The joys of life without God

[lightgigantic]

I'd REALLY like to hear what process you refer, exactly?

There's always the epistemology thread

 

[lightgigantic]

Exactly. This process is called science. What is the exact process you refer to? (Q) and I await eagerly.

ditto

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, please. Spare us the wait, what process bridges the gap between faith and perception to the religious adherent?

Its not like I've kept it a secret is it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Im happy without god

A worm is also happy in stool - in other words everyone in the universe has an idea of what is great but it still doesn't bring us closer to what is actually great, or what things are greater than others

 

[Sarkus]

A worm is also happy in stool - in other words everyone in the universe has an idea of what is great but it still doesn't bring us closer to what is actually great, or what things are greater than others

No - for that we have the wonderful tool of science - and the scientific method.

 

[KennyJC]

There's always the epistemology thread

That thread uses faith as it's premis. Faith that:

a) there is a God in the first place.

and

b) scriptures (however you want to interperate them) are true.


FAITH.

 

[lightgigantic]

No - for that we have the wonderful tool of science - and the scientific method.

Scientific measurements of happiness?
I'm intrigued ....

 

[lightgigantic]

That thread uses faith as it's premis. Faith that:

a) there is a God in the first place.

and

b) scriptures (however you want to interperate them) are true.


FAITH.

I don't mind spreading the contents of one thread over several, although it may disturb others

Actually I agree with your statement, except the message you put in brackets, which isn't actually inferred on the thread (but perhaps indicates why the theistic epistemology never worked for you)

Physics also has faith as a premise for those outside the successful application of epistemology

a) Atoms, molecules and electrons exist

and

b) books about them are true

 

[(Q)]

There's always the epistemology thread

There's always the chance you're merely blowing hot air out your ass, too.

You brought it up in THIS thread, hence you need to explain yourself HERE.

If you can't, then don't light any matches.

 

[lightgigantic]

There's always the chance you're merely blowing hot air out your ass, too.

You brought it up in THIS thread, hence you need to explain yourself HERE.

If you can't, then don't light any matches.

Whats the matter - you're so bigoted that you cannot approach a thread that deals with the subject?

 

[(Q)]

Whats the matter - you're so bigoted that you cannot approach a thread that deals with the subject?

How can I be bigoted when you have nothing to say? Do you have something to say, or is it hot air?

What process do you refer?

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

Atheists would argue that there is no credible testimony to the existence of god(s), either.

Highschool drop outs also argue there is no credible testimony to the existence of electrons

I've heard Christians say God is all around us. You don't believe that? Where does God live, then?

electrons are also all around the highschool drop out

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?

Do you mean praying before the natural disaster or during it? Also be specific, praying for what?
If I was a christian I could probably also talk about how jesus's life wasn't a bed of roses either

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?

I think your idea of religion is bereft of a foundation of theoretical knowledge of the relationship between god, the living entity, the material world, the spiritual world, and the nature of illusion.

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?

Define innocent
Define worthy

“ 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? ”



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?

Fire is a simple phenomena but even it has at least three qualities that bear no relationship to one another -but they do bear a relationship to one who understands the nature of fire - similarly because you are bereft of the proper understanding of god all you see are contradictions

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.

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered - in other words the ontological nature of einsteins discovery was fully dependant on the epistemology of astronomy - persons who had no insight into the epistemology had no insight into the ontology - and this accepted as good science.

- that is if I told you the truth or if I told you lie how would you be able to determine the difference?

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.

Could also raise doubts over your ability to locate the creator

I'm not sure. Some animals might produce crayon drawings without being conscious.

animals are not conscious?

Or perhaps if you tied a crayon to a swaying tree branch and left it for a while near some paper...

The person who tied them to the tree isn't conscious?

I can't guarantee that every crayon drawing requires a human artist.

or to take it further, do even sheets of paper or crayons exist without being created by conscious entities?

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.

Now you have jumped definitions - one moment we were talking about crayon pictures of stars being more complex than stars, but now you have added the creator of the picture

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.

There's also the issue of how the star exists suspended out in space in an orbit

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.

I can include the consciousness of god in the definition of the star as a more complex item of observation

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.

how convenient

“ 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 ”



I don't see how. Shermer doesn't believe in praying either. (Never mind.)

this reply is what warranted you the reply about the anecdote of einstein

Probably because the epistemologies have been erroded by atheism, even atheism in the guise of religion ("pray to god for your material needs") ”



Do you really think Islamic terrorism, to take one example, is linked to atheism?

Many muslim scholars establish that islamic terrorism operates out of a corrupt epistemology - take it up with Samckdey if you don't believe me

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 am saying that without god the very definitions of good and evil become arbitrary

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?

If someone shot your wife and was coming at you with a rifle would it be moral to shoot him first?

Because if things are evil only because God says so, then morality is fairly arbitrary.

First you have to establish that god is arbitrary and that you are not

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.

You can have a moral atheist - that is why morality is only advocated as the departure point for the performance of religous principles, namely service and surrender to god, and not the perfection of existence

If that's the case, couldn't we substitute some other authority for God - the President, perhaps?

In traditional theistic culture the ruler is seen as a representative of god

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...

Actually you misunderstand who the criminals are - anyone who takes birth in the material world, including the president, is a criminal (to the degree that they are exploiting god's inferior nature, namely the material world)- the evidence is that we exist in an atmosphere of force that is greater than our will -
- next you have to establish how god is failing to control the criminals - after all people fear death more than the police

Good and evil are surely easy enough to discern. We can start from "do unto others as you would have them do unto you",

Then why is it impossible for you to situate yourself on this ideal?
Why do you sit idley while other people's family members are starving for want of food while your family members are (hopefully) well fed?

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.

allof which are as impractical as the above example

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.

So you admit that humanity is incredibly limited in the endeavour to restore moral balance in the world (assuming that they could even agree in which direction moral balance lies)

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.

They have a religious agenda - so does he - what's the difference?

“ Why isn't intelligent design scientific? ”

Because it assumes a conclusion from the start rather than examining the evidence.

so does macro-evolution

It ignores contrary evidence.

just like you ignore the obvious connection between consciousness and the creation of complex structures that have coherant systems

It makes no useful predictions.

useful to who?

“ 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? ”
If it's own definitions say evidence for macro-evolution cannot be produced, then obviously it doesn't rely on such evidence.

and that makes it more scientific?


“ Why does it hold that god must be proven by those same empiral methods that cannot establish the validity of macro-evolution? ”

The Creationist split between macro- and micro- evolution is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy. Basically, micro-evolution + lots of time = macroevolution.

ok thats the theory - where is the evidence?

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.

so the creationists have a theory - the macro-evolutionists have another - why are they not on an equal status?

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.

There's an entire thread there titled about the correct epistemology - basically it has the same rquirements as any other epistemology - the first requirement is a qualified teacher

“ 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 ”

God is not an objective phenomenon. Ask different people and they all have different conceptions of what God is and is not.

Just like fire, smoke and light are all contrary phenomena for one bereft of knowledge of fire

Each person's experience of God is deeply personal, according to most believers. That is necessarily subjective, not objective.

If god is conscious he cannot be personal ?
Like suppose there is a factory owner - he has many different personal relationships eg - the workers, his secretary, his executive council, his shildren, his parents his wife etc

What is the objective evidence for God, according to you?

Before there is discusions of ontology there must be a clear epistemological process - we are back at the einstein anecdote

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.

Did I advocate iran's system?
I advocated that a person with a whole lot of religious books on their shelves is not in a superior epistemological position to a religious practioner - inotherwords without the practice of religion, study is an academic pastime (and I think we all know the value of such thngs)
Shermers agenda is to get religion relegated to academia

 

[lightgigantic]

How can I be bigoted when you have nothing to say? Do you have something to say, or is it hot air?

What process do you refer?

I've said it in the other thread - the fact that you don't post there (and perhaps even haven't read it) indicates that you are bigoted
.

.. or at the very least not particularly interested in understanding the subject, so why should I bother repeating myself to persons who maintain such a slack stance?

Wouldn't that be hot air?

 

[(Q)]

I've said it in the other thread - the fact that you don't post there (and perhaps even haven't read it) indicates that you are bigoted

Or, more precisely, the fact you don't know the meaning of the word 'bigoted.'

.. or at the very least not particularly interested in understanding the subject, so why should I bother repeating myself to persons who maintain such a slack stance?

Wouldn't that be hot air?

Nope, it's evasion. You too, like most theists, evade questions posed when you make extraordinary or imaginary claims.

But, that's ok, no need to explain yourself, I'll settle with igneous flatulence and move on. Ta.

 

[(Q)]

And btw, LG, I did read your opening post on that other thread and found that the only process you offered was to follow scripture blindly. Yes, that can be considered a process, by definition, but it fails miserably when taken into context in your example above.

 

[SkinWalker]

LG's reluctance to summarize this mystery process of his pseudo-epistemology is suspect. One might be tempted to think that it cannot be summarized, further adding to the suspicion. Surely, any actual process that he speaks of is capable of some sort of summary -a summary that, at least, can use specific posts within his "epistemology" thread to reinforce itself.

That would lead us to conclude that there probably is no real process to speak of, at least not one that provides any usable process of "bridging the gap between faith and perception." That process is, simply put: the human imagination.

Faith, for the religious adherent, involves ignoring, side-stepping, denying, and otherwise avoiding true inquiry into the subject at hand, which is how the adherent obtains his knowledge about his religion. Certainly, some of this knowledge can come from objective and verifiable sources: the number of members in a church; number of saints; how a ritual is to be performed; what constitutes appropriate behavior according to doctrine; etc.

But when it comes to the supernatural "knowledge" of religious cults, we can only say that this knowledge is perceived based upon the expectations and imaginations of the adherents. As example (I find I must be clear that I'm making an example, since LG seems to erroneously think when this is done I'm implying this is something he said), some African Traditional Religions hold that witchcraft is a real ability that can inflict pain and suffering upon others either intentionally or unintentionally. So accepted is this notion, that if accused of witchcraft, the appropriate answer to the accuser by the accused is, very often, to say, "if I used witchcraft, I did not do it knowingly," and the accused accepts that he did use witchcraft. The evidence is in the ill-health or calamity that has befallen an enemy or one with whom he has had conflict.

In this example, the ATR adherent has "faith" in his religion's position that witchcraft is a real force that emanates from mangu (in the case of the Azande and, I think, the Gwari). The "perception" is that this witchcraft affected his enemy. The "process" that "bridged the gap" between this "faith" and this "perception" is his imagination.

The same holds true for the Pentecostal adherent that begins 'speaking tongues' after being 'saved' by a cult leader. His "faith" tells him that a "holy spirit" can enter and speak through him in a language not understood by those around him. His "perception" is that he has been possessed by another being. The "process" that bridges the gap of his perceptions is his imagination. Never has it been shown that the babbling nonsense that such an adherent utters when "speaking in tongues" is an actual language. Of course, the adherent's easy cop-out is, its a language not known to man! This isn't epistemology, its bullshit. A pseudo-epistemology since the source of information is the imagination.

Don't even get me started on the nutjobs that "know" there's a holy ghost in a freaking-poisonous snake to be passed around in their cult meetings.

Finally, LG's remark that someone is "bigoted" because they've not bothered to read the thread he is apparently keen to advertise is an obvious non sequitur. By the same logic, we should be able to conclude that LG is also a bigot for refusing to at least link to a post or even give the page and post number of the the post(s) relevant to his claim. One might even be inclined to think that LG's previous criticisms of the logical fallacies of those that refuse to accept his unsupported (to date) claims are invalid with such an obvious faux pas.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Anyone that believes in a God is deluded.

spoken like a true crab

 

[superluminal]

Its not like I've kept it a secret is it?

Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

You observe something interesting. You then make a guess as to what it might be or what's causing it. Then you make some tests to confirm or deny your idea. If the tests support your idea, you've learned something potentially new about the universe. Bada boom.

How's yours work?

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

So, what's the simple epistemology that anyone can easily apply to percieve god? You know, like the simple epistemology scientists use to percieve nature?

Easy, right?

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

 

[superluminal]

spoken like a true crab

But anyone that believes in god is deluded, by many definitions:

- an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

- A delusion is commonly defined as a false belief, and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

- A false idea typically originating from a misinterpretation but firmly believed and strongly maintained in spite of contradictory proof or evidence.
www.alz.org/Resources/Glossary.asp

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

You observe something interesting. You then make a guess as to what it might be or what's causing it. Then you make some tests to confirm or deny your idea. If the tests support your idea, you've learned something potentially new about the universe. Bada boom.

How's yours work?

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

So, what's the simple epistemology that anyone can easily apply to percieve god? You know, like the simple epistemology scientists use to percieve nature?

Easy, right?

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

super

Once upon a time A man invented a word, this word was invented so that it could explain away an infinite number of events otherwise unexplainable by modern science.

This word is 'coincidence'

It is just a word.

The events occurred before that word came into being. The law of coincidence did NOT exist before that word.

Thus all the experiences men had that told them that other worldy forces we did not understand were at work were once valid BUT when that word came into being......they immediately became to the 'follwers of that word' invalid. It's just a word. You can believe in that word if you like, it is your choice, as inadequate as it is.