ascertaining the meaningless of meaning
Doesn't explain why he insists on taking god out of the picture though ”
It's simple. If God acts in the universe, then he must leave physical signs of his actions. If there are physical signs, then they are susceptible to scientific study. Without any such physical effects, there's no need to invoke the existence of a god.
But he does leave signs - many philosophers, scientists included, perceive many clues of god's existence given through the structure of creation - now if you are after direct perception of god through such means that is another epistemological fallacy - god is a conscious entity and reserves the right to whom he is displayed - just like one can only perceive the president, directly, according to his will - one cannot demand to see th epresident because he is ontologically superior (in a sense) to us - we can however surmise something something about the existence of the president by surveying the order of his management of civil affairs etc
As for explaining all causes without god, why is it that if you take ANY cause back far enough you arrive at something with a cause you cannot trace
Obviously if you are like shermer and have not applied the epistemology for knowing the validity/invalidity of that claim, thats what you would think. Its just like a high school drop out saying that there is no way we canknow when the next tidal wave is going to strike so there isno point researching early warning systems and we should just have a good time as we can - this is why it is foolish
“ “ In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts. ”
Well, not directly - I am posing what will be the central basis for unifying humanity - if we are all actually capable of co-operating together, what is the unit that will determine our unification - what testwill give to humanity that will enable us to all give the same uniform result which we can then call upon as a unifying symbol of authority in times of inevitable disagreement amongst human communities?
Well that's what the material world is all about - the opportunity to be immoral because god has the illusion of non-existence. Without a consciousness of god's existence anyone would be immoral
Then why does he propound that a theist having an agenda is biased as if an atheist is automatically unbiased - doesn't he suggest that science would be better off without theism? Isn't this a bias?
But he is advocating a type of religious control also - whats the difference?
lightgigantic:
The epistomology you keep talking about is what you call "faith". People are supposed to just have faith that god(s) exist.
How is this any different from me believing that an invisible purple dragon named Mildred lives in my garage?
Is the scientific "epistomology" not good enough to detect whether or not there is a dragon worth believing in living in my garage? If it is, then why isn't it good enough to establish whether there is a god worth believing in?
He doesn't assume that. His point was that some people say God exists because he answers their prayers. But you're telling me he only answers some prayers, sometimes, when he feels like it. My question to you is: how do you know when you get a good outcome that it was God answering your prayers, rather than just a good outcome which would have happened anyway?
How can you explain away all the bad things by saying God wasn't paying attention, or was feeling too lazy to answer prayers that day, yet at the same time put every good thing down to God's influence? It makes no sense.
That depends. Not all smoke is associated with fire. Not all heat is associated with fire. Not all brightness is associated with fire. If you're going to investigate fire scientifically, you have to try to eliminate other possibilities before you can comment on the nature of fire.
But it seems that with God it is supposed to be the other way round. You start by assuming what you're setting out to prove - that God exists. Then you go out looking for any smoke or heat or brightness which seems to fit your assumption, while simultaneously discounting any other possible explanations.
We can't conclude either that the crayon drawing OR a star are a result of intelligence a priori. We need to know more about what kinds of processes produce crayon drawings and stars. Then, we trace back the causes to see if intelligence is necessary in the chain anywhere.
In the case of crayon drawings, it seems that an intelligence almost always crops up - usually a child. In the case of stars, there seems to be no such necessity for intelligence, despite the fact that stars, at first glance, might seem more complex than a crayon drawing. In fact, I would argue that the crayon drawing is much more complex than a star in terms of the processes necessary for its creation. Stars just look bigger and more impressive so you assume they are more complex than they are.
I concede that many scientists and philosophers have historically believed in God, and many still do. However, I also note that there is wide disagreement on the subject, unlike on the existence of the President, say.
This argument says "We don't know the cause. Therefore the cause must be God."
There are many other possibilities.
Shermer was himself a born-again evangelical Christian at one point (did you read the article?). He knows what he is talking about.
We currently have lots of religion, and it doesn't seem to be helping human unity much at the moment...
So, if God did not exist, you would start stealing and murdering and lying? Why? Because you'd know you could get away with it? Or what?
Is it only God who keeps you good? You would be evil without God?
Science is already without theism. Science is the study of the natural world and natural processes. God is a supernatural entity.
But theists can't have it both ways. If intelligent design, say, is a religious idea, then it is necessarily non-scientific. If it relies on God, then it is not natural, and therefore can't be studied as a science. Miracles, by definition, are not explainable using science. (There's your epistomology again.)
What do you mean?
He is advocating freedom of religion, not religious control. Did you read the part about enshrining a state religion in the Constitution, and why he thinks that would be a terrible idea?
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, if people choose that.
The epistomology you keep talking about is what you call "faith". People are supposed to just have faith that god(s) exist.
How is this any different from me believing that an invisible purple dragon named Mildred lives in my garage?
Is the scientific "epistomology" not good enough to detect whether or not there is a dragon worth believing in living in my garage? If it is, then why isn't it good enough to establish whether there is a god worth believing in?
He doesn't assume that. His point was that some people say God exists because he answers their prayers. But you're telling me he only answers some prayers, sometimes, when he feels like it. My question to you is: how do you know when you get a good outcome that it was God answering your prayers, rather than just a good outcome which would have happened anyway?
How can you explain away all the bad things by saying God wasn't paying attention, or was feeling too lazy to answer prayers that day, yet at the same time put every good thing down to God's influence? It makes no sense.
That depends. Not all smoke is associated with fire. Not all heat is associated with fire. Not all brightness is associated with fire. If you're going to investigate fire scientifically, you have to try to eliminate other possibilities before you can comment on the nature of fire.
But it seems that with God it is supposed to be the other way round. You start by assuming what you're setting out to prove - that God exists. Then you go out looking for any smoke or heat or brightness which seems to fit your assumption, while simultaneously discounting any other possible explanations.
We can't conclude either that the crayon drawing OR a star are a result of intelligence a priori. We need to know more about what kinds of processes produce crayon drawings and stars. Then, we trace back the causes to see if intelligence is necessary in the chain anywhere.
In the case of crayon drawings, it seems that an intelligence almost always crops up - usually a child. In the case of stars, there seems to be no such necessity for intelligence, despite the fact that stars, at first glance, might seem more complex than a crayon drawing. In fact, I would argue that the crayon drawing is much more complex than a star in terms of the processes necessary for its creation. Stars just look bigger and more impressive so you assume they are more complex than they are.
I concede that many scientists and philosophers have historically believed in God, and many still do. However, I also note that there is wide disagreement on the subject, unlike on the existence of the President, say.
This argument says "We don't know the cause. Therefore the cause must be God."
There are many other possibilities.
Shermer was himself a born-again evangelical Christian at one point (did you read the article?). He knows what he is talking about.
We currently have lots of religion, and it doesn't seem to be helping human unity much at the moment...
So, if God did not exist, you would start stealing and murdering and lying? Why? Because you'd know you could get away with it? Or what?
Is it only God who keeps you good? You would be evil without God?
Science is already without theism. Science is the study of the natural world and natural processes. God is a supernatural entity.
But theists can't have it both ways. If intelligent design, say, is a religious idea, then it is necessarily non-scientific. If it relies on God, then it is not natural, and therefore can't be studied as a science. Miracles, by definition, are not explainable using science. (There's your epistomology again.)
What do you mean?
He is advocating freedom of religion, not religious control. Did you read the part about enshrining a state religion in the Constitution, and why he thinks that would be a terrible idea?
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, if people choose that.
Oh, the joy of a life without god!
Oh, how I miss baby jesus in my heart,
but not really.
I am truly independent and can claim credit
for all my beautiful fuckups.
how easy it is to see how the world turns
and how easy it is to change my opinion on how it turns.
No dogmas, No worshipping,
just a bunch of hairless monkeys.
oh, beautiful life. We send a monkey into space.
So we could send the biggest monkey!
Oh, how I miss baby jesus in my heart,
but not really.
I am truly independent and can claim credit
for all my beautiful fuckups.
how easy it is to see how the world turns
and how easy it is to change my opinion on how it turns.
No dogmas, No worshipping,
just a bunch of hairless monkeys.
oh, beautiful life. We send a monkey into space.
So we could send the biggest monkey!
James
No - there is a process that bridges the gap between faith and perception - just like there is a process that bridges the gap between faith and perception in physics
You have no epistemology to apply after faith - or if you do it probably won't lead to ontology - also there is no credible testimony to the said existence by established persons
Well scientific epistemology probably would be good enough - you just have to go to your garage to find out - the abode of god however is not so approachable, just like the abode of the president.
“ He relies on the evidence that people prayed to god (perhaps for anything and everything except the purity of self to properly perceive him) and they didn't get what they prayed for - On what authority does shermer assume that god is duty bound to supply whatever people pray to him for? ”
Actually if you examine the nature of the character of persons whom god fulfills the prayers of you have some headway into the topic of understanding the nature of the correct epistemology for perceiving god.
What do you determine as a "good outcome"? That I get what I want? That I don't suffer any material reversals?
To begin with there must be a clear understanding of what constitutes short term and long term gain - still seems you can't shake the idea that god has nothing better to do than answer our prayers for material comfort
“ So if one person perceives fire by smoke and another perceives fire by heat and another perceivies fire by the brightness of flame they all relating qualities towards fire that are completely divergent and incompatible? ”
So you then apply a scientific process to determine which observations of the said phenomena are actually related to fire - In the same way you can assemble varieties of religious systems and determine the validity of their observations - your original argument was that religion is obviously bogus due to the variety of claims - now do you want to back down from that or do you think you are on a good thing?
So if I told you that fire was qualified by smoke, heat and light, and if you proceeded to search for such things that fitted such descriptions, and you applied further tests to determine whether anything you found that fulfilled these requirements was actually fire and not something else, that would be an unscientific proceedure to locating fire?
So when you see a crayon picture your first instinct is to call national geographic?
So if you find a crayon picture and search high and low for the person who drew it, but can't locate them, you then call national geographic?
almost always? Maybe I have missed out on a few issues of national geographic lately - is there a single example of even one crayon picture that doesn't have a conscious source?
At first glance? - well scientists have been glancing quite a bit at stars and are still unable to understand the complete nature of stars - are they wasting their time because there is more mystery to be uncovered in crayon pictures of stars?
Imagine you head up a conference on astronomy after inviting many authorities in the field and you whip something out on the projector to indicate where the greater complexities of examination lie - the crayon picture of the star - and then let rip with a dialogue as above To say the least NASA wouldn't grant you enough to subsist off ramen noodles for a week
Thats because people agree on the established credibility of sources that determine the reality of the presidents existence - namely the media
Many possibilities except for the possibility of god existing
Actually I have severe criticisms of the epistemology of many born again christians - basicallythey have a lack of philosophy (symptomised by the idea "Pray to god and god gives what you need" which was a foundation for his deconstruction of the religious ontology), this is however not indicative of all christians, what to say of all religions - for instance I read an interiew by Townes where he abhorred the notion of praying to god to even grant him success in science - he inferred it was admirable to not pray to god for material benefit, which rates him as epistemologically superior to Shermer
Probably because the epistemologies have been erroded by atheism, even atheism in the guise of religion ("pray to god for your material needs")
Just see what happened when there was a bit of extra rain in new orleans - when peoplethink they can get away with something, they tend to give it a shot - of course then you get to see later on whether they actually get away with it or not.
On a very basic level god exists to exert control - just like a president does also - inother words criminal elements are checked by fear -= but onmore advanced levels of reciprocation other mellows of relationship exist - inother words its not like everybody exists in a relationship of fear with authority - only the miscreants
Without god it would be very difficult to dtermine what good or evil would be - just like in your godless system of atheistic morals - it would be very difficult to determine what good or evil would be - all you would have is a series of relative rules which assist the person who is powerful enough to maintain them (in other words you replace an infallible god with a fallible god)
Then why does he have a vendetta against theistic scientists?
Why isn't intelligent design scientific? Why is evolution more scientific if it relies on the evidence of macro-evolution, which according to its definitions, cannot be produced as empirical evidence?
Why does it hold that god must be proven by those same empiral methods that cannot establish the validity of macro-evolution?
Why isn't relying on god natural, especially if one has applied the correct epistemology to actually perceive how and why he is ontologically superior to us?
Basically you are assuming that god is not an objective phenomena - just like a few hundred years ago scientists were saying that atoms were constructs of imagination
He is advocating a system that would make religious practice impractical
- its just like saying american schools are biased because they insist on teaching english as the major language - why don't they also give equal importance to russian, gujurati, norweigian and shabo.
In otherwords wouldn't the proposal to teach a myriad of languages be an indirect means to undermine the existing language? (and also cause a decline in the effective use of language)
Isn't this indicative of an agenda?
Wouldn't such a mode of religious education render the actual performance of religious activities extinct? Wouldn't it be just another way of suggesting the popular atheistic doctrine that god is a subjective phenomena of no importance?
No - there is a process that bridges the gap between faith and perception - just like there is a process that bridges the gap between faith and perception in physics
You have no epistemology to apply after faith - or if you do it probably won't lead to ontology - also there is no credible testimony to the said existence by established persons
Well scientific epistemology probably would be good enough - you just have to go to your garage to find out - the abode of god however is not so approachable, just like the abode of the president.
“ He relies on the evidence that people prayed to god (perhaps for anything and everything except the purity of self to properly perceive him) and they didn't get what they prayed for - On what authority does shermer assume that god is duty bound to supply whatever people pray to him for? ”
Actually if you examine the nature of the character of persons whom god fulfills the prayers of you have some headway into the topic of understanding the nature of the correct epistemology for perceiving god.
What do you determine as a "good outcome"? That I get what I want? That I don't suffer any material reversals?
To begin with there must be a clear understanding of what constitutes short term and long term gain - still seems you can't shake the idea that god has nothing better to do than answer our prayers for material comfort
“ So if one person perceives fire by smoke and another perceives fire by heat and another perceivies fire by the brightness of flame they all relating qualities towards fire that are completely divergent and incompatible? ”
So you then apply a scientific process to determine which observations of the said phenomena are actually related to fire - In the same way you can assemble varieties of religious systems and determine the validity of their observations - your original argument was that religion is obviously bogus due to the variety of claims - now do you want to back down from that or do you think you are on a good thing?
So if I told you that fire was qualified by smoke, heat and light, and if you proceeded to search for such things that fitted such descriptions, and you applied further tests to determine whether anything you found that fulfilled these requirements was actually fire and not something else, that would be an unscientific proceedure to locating fire?
So when you see a crayon picture your first instinct is to call national geographic?
So if you find a crayon picture and search high and low for the person who drew it, but can't locate them, you then call national geographic?
almost always? Maybe I have missed out on a few issues of national geographic lately - is there a single example of even one crayon picture that doesn't have a conscious source?
At first glance? - well scientists have been glancing quite a bit at stars and are still unable to understand the complete nature of stars - are they wasting their time because there is more mystery to be uncovered in crayon pictures of stars?
Imagine you head up a conference on astronomy after inviting many authorities in the field and you whip something out on the projector to indicate where the greater complexities of examination lie - the crayon picture of the star - and then let rip with a dialogue as above
To say the least NASA wouldn't grant you enough to subsist off ramen noodles for a weekThats because people agree on the established credibility of sources that determine the reality of the presidents existence - namely the media
Many possibilities except for the possibility of god existing
Actually I have severe criticisms of the epistemology of many born again christians - basicallythey have a lack of philosophy (symptomised by the idea "Pray to god and god gives what you need" which was a foundation for his deconstruction of the religious ontology), this is however not indicative of all christians, what to say of all religions - for instance I read an interiew by Townes where he abhorred the notion of praying to god to even grant him success in science - he inferred it was admirable to not pray to god for material benefit, which rates him as epistemologically superior to Shermer
Probably because the epistemologies have been erroded by atheism, even atheism in the guise of religion ("pray to god for your material needs")
Just see what happened when there was a bit of extra rain in new orleans - when peoplethink they can get away with something, they tend to give it a shot - of course then you get to see later on whether they actually get away with it or not.
On a very basic level god exists to exert control - just like a president does also - inother words criminal elements are checked by fear -= but onmore advanced levels of reciprocation other mellows of relationship exist - inother words its not like everybody exists in a relationship of fear with authority - only the miscreants
Without god it would be very difficult to dtermine what good or evil would be - just like in your godless system of atheistic morals - it would be very difficult to determine what good or evil would be - all you would have is a series of relative rules which assist the person who is powerful enough to maintain them (in other words you replace an infallible god with a fallible god)
Then why does he have a vendetta against theistic scientists?
Why isn't intelligent design scientific? Why is evolution more scientific if it relies on the evidence of macro-evolution, which according to its definitions, cannot be produced as empirical evidence?
Why does it hold that god must be proven by those same empiral methods that cannot establish the validity of macro-evolution?
Why isn't relying on god natural, especially if one has applied the correct epistemology to actually perceive how and why he is ontologically superior to us?
Basically you are assuming that god is not an objective phenomena - just like a few hundred years ago scientists were saying that atoms were constructs of imagination
He is advocating a system that would make religious practice impractical
- its just like saying american schools are biased because they insist on teaching english as the major language - why don't they also give equal importance to russian, gujurati, norweigian and shabo.
In otherwords wouldn't the proposal to teach a myriad of languages be an indirect means to undermine the existing language? (and also cause a decline in the effective use of language)
Isn't this indicative of an agenda?
Wouldn't such a mode of religious education render the actual performance of religious activities extinct? Wouldn't it be just another way of suggesting the popular atheistic doctrine that god is a subjective phenomena of no importance?
Last edited:
Exactly. This process is called science. What is the exact process you refer to? (Q) and I await eagerly.lightgigantic said:
Yes, please. Spare us the wait, what process bridges the gap between faith and perception to the religious adherent?
Im happy without god
lightgigantic:
Atheists would argue that there is no credible testimony to the existence of god(s), either.
I've heard Christians say God is all around us. You don't believe that? Where does God live, then?
Are you claiming that God answers prayers depending on the personality or faith of the person praying? Does that mean that people who die in natural disasters despite praying weren't faithful enough, or what?
Take a particular situation: a person who has terminal cancer prays for God to cure them. Their family prays for them, too. So do their friends. A good outcome would seem to me to be that the person is cured miraculously. A bad one would be that the person dies, against their wishes and the wishes of their family and friends. What do you think?
It seems to me that if there is a God, then he has many better things to do, judging by the number of innocent and worthy people who die every die or suffer great misfortune. What I wonder is why you think prayer works at all. What does prayer actually achieve, according to you? And how can you tell?
As I pointed out before, the claims of different religions often blatantly contradict one another, even on basic matters. That suggests to me that none of the claims is likely to be valid. Or, perhaps one of them is. But which one? And how can we know?
No.
So, the relevant question is: what have people found when they've gone looking for signs of god and then (and this is the important part) applied further tests to determine whether what they found was actually God and not something else? I know what Shermer's answer would be.
No. But then, I'm reasonably familiar with crayon drawings. If I'd never seen one before, I might get more excited.
Well, it would be very interesting indeed if crayon drawings started appearing out of nowhere, and no source could be found for any of them.
I'm not sure. Some animals might produce crayon drawings without being conscious. Or perhaps if you tied a crayon to a swaying tree branch and left it for a while near some paper... I can't guarantee that every crayon drawing requires a human artist.
Actually, they are working on both problems. The mystery of crayon drawings is far from sorted. For a start, the human brain is still quite poorly understood.
You're thinking of the bare content of the crayon drawing, which is paper and some pigments. That's like saying a star is just some hydrogen and trace other elements put together in a particular way.
But the process by which a crayon drawing came to be is much more complicated. First, life had to emerge. Then, it had to evolve into human beings. Then, the ability to draw had to develop. Humans had to invent crayons. etc. etc.
Now try telling me that a crayon drawing is "simpler" than a star.
No. God is always a possibility. No science has yet found it necessary to invoke God as an explanatory mechanism or causal agent yet, though.
I don't see how. Shermer doesn't believe in praying either. (Never mind.)
Do you really think Islamic terrorism, to take one example, is linked to atheism?
It seems you're saying that the only reason people are good is because God exists. People act morally because God says some things are bad and other things are good.
I wonder if this is true.
Suppose God suddenly said "From now on, murder is good, not evil." Do you think it would then be morally right to murder? Because if things are evil only because God says so, then morality is fairly arbitrary. The other option is that perhaps God condemns certain acts because, in his infinite wisdom, he recognises that they are evil. But if that's the case, then people should act morally because it is the right thing to do, not just because God says so. And in that case, there's no need to bring God into the picture at all. You can quite clearly have morality without God.
If that's the case, couldn't we substitute some other authority for God - the President, perhaps? The President can exert control to stop criminals - more effectively than God, it seems. I don't think many criminals these days are deterred by their fear of god. Fear of the police is usually higher in their thoughts...
Good and evil are surely easy enough to discern. We can start from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which doesn't require God. Or we could start with Kant's ideas on absolute morality. Or we could start from a general utilitarian principle.
By the way, there is no single system of "atheistic morals". Atheism isn't a religion. Different atheists follow all kinds of different moral codes, some superior to others. Some atheists are evil; others are good.
I assume you mean Shermer. He doesn't have a vendetta against theistic scientists. He points out that the theory of Intelligent Design in not science. That's all.
Because it assumes a conclusion from the start rather than examining the evidence. It ignores contrary evidence. It makes no useful predictions. And for many other reasons.
If it's own definitions say evidence for macro-evolution cannot be produced, then obviously it doesn't rely on such evidence.
The Creationist split between macro- and micro- evolution is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. Basically, micro-evolution + lots of time = macroevolution. Creationists want to imagine that evolution hits the wall at some point and requires miracles to "create new species". But miracles are really only required in Creationist theories.
Perhaps it is time you elaborated on your "correct epistemology". Please explain what the correct epistemology for finding God and proving his "ontological superiority" is, for those who might worry that you're just throwing big words around in order to try to bamboozle people.
God is not an objective phenomenon. Ask different people and they all have different conceptions of what God is and is not. Each person's experience of God is deeply personal, according to most believers. That is necessarily subjective, not objective.
What is the objective evidence for God, according to you?
People aren't prevented from learning gujarati or Russian by law. Nor are they currently prevented from learning about different religions, or attending any place of worship, or going to Sunday school.
Look what happens when you have a state religion. Go to Iran and try to set up a Christian school. See how far you get.
Atheists would argue that there is no credible testimony to the existence of god(s), either.
I've heard Christians say God is all around us. You don't believe that? Where does God live, then?
Are you claiming that God answers prayers depending on the personality or faith of the person praying? Does that mean that people who die in natural disasters despite praying weren't faithful enough, or what?
Take a particular situation: a person who has terminal cancer prays for God to cure them. Their family prays for them, too. So do their friends. A good outcome would seem to me to be that the person is cured miraculously. A bad one would be that the person dies, against their wishes and the wishes of their family and friends. What do you think?
It seems to me that if there is a God, then he has many better things to do, judging by the number of innocent and worthy people who die every die or suffer great misfortune. What I wonder is why you think prayer works at all. What does prayer actually achieve, according to you? And how can you tell?
As I pointed out before, the claims of different religions often blatantly contradict one another, even on basic matters. That suggests to me that none of the claims is likely to be valid. Or, perhaps one of them is. But which one? And how can we know?
No.
So, the relevant question is: what have people found when they've gone looking for signs of god and then (and this is the important part) applied further tests to determine whether what they found was actually God and not something else? I know what Shermer's answer would be.
No. But then, I'm reasonably familiar with crayon drawings. If I'd never seen one before, I might get more excited.
Well, it would be very interesting indeed if crayon drawings started appearing out of nowhere, and no source could be found for any of them.
I'm not sure. Some animals might produce crayon drawings without being conscious. Or perhaps if you tied a crayon to a swaying tree branch and left it for a while near some paper... I can't guarantee that every crayon drawing requires a human artist.
Actually, they are working on both problems. The mystery of crayon drawings is far from sorted. For a start, the human brain is still quite poorly understood.
You're thinking of the bare content of the crayon drawing, which is paper and some pigments. That's like saying a star is just some hydrogen and trace other elements put together in a particular way.
But the process by which a crayon drawing came to be is much more complicated. First, life had to emerge. Then, it had to evolve into human beings. Then, the ability to draw had to develop. Humans had to invent crayons. etc. etc.
Now try telling me that a crayon drawing is "simpler" than a star.
No. God is always a possibility. No science has yet found it necessary to invoke God as an explanatory mechanism or causal agent yet, though.
I don't see how. Shermer doesn't believe in praying either. (Never mind.)
Do you really think Islamic terrorism, to take one example, is linked to atheism?
It seems you're saying that the only reason people are good is because God exists. People act morally because God says some things are bad and other things are good.
I wonder if this is true.
Suppose God suddenly said "From now on, murder is good, not evil." Do you think it would then be morally right to murder? Because if things are evil only because God says so, then morality is fairly arbitrary. The other option is that perhaps God condemns certain acts because, in his infinite wisdom, he recognises that they are evil. But if that's the case, then people should act morally because it is the right thing to do, not just because God says so. And in that case, there's no need to bring God into the picture at all. You can quite clearly have morality without God.
If that's the case, couldn't we substitute some other authority for God - the President, perhaps? The President can exert control to stop criminals - more effectively than God, it seems. I don't think many criminals these days are deterred by their fear of god. Fear of the police is usually higher in their thoughts...
Good and evil are surely easy enough to discern. We can start from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which doesn't require God. Or we could start with Kant's ideas on absolute morality. Or we could start from a general utilitarian principle.
By the way, there is no single system of "atheistic morals". Atheism isn't a religion. Different atheists follow all kinds of different moral codes, some superior to others. Some atheists are evil; others are good.
I assume you mean Shermer. He doesn't have a vendetta against theistic scientists. He points out that the theory of Intelligent Design in not science. That's all.
Because it assumes a conclusion from the start rather than examining the evidence. It ignores contrary evidence. It makes no useful predictions. And for many other reasons.
If it's own definitions say evidence for macro-evolution cannot be produced, then obviously it doesn't rely on such evidence.
The Creationist split between macro- and micro- evolution is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. Basically, micro-evolution + lots of time = macroevolution. Creationists want to imagine that evolution hits the wall at some point and requires miracles to "create new species". But miracles are really only required in Creationist theories.
Perhaps it is time you elaborated on your "correct epistemology". Please explain what the correct epistemology for finding God and proving his "ontological superiority" is, for those who might worry that you're just throwing big words around in order to try to bamboozle people.
God is not an objective phenomenon. Ask different people and they all have different conceptions of what God is and is not. Each person's experience of God is deeply personal, according to most believers. That is necessarily subjective, not objective.
What is the objective evidence for God, according to you?
People aren't prevented from learning gujarati or Russian by law. Nor are they currently prevented from learning about different religions, or attending any place of worship, or going to Sunday school.
Look what happens when you have a state religion. Go to Iran and try to set up a Christian school. See how far you get.