Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

[aaqucnaona]

I do think the image and the comment "Prove it!" is worth looking into. I think it points toward a fundamental principle of how some people tend to approach interactions with others.
Namely, requesting proof from others suggests a passive, reactive, and essentially insecure approach to life as such.

How is is passive or insecure? I think a active, reactive and highly sceptical [and therfore informed] approach to life may be more adequate.

 

[wynn]

I see you're taking it quite seriously, and that's fair enough.

Check the OP.

I on the otherhand, cannot see any serious intent in his defence, or arguments.

It's not that I am seeing a serious intent on the part of the atheists.
It's that I do think it is possible to analytically explain how, and possibly, why, they make the arguments they make. And that as such, a more direct exchange may be possible. Because as it usually is, theists and atheists are talking right past eachother.

I assume that by understanding the atheist position better, one will be better able to see the atheism in oneself, and then take appropriate measures.

At first I thought they may be real inquiry, but have since understood, that he is looking for a smoking gun, and that is the extent of his contribution, despite attempts to assure us that he is not.

They may be atheists, but they are still people, per definition parts and parcels of God like everyone else.

I see the whole atheist movement as weak, by themselves, but appear to be strong when upheld by more powerful forces who seek to gain control over the masses. I am becoming more convinced that this overall force is satanic, and irreligious.

I may one day create a thread on this subject, especially as the subject of ''satanism'', and the ''satanic'', is very sparse around these here parts.

I wonder why

How about becoming convinced that the Dharma is a good thing?
How's your love for the Dharma doing today?

 

[wynn]

How is is passive or insecure?

Someone makes a claim, and the only thing you can think of in reply is to doubt them?

That's a textbook example of passivity and insecurity.

I think a active, reactive and highly sceptical [and therfore informed]

Being skeptical doesn't automatically make you informed.

approach to life may be more adequate.

I guess that depends on what you want from life.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I on the otherhand, cannot see any serious intent in his defence, or arguments.

Intention to do what?

At first I thought they may be real inquiry, but have since understood, that he is looking for a smoking gun, and that is the extent of his contribution, despite attempts to assure us that he is not.

Smoking gun of what? That god doesn't exist? I never made that claim, I am agnostic on the existence of god and atheistic on belief in Him [and am an apatheist for religion]. I think your claim is serious enough that it either be substantiated or retracted.

I see the whole atheist movement as weak, by themselves, but appear to be strong when upheld by more powerful forces who seek to gain control over the masses. I am becoming more convinced that this overall force is satanic, and irreligious.

Weak in what sense? Surely not in quantity -

or quality -

So in what sense is it weak? And what powerful forces? Control over the masses? We will surely never beat this [even if there were an atheist conspiracy] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StaPF5qqFDk
How about this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtIREJVPfQY

I may one day create a thread on this subject, especially as the subject of ''satanism'', and the ''satanic'', is very sparse around these here parts.

I wonder why

Jan, we would hate to see you turn into a conspiracy theorist. If you got something real, sure do go ahead and tell us all about it - but on sciforums, you will have to do real good to stop it from getting into the cesspool.

Ps - on "I am an atheist" - the insistence of the scientific method may be your first point of attack, so for the sake of argument, I will concede that point and request that you present me a better, more useful and more certain way of gaining knowledge.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Someone makes a claim, and the only thing you can think of in reply is to doubt them?

That's a textbook example of passivity and insecurity.

No, thats textbook scepticism, maybe cynicism even.

Being skeptical doesn't automatically make you informed.

A sceptic cannot help but be informed, if he is not informed, he becomes cynical and insecure. Being informed means learning things, understanding them, try and see if they can stand the sceptical analysis, if the conflict with observations, etc. Only by doing so can a sceptic live a fulfilling life.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,,

Check the OP.

Okay.

I assume that by understanding the atheist position better, one will be better able to see the atheism in oneself, and then take appropriate measures.

Atheist, is a simple concept.
What is it that makes you think being an atheist is separate to being a theist.

They may be atheists, but they are still people, per definition parts and parcels of God like everyone else.

Didn't say otherwise.

How about becoming convinced that the Dharma is a good thing?

Don't understand what you mean.

How's your love for the Dharma doing today?

I don't know. I haven't given it much thought.

What is the purpose behind these questions.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona,

Jan, we would hate to see you turn into a conspiracy theorist. If you got something real, sure do go ahead and tell us all about it - but on sciforums, you will have to do real good to stop it from getting into the cesspool.

Oh! So ''satanism'', and ''the satanic'', are conspiracy theory fodder?
Why aren't the God, and religion put in same category?

What is a conspiracy theory?
I suppose a conspiracy is when the powers at hand conspire against the people it governs, and it could be theoretical as to whether or not such allegations are true. Would you agree with that loose def?

Ps - on "I am an atheist" - the insistence of the scientific method may be your first point of attack, so for the sake of argument, I will concede that point and request that you present me a better, more useful and more certain way of gaining knowledge.

There is nothing about your worldview that is in accordance with science, so why do you use it, as though it's got your back. :shrug:

Why don't you use some parts of communism as your back up, as it is clearly closer to your position?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Atheist, is a simple concept.
What is it that makes you think being an atheist is separate to being a theist.

Is it not??

Don't understand what you mean.

I don't know. I haven't given it much thought.

What is the purpose behind these questions.

Basically, my point is that it seems that many people who are into spirituality develop a distaste for worldliness, but fail to develop a taste for the Dharma.
So they are very good at pointing out atheism, satanism, irreligion, but they don't balance this out with a love for the Dharma.


(A while back, I listened to a short Buddhist Dharma talk titled "Love for the Dharma." About how the Dharma is a good thing, that we should appreciate it once we are in contact with it, as without it, we'd be lost, aimlessly wandering on in samsara.
In the East, it is common to express gratitude for the Dharma teachings; although not so much in the West.
I think if I had more appreciation for the Dharma, I wouldn't get involved in so many discussions here.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Is it not??

Unless one has absolute knowledge of God, I think not.

Basically, my point is that it seems that many people who are into spirituality develop a distaste for worldliness, but fail to develop a taste for the Dharma.
So they are very good at pointing out atheism, satanism, irreligion, but they don't balance this out with a love for the Dharma.

I don't know what you mean by ''develop a distaste for dharma'', or. ''a love for dharma''.
Explain how you see dharma, and give a reason why, or, how, even, one can ''love dharma''.

I think if I had more appreciation for the Dharma, I wouldn't get involved in so many discussions here.)

I get involved in discussions because I enjoy it. Not very spiritual, or religious, granted. But without that sensation, I wouldn't be here.

How's that for atheisticness?

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The question of why it is silly to look for evidence of God appears to be a leading one. For example, there may be cases in which it's not silly, such as when you are staring down a fundamentalist who has just pulled the ring on a hand grenade, in which case, the subject of God's nonexistence may suddenly become very serious and pressing.

Another attribute of looking for evidence of God, which negates the term 'silly', is that the evidence has been found: God exists in the mind of the believer. People who believe their own artifices ascribing existence to God demonstrate frivolousness and foolishness which may be appropriately characterized as silly. However, it would not be appropriate to characterize the search for evidence of god as silly, insofar as that search has yielded clear evidence that God exists as an invented idea and nothing more. Furthermore, the believer who attributes this conclusion as silly, is furthering the pursuit of unending silliness by perpetuating defenses, such as denial, against a cure. Even intoxication by nitrous oxide, which makes a person feel silly, is not in itself a silly matter, since, by failing to take notice of the oxygen level in the mixture, serious injury or death may result. So the cure is not silly, nor the disease. In fact the misappropriation of ideas like silliness, in furtherance of a pathological denial, is far from silly. I would even go so far as to say it is more like the reciprocal of silly squared. Which is pretty damn serious.

 

[aaqucnaona]

aaqucnaona,
Oh! So ''satanism'', and ''the satanic'', are conspiracy theory fodder?
Why aren't the God, and religion put in same category?

What is a conspiracy theory?
I suppose a conspiracy is when the powers at hand conspire against the people it governs, and it could be theoretical as to whether or not such allegations are true. Would you agree with that loose def?

I will withhold further comments on this until you start the thread for this conspiracy.

There is nothing about your worldview that is in accordance with science.

A serious postive claim, Jan. Please substantiate and elaborate.

Why don't you use some parts of communism as your back up, as it is clearly closer to your position?

Communism - A political theory favouring collectivism in a classless society.

Hardly the secular humanism of modern atheists, no?

Ps, on your conversation with wynn -
You said, in absense of absoulte knowledge of God, atheism and theism are the same.
Er, no. Theists accept the postive claim of God's existence, hence the burden of proof is on them. Atheists, on the other hand, reject this positive claim, while they make no counter-claim - that God DOES NOT exist. IN that situation, they would be the same. But atheists are on God as scientists are on the [so called] god particle - they dont say it doesn't exist, they just dont consider it to be real [and existence], because they lack proof.

IMO, Most atheists would hold -
Existence of God - Agnostic - I dont know if God exists.
Belief in God - Atheism - I dont believe in God, he may exist, but lack of indications prevent me from including him in my ontology.
View on Religion - Apatheism/pragmatism - I dont care much about religion/ religion is a good social, cultural and/or moral tool.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I think if I had more appreciation for the Dharma, I wouldn't get involved in so many discussions here.

Or your involvement might take on a different nature.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why don't you use some parts of communism as your back up, as it is clearly closer to your position?

For me, it's because the kind of communism I favor (communal life) has nothing to do with the totalitarianism of which you refer, and neither of these have anything to do with my understanding that God exists merely as an idea.

 

[wynn]

Unless one has absolute knowledge of God, I think not.

Hm. This is a big one!

I don't know what you mean by ''develop a distaste for dharma'', or. ''a love for dharma''.
Explain how you see dharma, and give a reason why, or, how, even, one can ''love dharma''.

I'll rephrase - Do you appreciate what you read in, say BG As It Is?

I get involved in discussions because I enjoy it. Not very spiritual, or religious, granted. But without that sensation, I wouldn't be here.

How's that for atheisticness?

Ha! I thought you had more elevated intentions for posting here.

 

[wynn]

The question of why it is silly to look for evidence of God appears to be a leading one. For example, there may be cases in which it's not silly, such as when you are staring down a fundamentalist who has just pulled the ring on a hand grenade, in which case, the subject of God's nonexistence may suddenly become very serious and pressing.

Another attribute of looking for evidence of God, which negates the term 'silly', is that the evidence has been found: God exists in the mind of the believer. People who believe their own artifices ascribing existence to God demonstrate frivolousness and foolishness which may be appropriately characterized as silly. However, it would not be appropriate to characterize the search for evidence of god as silly, insofar as that search has yielded clear evidence that God exists as an invented idea and nothing more. Furthermore, the believer who attributes this conclusion as silly, is furthering the pursuit of unending silliness by perpetuating defenses, such as denial, against a cure. Even intoxication by nitrous oxide, which makes a person feel silly, is not in itself a silly matter, since, by failing to take notice of the oxygen level in the mixture, serious injury or death may result. So the cure is not silly, nor the disease. In fact the misappropriation of ideas like silliness, in furtherance of a pathological denial, is far from silly. I would even go so far as to say it is more like the reciprocal of silly squared. Which is pretty damn serious.

I am referring you to the usual definitions of God.

It is silly, to say the least, for humans to try to test those definitions.

 

[wynn]

Weak in what sense?

Weak, for one, because the atheist wants to be convinced (as per the poster you posted),
but leaves it up to others to convince him.

 

[elte]

These topics sure get the mind going.

I look for evidence of God because God is such a popular idea in the world. People say they see God working, and the human need to know in order to not to miss out has compelled me to look. I might never have gotten the idea otherwise. When I was small, the extent to which I knew of the supernatural involved Windy flying on The Uncle Al Show.

I can imagine myself back in prehistoric times seeing a leaf blowing along the ground. I might think it could be something living, yet largely unknown and mysterious that is moving it. I might then wonder if other things going on around me might be manifestations of the same living thing or others like it in many ways.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Weak, for one, because the atheist wants to be convinced (as per the poster you posted),
but leaves it up to others to convince him.

Well of course, the surest way include bias into your thinking is to try and convince yourself of that which you want to be convinced. Making the source of convinction another person, a rational discussion or observation of objective reality is the sure way to eliminate such baises. Besides, in the case of atheism, since the positive claim is of the theist, the burden of proof isn't on the atheist anyway.

I wonder though, if you would consider the UFO suicide cult "strong" for being able to convince themselves.

 

[Balerion]

Weak, for one, because the atheist wants to be convinced (as per the poster you posted),
but leaves it up to others to convince him.

Nonsense. You really can't grasp the burden of proof argument? It isn't difficult. Why do these simple concepts continually fly right over your head?

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Hm. This is a big one!

Belief in God requires actions, not words, and it is a very precise science, as it deals exclusively with yourself. If one doesn't believe in one specific thing, then one lack belief in that specific thing. A lack of belief means one is atheistic.

The miskake being made here, IMO, is that belief in God is accepted as such, because of external traits, and because one says one believes.
In this case I am using the actual definition of the words atheist, and theist, which is not to be confused with ''mondern atheism'', which ties itself in with logic, science, and reason.

I'll rephrase - Do you appreciate what you read in, say BG As It Is?

Yes. So I take it you mean ''duty''?
So how is it possible to love, duty?

Ha! I thought you had more elevated intentions for posting here.

I think that's quite an elevated intention.
It's says alot about SciForums, and the range, level, and topics, here.
Because of my desire to enjoy, I've learned alot of stuff since I've been here.
And I've been able to talk about religion and God, something i'm interested in, so I can't complain.

And if I may add: I think you have too.

jan.