Spiritualists and Materialists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Spiritualists and Materialists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.


I'll address this one, but before I do I want to make a few things known:

1) The thread title very misleading (to the point where I would declare it lying). The link is about atheists vs. theists which are very different than spiritualists and materialists.

2) I disagree with almost every single sentence in the linked page on an objective basis; however, it's not worth the effort picking it apart. Instead I am going to address the core questions it asks.

And now on to addressing the core questions from the link:

Q: Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
A: If you value truth more than how you feel then absolutely not. The confrontations should continue and theistic claims should be demonstrated for the non-truth that they are. This has the benefit of effectively marginalizing theism in society so we don't have theistically driven leaders making decisions to hurt people because of their theism.

Q: Is it possible to end them?
A: I suspect it is. If you provide everyone with strong education and healthy socio-economics for a very long time then theism naturally waynes and becomes unimportant to everyone.

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists.

Theism and atheism are in conflict on principle.
Materialism and spiritualism are in conflict on principle.
These conflicts are a given, they are inherent because the stances are opposing eachother; these conflicts cannot be eliminated.


What might be changed is the way confrontations between theists and atheists, or spiritualists and materialists are carried out.
I imagine that if both sides became more assertive (as opposed to aggressive, passive, or passive-aggressive), then the confrontations would be over more quickly and the remaining exchanges more meaningful.

However, I also see no reason why theists/spiritualists would become more assertive; they are even doctrinally bound to be aggressive/controlling.



Neither believers nor nonbelievers should be ridiculed.

It is part of many theistic/spiritual doctrines to ridicule non-believers.

To ask the theists/spiritualists to not ridicule others is to ask them to give up on some of their doctrines.
This would be a limitation of the theists/spiritualists' freedoms and rights.
Surely they won't agree to that.

why can't one be both materialistic and spiritual?

sure, there are people who only care about materialism and not spiritual or vice versa but that doesn't mean one can't appreciate both. you have to be materialistic to some extent to live in the physical world but it's probably not healthy to be overly materialistic or think that is all to life, then you miss out on other things which give it meaning.

Ludwig:

Enjoyed your treatise on science and sprituality. Guess I would also fit into your natural theist category. I believe that God exists spiritually and interacts (sometimes) with the material world. As I've been dwelling lately on a lot of theoretical physics, and have also suffered recent life losses, I find myself focusing on both. I am a sort of material and spiritual renegade - believing in both avenues simultaneously. In a prayer meeting last week, the term "Quantum Jesus" crossed my mind. This may be the final frontier that we are headed-for - and it is possible that spirituality and science are actually on separate, but converging paths. I am optimistic that this is the case, but as you have eloquently-said, we have a lot of confrontational issues to resolve. Thanks for contributing . . . you are fulfilling your life's 'purpose' (as we all hopefully are).

wlminex

I find myself focusing on both. I am a sort of material and spiritual renegade - believing in both avenues simultaneously. In a prayer meeting last week, the term "Quantum Jesus" crossed my mind. This may be the final frontier that we are headed-for - and it is possible that spirituality and science are actually on separate, but converging paths.

quantum jesus? quantum buddha? quantum allah? quantum devil? lol.

you mean scientists are trying to figure out the universe and world we live in?? do they know it all? no, that is true. is there a lot that occurs which can't all be explained by science? yes, it seems so because life is very complicated.

i think the largest barrier between science and 'spirituality' is the fact we live in a physical world. science requires hard physical evidence mostly.

take for instance, the feeling of love or the issue of the idea of 'souls'. science has a hard time taking that seriously because there is no proof.

we can say that the feeling of 'love' among other experiences or states is a biochemical reaction but even if it is, that 'state' could be a form just as our physical bodies are a temporary construct and we acknowledge it's existence, perhaps the 'soul' is also a temporary contruct of our being that is ever changing or evolving depending on our experiences just as our physical bodies regenerate cell by cell, though our construct remains until our final death.

these are just examples of the limits of what science can prove or disprove right now. this is why there is a barrier at this present time.

another issue is that literalists tend to see the world only in limited physical scope as being cause and effect when there is much more going on underneath the surface of interactions with other living beings besides just the physical world. what someone thinks and feels will affect another and it creates a domino effect in the world. we all affect eachother in one way or another and it's not just a matter of 'cause and effect' being only a physical manipulation such as literally moving one object from one location to another.

there is so much subtle and overt that effects our lives and the world at large, for good or ill. we also create on many different levels, not just reacting and others react to what we create on a mental, emotional and physical level. 'spirituality' usually is an overall encompassing term to mean mental and emotional combined with either intent or passively.

I'll address this one, but before I do I want to make a few things known:

1) The thread title very misleading (to the point where I would declare it lying). The link is about atheists vs. theists which are very different than spiritualists and materialists.

I agree. An even better title would scientist vs theists.



2) I disagree with almost every single sentence in the linked page on an objective basis; however, it's not worth the effort picking it apart. Instead I am going to address the core questions it asks.

I also do not agree with many quoted statements.




And now on to addressing the core questions from the link:

Q: Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
A: If you value truth more than how you feel then absolutely not. The confrontations should continue and theistic claims should be demonstrated for the non-truth that they are. This has the benefit of effectively marginalizing theism in society so we don't have theistically driven leaders making decisions to hurt people because of their theism.

Q: Is it possible to end them?
A: I suspect it is. If you provide everyone with strong education and healthy socio-economics for a very long time then theism naturally waynes and becomes unimportant to everyone.

I do not know what will happen in the next thousand years, or so.

.................................................. ........................
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

quantum jesus? quantum buddha? quantum allah? quantum devil? lol. ...

1) This are indeed very confusing, and totally unnecessary, words.

2) And yes, Lminex, we are all trying.

Good day to all.

..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

it is not a professional paper..
it was designed to look like one.
here is where i made this observation:


As soon as you theists cross over the line and try to interfere with my life through politics, law, and lifestyle, than you can go shove it up you know where and expect no mercy from me..

a professional paper would not have personal opinion in it.

other than that..it was pretty good, it brought up some good points..

I think confrontation is good and necessary . Confront your fears is even better . Hiding from it will leave you out of the outcome . If the outcome is bad you got no one to blame but your self . Engage in life , Life is conflict , Lets hope we come to some conclusions in the process . With out questioning the way things are life will become stagnate . The thrill is gone . Engage people . Make your voices heard . Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of there country . Make your voice heard .

Birch post #6: "quantum jesus? quantum buddha? quantum allah? quantum devil? lol."

Note the common denominator here? You're headed in the right direction!

wlminex

I think confrontation is good and necessary . Confront your fears is even better . Hiding from it will leave you out of the outcome . If the outcome is bad you got no one to blame but your self . Engage in life , Life is conflict , Lets hope we come to some conclusions in the process . With out questioning the way things are life will become stagnate . The thrill is gone . Engage people . Make your voices heard . Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of there country . Make your voice heard .

Yes, debates are necessary, to make progress. But poisonous hateful confrontations can lead to a genocide. That is what scares me.

..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Yes, debates are necessary, to make progress.

Is there any evidence to support this claim?



But poisonous hateful confrontations can lead to a genocide. That is what scares me.

Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case either.

Genocide happens; but what has lead to it is probably very complex.

Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-science-and-religion-_1_b_879022.html)

Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-science-and-religion-_1_b_879022.html)

That was not my claim. RELIGION = THEISM + MANY OTHER THINGS

Are science and theology compatible? I think that the concept of incompatibility would not apply if we had agreed that science deals only with claims in our material world while theology deals only with claims in our spiritual world.

Such agreement would help us to eliminate many unnecessary conflicts.

...............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The simple truth of the matter is that this conflict will never go away as long as you have theists preaching eternal damnation. There are many other factors of course, but this one, all by itself, ensures that there shall never be peace.

So in order to realize your vision of some sort of unity and mutual respect between theists and atheists, you'd have to ask the theists to make a sacrifice that would be impossible for them to make without violating one of the core tenets of their belief system, which is that not everyone is going to be 'saved'. And I can guarantee you that right now, most theists who read this will be thinking "well, it's actually true, atheists are destined for eternal damnation".

Is this a problem that can be solved kowalskil?

To put it another way, what hope do you think there would be for real peace between two nations if, in spite of a mutual effort toward workable diplomatic relations, it was known that one of those nations considered the other to be so fundamentally flawed that they deserved to be destroyed?

The simple truth of the matter is that this conflict will never go away as long as you have theists preaching eternal damnation. There are many other factors of course, but this one, all by itself, ensures that there shall never be peace.

Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists.

Are science and theology compatible? I think that the concept of incompatibility would not apply if we had agreed that science deals only with claims in our material world while theology deals only with claims in our spiritual world.

Is philosophy a science?

Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists.


Here you go again, casting judgement.

Do you know every single hindu, Signal, from the
moment the term ''hindu'' was announced?

Or can you explain what it is about YOU, that grants
you the right to generalise in this way?


jan.

Here you go again, casting judgement.

Do you know every single hindu, Signal, from the
moment the term ''hindu'' was announced?

Or can you explain what it is about YOU, that grants
you the right to generalise in this way?

It would be strange if a religion (or "spiritual path," or whichever to call it) would not consider itself superior to all others.

Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others.

A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists.

I doubt very much whether those kind of conflicts can be eliminated. We certainly see plenty of conflicts between adherents of different religions and religious sects. We've also seen plenty of conflicts among secular non-religious people. I'm inclined to suspect that conflict is part of the human condition, part of our basic psychology.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing either, provided that it isn't accompanied by emotional hostility and doesn't escalate into violence. Intellectual disagreement is a big part of what shapes the course of inquiry and drives the learning process.

One way to look at unnecessary confrontations is each person is different with their optimized path optimized for them. When they say this cake is the best, it may quite well be the best for them. What they say is partially true. But they often forget to say this can only be proven to be best for, since they are not conscious of the subtly that what is optimized for one may not optimize all.

I might like rock music, which could be perfect for my music needs. But other may like classical or rap. This is fine for them. But to assume what is right for me has to be right for all is irrational. This irrationality leads to all the arguments. If you can understand your tastes and needs are unique to you, then you can share this with others, but not expect them to always get as excited as you feel.

We can argue vanilla versus chocolate with people getting excited, while others given good arguments and proof with statistics for each side. But the fact will still remain to each his own in terms of optimization. Maybe being polite to the irrational means agreeing with them so they feel better about their uniqueness.

Signal,



It would be strange if a religion (or "spiritual path," or whichever to call it) would not consider itself superior to all others.

And you know every hindu believes this, how?



Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others.


And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?


A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.


And how do you know this?


jan.

2) Our two worlds, material and spiritual
The two worlds in which most of us live, spiritual and material, are very different from each other; methods of validation of claims in science are not the same as in theology.

Talking about "two worlds" makes me nervous. I don't know whether the phrase is meant literally or figuratively. I don't believe that we literally live in two different ontological worlds. (I'm something of a monist.) But I have less problem with the idea that we conceive of and relate to our single world in multiple psychological and conceptual ways.

Probably far more ways than just two. Artists relate to the world aesthetically. Businessmen see it as a collection of things to be bought and sold. Some people relate to the world in terms of logic and technical abstractions, others emotionally, in terms of feelings and personality. Some imagine the world as a puzzle, as a mystery to be solved. Others see it in terms of right-and-wrong, praise-and-blame, and personal responsibility. Some people are self-centered, some other-centered.

And obviously, most of us are capable of displaying multiple modes, emphasizing some more than others, depending on the occasion.

But many of us do favor some modes over others and these different psychological types probably tend to gravitate towards different poles in your material-spiritual dichotomy. The rational, analytic people who perceive the world as a mystery are apt to end up as religious agnostics and become scientists. People who instinctively think of everything in terms of personal relationships are more likely to viscerally assume that everything must be traceable back to some supreme cosmic personality.

And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?

?
What makes you think I equated the two?




A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.

And how do you know this?

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

That was not my claim. RELIGION = THEISM + MANY OTHER THINGS

Are science and theology compatible? I think that the concept of incompatibility would not apply if we had agreed that science deals only with claims in our material world while theology deals only with claims in our spiritual world.

Such agreement would help us to eliminate many unnecessary conflicts.

...............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism. There is no spiritual world, there is only the world.

Signal,



What makes you think I equated the two?

So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?




Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

So you know this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path, how exactly?

I'm interested in how you know these things.


jan.

So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?

I said:


Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others.

From this, you seemed to have concluded that I am equating "PC" with "spiritual path" -


And why do you equate ''PC'' with ''spiritual path''?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.



So you know this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path, how exactly?

I'm interested in how you know these things.

First of all, I said:


Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."
or
"That's just my way. I don't care if it is the best there is. I'll stick to it anyway."
-?

I did not say that "this is the thought pattern of every person who adheres to
a spiritual path."


Earlier, I said:


A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.
which is a truism. It simply follows from the common-sense understandings of choice; we consider it a given that a rational, moral agent always chooses that which she finds best, superior to everything else.


And what's wrong with declaring superiority?
Declaring superiority perhaps only becomes a problem when one isn't actually superior.

Do you really believe that a person would hold about their own stance or path (religious, spiritual, philosophical, etc.) a belief such as
"I am sure that what I believe is not the best there is. I know there are better, higher, more moral, more advanced beliefs. But I do not care about them. I stick to my own beliefs, even though I know them to be inferior."

I kind of fit that description. In a way.

My intellectual views are all works-in-progress. They are always changing as I learn and experience things. So I can't say that their state today is the last and final word on anything. I assume that I could probably shape better views if I knew more.

And I'm very cognizant of the fact that I'm going to die long before I reach the end of that gnostic path and reach the Final Ultimate Truth... assuming that such a thing even exists for human beings.

Of course, I do care about learning more. So I can't say "I don't care".

Though maybe I can say that when it comes to religious practice.

Imagine a Buddhist householder. He or she knows that monastic practice exists and that's arguably a 'higher' form of practice. But the householder might be quite satisfied with being a householder and have little interest in ordaining. Imagine a junior monastic. He or she is probably aware that there are meditation and other practices that more senior monastics engage in and have perhaps even mastered. But the junior monastic knows those are things that one must work up to and knows that the task at hand is to master his or her own practice - then and there.

I guess that I think of both intellectual and religious life in terms of following a path. Being human, we naturally tend to grade different paths and different positions on the same path as being 'higher' and 'lower'. And naturally, we all want to skip over all the lower stuff and jump immediately to the very highest, best and truest.

But in religious life particularly, I don't know if that's a good idea. Sometimes it might be better to take the simplest and most elementary practice and really follow it as far as it will take us. That might be very far indeed. There's probably no need to complicate things. I often sense that's the direction in which real spirituality lies.

I've met several people in my life that I think of as... I don't know... very evolved and even saintly beings. They all came from unexpected places; a welder, a housewife. None of them were theologians or religious gurus. None of them were even conventionally religious. What they shared wasn't sophisticated doctrine, but simply purity of heart.

I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism.

At least we know for sure this feeling you ''feel'' IS invented. :)

jan.

It's a reasonable conclusion, given that there is no evidence of anything spiritual in a supernatural sense. I would make an exception to the use of the word as a label applied to the practice of seeking to alter, perceive, or reconcile our relationship between our minds and the material world or society.

I kind of fit that description. In a way.

Sure. But you wouldn't go out and identify yourself as a "Buddhist", would you? And you wouldn't go out and say that everyone who is not a Buddhist, is wrong/inferior/in delusion?

I have no doubt that many people believe they are works in progress and that they believe that their current practice isn't necessarily the best possible.

But every existing religion has the tenet that it is superior to all others. There is no religion that would say "You can believe and do things like we believe and do, or you can do them any other way, it's allright, you'll get enlightened/liberated/do right by God just the same."
So declaring oneself to be a member of a particular religion implies the declaration that one's path is superior.


Surely, within one religion, adherents often say that they are works in progress - but they are nonetheless convinced that they are on the right path and that it is the best path.

Sure. But you wouldn't go out and identify yourself as a "Buddhist", would you? And you wouldn't go out and say that everyone who is not a Buddhist, is wrong/inferior/in delusion?

I have no doubt that many people believe they are works in progress and that they believe that their current practice isn't necessarily the best possible.

But every existing religion has the tenet that it is superior to all others. There is no religion that would say "You can believe and do things like we believe and do, or you can do them any other way, it's allright, you'll get enlightened/liberated/do right by God just the same."
So declaring oneself to be a member of a particular religion implies the declaration that one's path is superior.


Surely, within one religion, adherents often say that they are works in progress - but they are nonetheless convinced that they are on the right path and that it is the best path.

this is not necessarily true. there are religions and philosophies that are tolerant and think that a person's spiritual path is unique for them. they don't necessarily think that there's is superior but that it may fit them or their needs/understanding. also, even if one is convinced they are on the right path for 'them', that doesn't mean that they think that it is the best path for 'everyone'. they know that those who think and feel like them will gravitate toward the same path and others will gravitate toward what works for them. one can understand that one size does not always fit all. monotheistic religions tend to not understand the complexities and think one path is good for everybody.

that said, there are those who can't or won't understand that what is the right path for them may not be the best or right path for another just as everyone has different personalities, preferences, tastes and ways of learning as well as different or unique goals that may not be just like another. it's personal.

It's a reasonable conclusion, given that there is no evidence of anything spiritual in a supernatural sense. I would make an exception to the use of the word as a label applied to the practice of seeking to alter, perceive, or reconcile our relationship between our minds and the material world or society.

Given that minds are what create societies, and you don't hardly know
anything about the mind, your conclusion of ''no evidence'' is no more credible.

But that aside, why is it a ''reasonable conclusion''?

jan.

Maybe you don't know anything about the mind, but science does, and it doesn't depend on any mystical phenomenon. We do know that the mind generates illusions, but it would be a mistake to call any of that real.

Maybe you don't know anything about the mind, but science does, and it doesn't depend on any mystical phenomenon. We do know that the mind generates illusions, but it would be a mistake to call any of that real.

Can science show the sum total of reality?

Yes the mind can generate illusion, but you are not
in a position to claim that God and spirituality are one.
You can't even prove to me that you aren't delusional, yet
you act as though you have knowledge of what you speak of.


I feel this is a false dichotomy that the "spiritual" have invented in order to avoid criticism.

Again, why is this a ''reasonable conclusion''?
What is it that you know?

jan.

I didn't claim that spirituality and God are the same. I acknowledge the human practice of spirituality, but reject the idea that spirituality is defined by contact with a supernatural realm.

The rejection of a godly or spiritual supernatural realm is supported by the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the non-material, or miracles, or gods. It's not enough to say that it doesn't apply, since this realm is said to have influence on our lives, which are material. So if these worlds don't overlap, there is no point to them.

Signal,



I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.


You said: It would be strange if a religion (or "spiritual path," or whichever to call it) would not consider itself superior to all others.'' Then you said:
''Nowadays, it is generally not PC to say about one's religion that it is superior to all others. It is also not PC to point out that each religion does consider itself superior to all others. ''

Than I asked: ''So how is ''PC-ness'' relevant to the questions I asked?''
Which was: ''Do you know every single hindu, Signal, from the
moment the term ''hindu'' was announced?'' Which was a response to the statement you made: ''Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists.''

Is that clear?




A person would have to be amoral and arational to be an adherent of a path which they do not believe to be superior to all others.


which is a truism. It simply follows from the common-sense understandings of choice; we consider it a given that a rational, moral agent always chooses that which she finds best, superior to everything else.


Are you sure about that?
Can you give some examples of this truism?



And what's wrong with declaring superiority?

Did you forget what you said?


Hindus are no better, though. While they don't believe in eternal damnation, they are on the same superiority trip as other theists.


Signal, staight answers means we get to the point quicker. No need
to go backwards.


jan.

spidergoat,


I didn't claim that spirituality and God are the same. I acknowledge the human practice of spirituality, but reject the idea that spirituality is defined by contact with a supernatural realm.


Cool, but keep it in the realm of YOUR opinion, where it belongs.



The rejection of a godly or spiritual supernatural realm is supported by the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the non-material, or miracles, or gods.

That's just an out and out lie.
You may not agree with the numerous testimonies even to the point where YOU don't believe they are reliable evidence to convince you. But to claim that there IS no evidence is a lie.



It's not enough to say that it doesn't apply, since this realm is said to have influence on our lives, which are material. So if these worlds don't overlap, there is no point to them.


This opinion is irrelevant.

jan.

I did say there is no reliable evidence, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, since people are subject to illusions and delusions. That means (to answer your repeated question) that rejecting these claims as unreliable is reasonable.


The term [anecdotal evidence] is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.(wikipedia)

In order to refute this notion, you would have to claim that personal testimony is always an accurate report of reality, which means there is just as much evidence for God as there is for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, the Chupacabra, or Alien abductions.

U.S. has a great Constitution.
If everyone understands that the Constitution is not only for himself but also for the others, it means that they respect the rights of others and the following text from the Constitution has value and weight.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

1) That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;

But the Creator in this case could be nature. I don't think anyone is refuting that it's good to respect other people.

But the Creator in this case could be nature.
Yes, correct.

I don't think anyone is refuting that it's good to respect other people.
Right to be faithful or not because you think it brings happiness to you.

No one is disputing this right, but I am in no way violating that right by suggesting that a person's faith is bullshit.

No one is disputing this right, but I am in no way violating that right by suggesting that a person's faith is bullshit.
If they don't bother you in a particular way, then let them to be happy.
Just as they do not exercise psychic pressure on you and affirm that you are damned if you do not have the same religion as them.

I want them to be happy without religion. Sorry, that's my wish. Religions cause many evils in society quite apart from making someone personally happy. Religion causes people to believe in apocalyptic mythology that can lead to nuclear war. It causes people to object to a woman's right to control her body (abortion). It causes people to reject sound science, such as with global warming. It makes people vulnerable to bullshitting politicians that pander to them like George W. Bush and Michelle Bachmann. It causes some people to be violent towards gays or oppose their civil rights.

Even apart from these political concerns, I object to the concept of faith. I think it robs humanity of it's essential strength, which is the ability to reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.

I want them to be happy without religion. Sorry, that's my wish. Religions cause many evils in society quite apart from making someone personally happy. Religion causes people to believe in apocalyptic mythology that can lead to nuclear war. It causes people to object to a woman's right to control her body (abortion). It causes people to reject sound science, such as with global warming. It makes people vulnerable to bullshitting politicians that pander to them like George W. Bush and Michelle Bachmann. It causes some people to be violent towards gays or oppose their civil rights.

Even apart from these political concerns, I object to the concept of faith. I think it robs humanity of it's essential strength, which is the ability to reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.

Amen Brother
:D

Ref: Spidergoat post #46:
" . . . . like George W. Bush and Michelle Bachmann"

. . . might I add: Barrack Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and a host of others!?

wlminex

spidergoat,


I did say there is no reliable evidence, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, since people are subject to illusions and delusions. That means (to answer your repeated question) that rejecting these claims as unreliable is reasonable.


Bullcrap!

''Reliable'' is a relative term. The ''fact'' is purely a result of your
personal choice and opinion.
Yes, people are subject to illusions and delusions, but they are also subject
to clarity and reality.
How do you know you aren't delusional?
Can you demonstrate your answer with science?



The term [anecdotal evidence] is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.(wikipedia)


Science is about understanding the ''material'' world, and religion is about
understanding the ''spiritual'' world. The fact that you don't believe in God
or a spritual realm is nothing short of your own opinion, and nothing whatsoever to do with science.



In order to refute this notion, you would have to claim that personal testimony is always an accurate report of reality, which means there is just as much evidence for God as there is for the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, the Chupacabra, or Alien abductions.

That's dumb SP.
''God'' is in a different category, and you know it.
Regarding Alien abductions, there is evidence, you just choose to regard it
as unreliable. That's all. :)


jan.

No one is disputing this right, but I am in no way violating that right by suggesting that a person's faith is bullshit.


You are arrogant.

You are being unecessarily being confrontational.

jan.

spidergoat,



I want them to be happy without religion. Sorry, that's my wish.


You don't want religious people to be happy, you want them to
be miserable like you.



Religions cause many evils in society quite apart from making someone personally happy.

People, and only people cause evil in society.


Religion causes people to believe in apocalyptic mythology that can lead to nuclear war


How long have humans had nuclear weapons, yet there has been no nuclear
war.

Wtf kind of people create nuclear weapons and other
disgusting weapons of mass destruction?



It causes people to object to a woman's right to control her body (abortion).


Is only religious people who object?
I don't think so.



It causes people to reject sound science,


Some, maybe.



It makes people vulnerable to bullshitting politicians that pander to them like George W. Bush and Michelle Bachmann.


I doubt G.W.Bush is anymore religious than you.
Unless of course you believe what he says. That being the
case his bullshit works.



It causes some people to be violent towards gays or oppose their civil rights.


Like you say, ''some people''.




Even apart from these political concerns, I object to the concept of faith. I think it robs humanity of it's essential strength, which is the ability to reason. Faith is the opposite of reason.

You are full of faith, that is all you have demonstrated here.
You're appeal to science is clearly lip service, as you have convinced yourself
that God does not exist because science says so.

jan.

So my appeal to science is insincere because... I believe the science? All I believe is the lack of any evidence for the reality of any God related phenomenon apart from religious nuts telling me so. If God were more than an idea, there would be evidence. Not finding evidence where one should find evidence is itself evidence of absence.

Is there any reason why people would be delusional in this way? I can say most certainly yes, since religions fill certain psychological desires for things like certainty in an uncertain world. People can suffer from mass delusions. For instance, in some areas of the world, there are strange psychological diseases, like "Koro", in which the victim believes that someone stole the spiritual essence of his penis, which is perceived to shrink into the body.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koro_%28medicine%29)It's reasonable to conclude that religion and the perception of miracles are a similar phenomenon. Also see the Tanganyika laughter epidemic
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_laughter_epidemic)and Dancing mania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania) (outbreaks of dancing in 7-17th century Europe, where people often danced continuously for months until they collapsed of exhaustion).


I don't think I'm delusional because I'm not suggesting any faith based beliefs. There is no objective evidence for God or the supernatural tenets of any other of the thousands of religions that humans have believed in throughout history. Your point that there is evidence, but it can be considered unreliable is true. I think you would have a hard time showing how one would distinguish the truth between different versions of personal testimony. If one person says he saw the ghost of George Washington and another person says he saw Jesus, how do you determine what's reliable? Body language? A lie detector? Your own intuition? I have met a few schizophrenic people who claim to see all sorts of crazy things. There has to be an objective measure of a claim, otherwise we are intellectually lost. You see, you have to adopt the faith first, and then you accept the claims that support that faith. The superiority of science as a means of determining objective truth has already been proven by the products of science, it has transformed our world. It's value is demonstrable.

spidergoat,



So my appeal to science is insincere because... I believe the science?

Your appeal to science regarding this discussion, is lip service. You are using
it to justify your belief that God, and the spiritual realm do not exist.
Your world view has NOTHING to do with science, it is purely your personal choice.



All I believe is the lack of any evidence for the reality of any God related phenomenon apart from religious nuts telling me so.


Nutty talk. How can you believe ''a lack'' of something?
Why have you decided there IS no evidence? You've absolutely
no reason for such a belief unless you personally wish it. Just like you
WISH for everyone to be in the same state of mind like yourself.


If God were more than an idea, there would be evidence. Not finding evidence where one should find evidence is itself evidence of absence.

God IS more than an idea, obviously, so stop talking nonsense.
Admit it, you don't believe in God, and there's nothing more to it than
personal reason(s).

God of the scripture is not some artifact, ancient monument, or gigantic creature whose bones can be found in the ground. Nobody who believes in God
thinks so. God of the scripture is absolute spirit, the origin of all perceptions and then some. What kind of evidence do you think will convince you of that?
You don't believe in God, cool, but don't act like you've got a reason outside of your own personal choice.



Is there any reason why people would be delusional in this way?
I can say most certainly yes, since religions fill certain psychological desires for things like certainty in an uncertain world.


So what? That doesn't mean it's delusional to believe in God.



I don't think I'm delusional because I'm not suggesting any faith based beliefs. ou

Do you know how idiotic that reads?



There is no objective evidence for God or the supernatural tenets of any other of the thousands of religions that humans have believed in throughout history.


You don't know that, your just basing this of what YOU decide is objective
evidence. Can you show me any scientific paper, or theory that show that
there is NO objective evidence for God or supernatural?



Your point that there is evidence, but it can be considered unreliable is true.


Resorting to more lies SP?
I didn't say that.



I think you would have a hard time showing how one would distinguish the truth between different versions of personal testimony.


What if the testimonies were the same, from numerous, and various sources,
over long periods of time?



If one person says he saw the ghost of George Washington and another person says he saw Jesus, how do you determine what's reliable?


I don't know, and I don't care.
Those kind of testimonies are of no interest to me whether they are true or false.


There has to be an objective measure of a claim, otherwise we are intellectually lost.

If it's true, we'll find a way.
Our understanding goes way beyond the methods you pretend to adhere to
uncover truth. Those methods are okay when we have data, but there are something that don't respond to those kinds of scrutiny. We just have to carry on regardless. The sad thing is you would have us believe that we should just sit on our arses untill scientists come up with something.
That is a most unatural way for humans to be. Nobody, including scientists, do that, and to suggest we do that is kinda low IMO.



You see, you have to adopt the faith first, and then you accept the claims that support that faith.

You're talking nonsense.
It seems you've been in this bullshit so long, you've forgotton
what it's like to be human.



The superiority of science as a means of determining objective truth has already been proven by the products of science, it has transformed our world. It's value is demonstrable.

People have transformed THE world, science is just a part of it.

jan.

Science does apply to the claims of theists. They claim such things as cosmological fine-tuning, a question to which science can be applied. They claim that prayers are answered, another claim that can be reasonably addressed by science. You have no evidence that my claims are not supported by evidence or the lack of evidence.


How can you believe ''a lack'' of something?
Why have you decided there IS no evidence?
How can you believe a lack of something? Easily. I'm sure you believe there are no live elephants in your house.

I was careful to make a distinction between evidence, which can be anything, and reliable evidence, which is evidence that can be validated by objective methods. Someone saying something cannot be considered reliable. If someone I trust claims something, I might accept it tentatively for practical purposes, like if they claim my house is on fire. When it comes to philosophical questions, we have to be more careful. I already made this point. People can be delusional or victims of mass hysteria. Their beliefs control their perceptions. When you believe in ghosts, for instance, you will hear creepy things in an old house at night. Contrast that to a pet that has no conception of ghosts, but even greater facilities of perception, they will notice nothing unusual.


You don't know that, your just basing this of what YOU decide is objective
evidence. Can you show me any scientific paper, or theory that show that
there is NO objective evidence for God or supernatural?
The standards of what constitute objective evidence was not determined by me, but by science. The power of that method is self evident in things like computers and space ships. Here is a book that shows there is no reliable evidence for God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/stenger01.htm


God IS more than an idea, obviously, so stop talking nonsense.
I have yet to see any evidence that God is more than just an idea. I used to be an agnostic and open to the idea of God, but my searching was ignored. If God wanted me to believe in Him, he should have said something. I understand that many believers like Mother Teresa have also experienced the same lack of any feedback from God.



What if the testimonies were the same, from numerous, and various sources,
over long periods of time?
But they actually aren't. There are some threads of similarity within a culture, but if you look at all of human history, the uniformity disappears. If religion was the product of revelations of God, then there would only be one religion. When your culture emphasizes Jesus, you start to see Jesus in every stain. When your culture believes in the secomd coming of John Frum, that's who you see.

Even so, the possibility of mass delusion, which has been documented over and over in human culture is a more likely explanation than the notion that everything we know about the natural world is wrong.


I don't know, and I don't care.
Those kind of testimonies are of no interest to me whether they are true or false.
Obviously you don't care about having any method for determining the truth of a testimonial claim. I blame the education system which doesn't teach people critical thinking. You have basically admitted that you only accept testimony that supports your own preconceived theistic notions. For instance, you wouldn't give any credibility to personal testimony regarding the lack of a God, would you? The result of this lack is that you will find "evidence" for any fool thing you want to believe.


The sad thing is you would have us believe that we should just sit on our arses untill scientists come up with something.
Maybe you could do something useful instead of wasting your time praying. It's not up to scientists to find evidence for you. The fact is a world without God looks the same as a world with God.


You're talking nonsense.
Logic seems like nonsense to the illogical.

spidergoat,


Science does apply to the claims of theists.
They claim such things as cosmological fine-tuning, a question to which science can be applied. They claim that prayers are answered, another claim that can be reasonably addressed by science.

Science applies to what IT applies to, and I'm sure we don't have
to get the definition to work out what that is.
It determines knowledge from ITS standpoint, and inferences are educated
guesses, not fact.



You have no evidence that my claims are not supported by evidence or the lack of evidence.

Science cannot determine whether or not God exists. You claim that there is no scientific evidence for God. What is it about God whyyou can't understand
that he is not material? You may argue that matter is all there is, and therefore God does not exist, but you don't know that mater is all there is, so you don't know that God does not exist. Science cannot determine that matter is all there is, so your claim cannot be based on any evidence, it is based on your belief.



How can you believe a lack of something? Easily. I'm sure you believe there are no live elephants in your house.



I know there are no elephants in my house, I don't have to believe.
I believe that my judgement is sound in that particular case.



Someone saying something cannot be considered reliable.

You're touching on something different here.
There are all kinds of reasons why someones statement can be considered reliable. As human beings, we are equipped with the intelligence to discriminate. We may believe some unreliable testimony, but in the course
of time and experience we can learn from our mistakes and come to understand more than science or philosophy could ever determine. Science and philosophy are OUR tools, they work for us, not us for them.



I have yet to see any evidence that God is more than just an idea.


I think you're problem stems from a lack self-belief.
You have to come face to face with yourself at sometime, even if it is
the last thing you ever do.
God is different kinds of personal. You won't ever find him outside of yourself.
Does the term: can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you?
I know this is not what you want to hear, but this is what you currently lack.



I used to be an agnostic and open to the idea of God,

1) but my searching was ignored.
2) If God wanted me to believe in Him, he should have said something.
3) I understand that many believers like Mother Teresa have also experienced the same lack of any feedback from God.


1) How did you search for God?
2) If you were anything like you are now, would you have heard?
3) Atheists often like to take this and run with it.
You, nor I can't even begin to understand the relationship MT had with God.
When she speaks, we recognise the words, but we don't recognise the depth of meaning they contain. Just look at the life she lived.



But they actually aren't. There are some threads of similarity within a culture, but if you look at all of human history, the uniformity disappears.

The scriptures, regarding God, say the same things, to varying levels of comprehension.


If religion was the product of revelations of God, then there would only be one religion.

There is only one religion, and that is to learn how to love God.
And for this there are many ways.


When your culture emphasizes Jesus, you start to see Jesus in every stain. When your culture believes in the secomd coming of John Frum, that's who you see.


You guys just love to tar everybody with the same brush don't you?
Have a little more faith in humanity.



Even so, the possibility of mass delusion, which has been documented over and over in human culture is a more likely explanation than the notion that everything we know about the natural world is wrong.

I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just
isn't everything.



Obviously you don't care about having any method for determining the truth of a testimonial claim.


I'm just not interested in Elvis sightings, or ghosts. I don't care whether or not they are truthful. Can you understand that?



I blame the education system which doesn't teach people critical thinking.

Sometimes we have to make decisions, we all do. Your faced with something
and you react. Critical thinking is okay in situations where you the time to analyse something, or it can be used in hindsight. But I think you invoke critical thinking because you think it will always work in favour of your worldview. That being said, I don't regard that as critical thinking.



You have basically admitted that you only accept testimony that supports your own preconceived theistic notions.


Then you haven't really taken the time to understand what I've said.
I'm not a theist because I joined a group, or because I wanted to make new freinds.



For instance, you wouldn't give any credibility to personal testimony regarding the lack of a God, would you?


No more than I would give credibility to the personal testimony regarding the ability to love your children unconditionally.
And really, is there such a thing as personal testimony regarding the lack of a God?



The result of this lack is that you will find "evidence" for any fool thing you want to believe.


That's not how it works SP.
You don't believe in God, but don't think you or anyone is going to change anything. If change is abound it will happen in due course.
But in the meantime you should calm yourself, and just chill, we none of us know how long we have in this world so don't waste your time trying to change it.



Maybe you could do something useful instead of wasting your time praying.


Of course, you want theists to be like you. Don't you?
I''m okay with my life SP, how about you?


jan.

spidergoat,


Science cannot determine whether or not God exists. You claim that there is no scientific evidence for God. What is it about God whyyou can't understand
that he is not material? You may argue that matter is all there is, and therefore God does not exist, but you don't know that mater is all there is, so you don't know that God does not exist. Science cannot determine that matter is all there is, so your claim cannot be based on any evidence, it is based on your belief.

Jan, sure, but why is it neccesary to take a God Hypothesis leap/position? I don't think Science has an opinion on the subject if your talking about a Supernatural Personal God - but defaulting to that leaves more questions then it gives answers.

Certainly science can speak on the improbability of such an entity or the need for such a deity, specifically in cosmology, biology etc. Does inserting a complex God into the equation really provide an answer?



I think you're problem stems from a lack self-belief.
You have to come face to face with yourself at sometime, even if it is
the last thing you ever do.
God is different kinds of personal. You won't ever find him outside of yourself.
Does the term: can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you?
I know this is not what you want to hear, but this is what you currently lack.

So the knowledge of the creator of the universe hinges on our own subjective perception of reality and one's own self-belief / belief system?



There is only one religion, and that is to learn how to love God.
And for this there are many ways.

How is that, when there are a plethora of religions that practice Love and to Love God all with varying attributes to the one the love is directed to.



I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just isn't everything.

Why would one feel satisfied in assuming this? Is it not more reasonable to assume or accept that everything we see....is everything and the unexplained is just yet another natural phenomenon that will eventually be explained by the advances in science? The later, IMO, is a strong belief in Humanity.



Sometimes we have to make decisions, we all do. Your faced with something
and you react. Critical thinking is okay in situations where you the time to analyse something, or it can be used in hindsight. But I think you invoke critical thinking because you think it will always work in favour of your worldview. That being said, I don't regard that as critical thinking.

Critical Thinking is ok? Critical Thinking should be required (specially with answering "The Big Questions"). Isn't it more reasonable to deploy critical thinking skills above all else then to invoke God to define your worldview?

The conflict between religion and science will stop the moment that religion stops intruding in the realm of science by making claims about the way the world and the universe works which is exactly what science seeks to answer.


Neither believers nor nonbelievers should be ridiculed.

I'm going to go with Thomas Jefferson on this one.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

If your proposition flies in the face of evidence, or is asserted with no supporting evidence, as every theistic proposition is, then it is by definition unintelligible.

I enjoy TJ quotes :)

Jan,

Science applies to anything that has an effect on the material world. God has an effect on the material world, so the concept can be studied by science. I don't have faith that the material world is all there is, I just believe it to be the case, based on the evidence that nothing non-material exists, and no evidence has ever been found for supernatural phenomenon. Science rejects any non-testable claims, and the idea of a God that can affect the natural world and remain undetected is non-testable. God explains nothing, since it cannot explain itself, and so leaves all questions still unanswered.

You believe there are no elephants in your house because you can reason that it's an unlikely thing to happen, given that there are few elephants in your area apart from zoos, and there is no reason someone would put one in your house, even if it could support the weight and size. That's the same reason I believe there is no God. It's unlikely because it's unnecessary, it explains nothing, I've never seen it or experienced it, and all sorts of established science about the physical world would be contradicted by it. You may personally believe all kinds of things if it makes you happy, but you can't pretend that it's logical or supported by evidence that is in the least bit trustworthy.


I think you're problem stems from a lack self-belief.
You have to come face to face with yourself at sometime, even if it is
the last thing you ever do.
God is different kinds of personal. You won't ever find him outside of yourself.
Does the term: can't see the forest for the trees mean anything to you?
I know this is not what you want to hear, but this is what you currently lack.
This is an interesting statement. I did quite a but of soul-searching when I was younger. It started with ESP and telepathy in my early teens and branched out into Buddhism and Taoism in my 20s. I read everything I could about these subjects, I was obsessed. I meditated whenever I could, even on my lunch breaks at work. In fact it was during one of these lunch break meditations that I realized the essence of enlightenment. It was almost an accident. I was reading an Alan Watts book intently and being confused, then I turned the page, seeking clarity, but the next page was blank. That's when it hit me, I had been a complete fool. The essence is that firstly- wherever you seek your self you turn away from your self. Secondly- there is no self to seek. Looking for yourself is like looking for your glasses while you are wearing them. This was accompanied by the curious sensation of being weightless, like I was floating about 3 inches off the ground. "I" wasn't controlling my actions, I was observing my brain controlling things by itself. I could question my brain and receive responses, but there was no questioner. For a little while after that I read a bit in my books on the subject, and what was before obscure became perfectly obvious. Then I stopped reading about it altogether. The only A major obstacle to this kind of realization is theism, which I believe mistakenly reinforces our illusion of self by suggesting that it in fact is the essence and most absurdly, eternal. That's why I'm interested in atheism. We don't need to add belief, all we need to do is remove the obstacles of belief. So, please don't try to equate theism with incuriosity or lack of interest in the nature of self.

I do see myself as an agent of change. If Dawkins can do it, so can I. If Buddha can do it, so can you.

@Jan Ardena --


Science cannot determine whether or not God exists.

Well that depends on which god we're talking about.

If we're talking about a deistic god which just kick started the universe and then either left it alone or died then you're right, we can obtain absolutely no evidence of it's existence because it's not interacting with the universe. Of course such a god is irrelevant in all matters, just as all unfalsifiable propositions are.

If we're talking about a theistic god that takes an interest in the affairs of humans and actively interferes with the universe then we absolutely can detect such a being. Anything that happens in the universe can be detected either by direct observation or by observation of the effect it has on everything around us. A theistic god, so we are told, actively intervenes in our daily lives, thereby manifesting an effect on the world around us that is detectable. While our continuous failure to detect this manifestation is not ironclad evidence against such a god, it does reduce the likelihood of such a deity existing. Sometimes the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, this happens when the evidence should be there but isn't.

Of course, even if none of this were true, we could still rule out traits which a possible deity can not have through logic and by comparing potential "god-models" to the world we see around us. For example, omnipotence is a trait that is logically impossible, it simply can't exist so no creature which has it can exist, therefore we can logically say that if there is a god it is not omnipotent. Similarly traits which are mutually exclusive with the world we see around us can be discarded as well. Traits such as omni-benevolence are mutually exclusive from the world we live in, therefore no existing deity can be omni-benevoent. Another issue is holding beliefs which are mutually exclusive, such as a belief in an eternal and omniscient deity and free will when such a deity automatically negates the existence of free will.

These are just some of the things we can determine through logic.


What is it about God why you can't understand that he is not material?

If god is not material then god has no energy to do work with and thus can't interact with the world we live in. By declaring, without any reason to do so, that god is not material you declare that he is either nonexistent or irrelevant. I think that you might want to reconsider this argument?


You may argue that matter is all there is, and therefore God does not exist, but you don't know that mater is all there is, so you don't know that God does not exist.

I can tell you without a doubt that if there is a god then there are certain traits that it just can't have, regardless of whether there is anything other than matter. If your god has one of those traits then I can say with absolute certainty that it doesn't exist.


Science cannot determine that matter is all there is, so your claim cannot be based on any evidence, it is based on your belief.

Sure it can. As I said above, absence of evidence is evidence of absence if the evidence is supposed to be there. Besides that though, anyone positing something other than matter is in violation of Ockham's Razor by making unnecessary assumptions, usually without any explanatory power at all.


The scriptures, regarding God, say the same things, to varying levels of comprehension.

And they are all, without exception, full of hatred, bigotry, misogyny, homicide, genocide, and injustice. Tell me, why in the hell would I want to worship a being like that?


You, nor I can't even begin to understand the relationship MT had with God. When she speaks, we recognise the words, but we don't recognise the depth of meaning they contain. Just look at the life she lived.

You mean the life in which she loved suffering so much that she deliberately kept people in a state of agony believing that such suffering was "the greatest gift god has given us"? Or are we talking about the life in which she very much doubted the existence of a god? Maybe we're talking about the life in which she took in tens of millions of dollars in the name of "helping the poor" and used them to found convents and fatten the Vatican coffers? Perhaps were discussing the life in which she opposed the right of women to divorce abusive husbands, as well as the right of women to control their own bodies?

Oh wait...they're all the same life, sorry about the confusion there.

As for her supposed "relationship with god", in her own words she severely doubted his existence but went on because it was the only thing she knew how to do. So, yeah, perhaps not the best example.


I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just isn't everything.

Of course it isn't everything. Not a single scientist says that it is. But just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that you get to make up whatever fairytale nonsense you want and expect it to be given credibility. For starters any theistic proposition at this time is unnecessary, hell any supernatural or paranormal proposition at this time is unnecessary. They are just plain not needed to explain the world we observe. Even the origin of the universe can be explained without resorting to special pleading(which is exactly what positing a god is) in a number of different ways. Your(theistic) assertions are both unparsimonious and lacking supporting evidence.

LIGHTBEING,


Jan, sure, but why is it neccesary to take a God Hypothesis leap/position?

The decision to believe in God is no more or less scientific than the decision not to believe in God. My point is that science cannot determine whether or not God exists, by itself.



I don't think Science has an opinion on the subject if your talking about a Supernatural Personal God - but defaulting to that leaves more questions then it gives answers.

That boils down to a matter of opinion.

But that statement raises an interesting question.
If, as you say, science has no opinion on the subject, what is the basis of
non-belief by those who claim science disproves God?



Certainly science can speak on the improbability of such an entity or the need for such a deity, specifically in cosmology, biology etc. Does inserting a complex God into the equation really provide an answer?


An answer to what?



So the knowledge of the creator of the universe hinges on our own subjective perception of reality and one's own self-belief / belief system?


The ''knowledge'' of the creator of the universe like any other type of knowledge within the context of the subject matter. The context of God is essentially personal. There is no other way.
Like non-believers, believers can infer on information.
Without inference we wouldn't be having this conversation.



How is that, when there are a plethora of religions that practice Love and to Love God all with varying attributes to the one the love is directed to.


As I said, there are many ways.




I'm not saying everything we know about the natural world is wrong, it just isn't everything.




1) Why would one feel satisfied in assuming this?
2) Is it not more reasonable to assume or accept that everything we see....is everything and the unexplained is just yet another natural phenomenon that will eventually be explained by the advances in science? The later, IMO, is a strong belief in Humanity.

1) I don't feel satisfaction, it just is, at least from some perspectives.
2) I don't think science can explain everything, plus we are living in the here and now, not in some future.



Critical Thinking is ok? Critical Thinking should be required (specially with answering "The Big Questions"). Isn't it more reasonable to deploy critical thinking skills above all else then to invoke God to define your worldview?

As I said, critical thinking works under certain circumstances like in hindsight or future snituations, situations that do not really apply to us or require instantaneos decisions. Reality is right now, and we cannot always control our actions. Critical thinking can help to shape how we act, sure, but situations aren't always going to be as we envision them to be, but they require decisions all the same.
Name one critical thinker who never makes mistakes due to critical thinking?

jan.

spidergoat,



Science applies to anything that has an effect on the material world. God has an effect on the material world, so the concept can be studied by science.


The world IS the effect.



I don't have faith that the material world is all there is, I just believe it to be the case, based on the evidence that nothing non-material exists, and no evidence has ever been found for supernatural phenomenon.


You disregard all the evidence with sweeping statements, like ''mass hysteria'', believing all testimony to be delusional, or based in illusion.
You know science only deals with the material world, yet you claim there is no scientific evidence for the non-material.
It's little wonder you believe what you believe.



Science rejects any non-testable claims, and the idea of a God that can affect the natural world and remain undetected is non-testable. God explains nothing, since it cannot explain itself, and so leaves all questions still unanswered.


I believe God explains himself through scripture, and certain individuals throughout the history of the world. What is the basis of your disbelief in this? An explanation that doesn't include ''no scientific evidence'' would really liven things up right now. :)



You believe there are no elephants in your house because you can reason that it's an unlikely thing to happen, given that there are few elephants in your area apart from zoos, and there is no reason someone would put one in your house, even if it could support the weight and size.


I don't believe that there are no elephants in my house, I know, because there aren't any.



That's the same reason I believe there is no God. It's unlikely because it's unnecessary, it explains nothing, I've never seen it or experienced it, and all sorts of established science about the physical world would be contradicted by it.


If the world is an effect of God, then it explain everything, and is necessary.
You have seen it, and experienced it. And all scientific contradictions would be due to a lack of knowledge.



You may personally believe all kinds of things if it makes you happy, but you can't pretend that it's logical or supported by evidence that is in the least bit trustworthy.


Happiness, or pretence doesn't come into it, and I believe it is supported by evidence.



The essence is that firstly- wherever you seek your self you turn away from your self. Secondly- there is no self to seek. Looking for yourself is like looking for your glasses while you are wearing them.


That is the essense of your belief, the sum total of your experience (to that point in time). I can respect that. Why can't you respect my essence, my experience and my understanding of it? It's ironic, but you act the same as institute of christianity which for centuries forced the world to accept it's doctrine and disregard all others as nonsense.
You act as though we are all limited in the same way and to the same degree. As if we are robots, and must think exactly the same way as each other.



That's why I'm interested in atheism. We don't need to add belief, all we need to do is remove the obstacles of belief. So, please don't try to equate theism with incuriosity or lack of interest in the nature of self.


''Theism'' is merely a title, a name that describes a general state of mind.
I, like you, am a person, and I, like you, have my experiences and the oppotunity to experience them for myself, just like you.
Why do you feel it necessary to rubbish this? Variety is the spice of life SP, be happy with your life, and don't worry about others. We are, each and everyone of us different, that must mean something.


I do see myself as an agent of change. If Dawkins can do it, so can Ie . If Buddha can do it, so can you.

I'm not Dick Dawkins, and I'm not Buddha, I am me, and my experiences are unique to me. Try and understand.

jan.

@Jan Ardena --


My point is that science cannot determine whether or not God exists, by itself.

As I've already shown, yes, it can.


I don't think science can explain everything, plus we are living in the here and now, not in some future.

I'm reminded of a quote from Charles Darwin.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

While it may be true that there are important questions which science can't answer(I stipulate "important" for a reason), we will never know until we try now will we?


Name one critical thinker who never makes mistakes due to critical thinking?

The point of critical thinking isn't to not ever make mistakes, it's to reduce the likelihood of making mistakes while being able to learn from the mistakes we do make. It's a way to interrogate the world and learn something from it. It also helps guard us from things like confirmation bias(which theists seem to have turned into an art) which all humans are prone to, hence why we have the peer review process in science.


The world IS the effect.

Citation needed on this one. Especially since it's an unnecessary assumption. To paraphrase Laplace, our models work perfectly well without that assumption. Ockham's Razor is what defeated you here, nothing else.


You disregard all the evidence with sweeping statements, like ''mass hysteria'', believing all testimony to be delusional, or based in illusion.

Testimony alone can not validate existence claims, that's not the way it works. Some form of observation, even indirect observation, is needed to validate such claims.

If I were to tell you that I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage you would rightly ask me to prove it(to show you in other words). So let's say that you come to my garage and look in and see no dragon. "Oh, the dragon is invisible." You suggest spreading flower around to capture the footprints, "This dragon is always hovering." You now suggest splashing paint around in order to coat it with something visible, "The dragon is intangible." You suggest using thermal imaging to capture the plumes of flame, "The fire it produces is heatless." Every single test you come up with I quickly counter with a special exemption and yet I still expect you to believe me. Would you believe me or would you doubt me, perhaps questioning how I came to be aware of the dragon in the first place?

And don't try to say that this is an unfair analogy, it's the perfect analogy for the god claims made by theists. Every single possible test we conceive is swiftly countered with some special exemption(god is nonphysical[which raises the question of how it would interact with the universe], god is outside the universe[which raises the same question], etc.) and yet we're expected to accept on hearsay an element of the universe which would completely revolutionize our view of it and our place in it.


You know science only deals with the material world, yet you claim there is no scientific evidence for the non-material

Science deals with reality, regardless of whether or not it's solely physical. If there were a phenomenon which only the supernatural could explain(and this is not entirely impossible) then science would be forced to include the supernatural. If you're whinging because science looks for naturalistic explanations first, well duh. Naturalistic explanations don't require extra assumptions so parsimony requires that we look for them first, and so far we haven't been disappointed. To quote Tim Minchin, "Every mystery ever solve has turned out to be, not magic."


It's little wonder you believe what you believe.

You're right, it's little wonder that a person employing logic and reason rejects god claims and the supernatural.


I believe God explains himself through scripture, and certain individuals throughout the history of the world.

Oh I'm so glad you went this route. The internal inconsistencies in every single holy text are more than enough to dismiss them as reflecting reality, what with god commanding one thing and in the next breath commanding the opposite. Beyond that there's the fact that every holy text deals solely with matters local to where it was written, not even a hint of the outside world. The bible only deals with the Mediterranean, Chinese texts deal only with China, Japanese texts deal only with Japan, and so on.

There's also the incredibly poor quality of information contained within such texts. The bible, for example, dictates that bats are birds and insects have four legs, now I'd think that an omniscient deity would know better than that, we certainly do. Even more damning, for the bible at least, is the abominable math contained within, such as pi being 3.1 which is a horrendous approximation considering that the Egyptians not only beat the bible to the punch, but calculated pi out to six decimal places. Again, a book inspired by a deity should be able to do much better than that.

You say that god is explained in scripture, if that's true then that mean that god is homicidal, genocidal, racist, misogynistic, jealous and proud of it, authoritarian and fascistic, and downright evil. Sorry, not exactly a being I'd worship even if it did exist.


If the world is an effect of God, then it explain everything, and is necessary.

That's not the way it works and you should know that by now. We explain phenomena by looking at their causes, postulating, and testing. We can explain the existence of everything from life to the universe without positing a god, this makes any such assertions superfluous and thus unnecessary. Positing a god doesn't explain anything(it's just saying "god did it" and is no different from saying "the Giant Space Duck did it") and the god you posits requires an explanation as well, therefore multiplying your questions. That is not good science.


And all scientific contradictions would be due to a lack of knowledge.

Again, that's not the way it works. In science we work with what's available and only posit what we must to explain that, we aren't allowed to posit things which contradict evidence and then say that said contradictions are due to a lack of knowledge. You fit your hypothesis to the evidence, you don't fit the evidence to your hypothesis. Again this is bad science.

Beyond that though, this is very close to a god of the gaps argument, an argument which while not as weak as an argument from authority is very close.


Why can't you respect my essence, my experience and my understanding of it?

Because beliefs don't automatically deserve respect. For that matter, neither do people. Respect is earned and while your beliefs may not have led you to harm anyone, they are still unintelligible and thus deserving of ridicule. Show me that your beliefs deserve my respect and then I'll respect them.


It's ironic, but you act the same as institute of christianity which for centuries forced the world to accept it's doctrine and disregard all others as nonsense.

Really. Really? Last time I checked, Spidergoat wasn't forcing you to do anything. Criticizing and ridiculing your beliefs is not the same as forcing you to do anything, there's a vast difference between the two things. I love it when this shite comes out though. When an atheist criticizes a theist's beliefs, or writes a book criticizing them, they get accused of "repressing" people, but when christians and other theists do the exact same thing they're merely expressing their beliefs. And to compare any modern atheist to the Church of medieval times is grossly inaccurate, last time I checked no atheist ever has burned a theist at the stake merely for being a theist.


You act as though we are all limited in the same way and to the same degree.

Well we are all human and our brains do all function in roughly the same way which does makes us all vulnerable to the same sort of things. I think that given what we know of neurology, human behavior, and our evolutionary history that this is a safe assumption to make. It's certainly well evidenced.


I, like you, am a person, and I, like you, have my experiences and the oppotunity to experience them for myself, just like you.

And, just like me, your experiences are not evidence of anything other than the fact that your brain thinks that you experienced them.


Why do you feel it necessary to rubbish this?

Why do theists so often feel it's necessary to force their BS down our throats?


Variety is the spice of life SP, be happy with your life, and don't worry about others.

1. That's impossible as long as there are religionists out there who wish to legislate their religious morality on the rest of us.

2. Even disregarding the above it's impossible because we all live interconnected lives, this is a fact of our biology that won't change at least for another couple million years. We are social creatures, that's not going to change.


We are, each and everyone of us different, that must mean something.

And yet despite our differences we are, each and every one of us, the same. We are all human, subject to the same human failings and frailties(one of which is an overactive agency detection program). This is something that can't be denied honestly as it's self evident.


I am me, and my experiences are unique to me. Try and understand.

Oh we understand perfectly, that's why we reject personal testimony being presented as evidence. The problem has been getting you to understand that.

LIGHTBEING,

The decision to believe in God is no more or less scientific than the decision not to believe in God. My point is that science cannot determine whether or not God exists, by itself.

I guess you can make an argument for that but my position is that there is no valid reason to make that leap to any of the prevailing Gods that allegedly exist today.


That boils down to a matter of opinion.

Not exactly, your asserting one of the many complex gods to explain some of the most complex questions. To answer a question with something that demands more answers is not meaningful, is it?


But that statement raises an interesting question.
If, as you say, science has no opinion on the subject, what is the basis of
non-belief by those who claim science disproves God?

It doesn't have an opinion because science and the scientific community isn't out trying to prove the existence of the numerous GODs known to date nor should they be. I'm not sure what the basis is, but you can certainly make a scientific case against the need for a God depending on how you define God.


An answer to what?

Life's biggest questions.............



The ''knowledge'' of the creator of the universe like any other type of knowledge within the context of the subject matter. The context of God is essentially personal. There is no other way.

Doesn't the knowledge of the creator of the universe have to be absolute unless otherwise it would be inaccurate? Or does it not necessarily matter that it's accurate?


As I said, there are many ways.

Many ways to love many different gods (and godesses)



1) I don't feel satisfaction, it just is, at least from some perspectives.

So you are not satified with your answer(s)?


2) I don't think science can explain everything, plus we are living in the here and now, not in some future.

Modern science is doing a pretty good job thus far.



Name one critical thinker who never makes mistakes due to critical thinking?

LIGHTBEING? ;) lol, jk - of course humans make mistakes but we acknowledge them and work towards understanding why we made the mistake and find a solution via critical thinking.

Jan: "You disregard all the evidence with sweeping statements, like ''mass hysteria'', believing all testimony to be delusional, or based in illusion.
You know science only deals with the material world, yet you claim there is no scientific evidence for the non-material."

No, you are incorrect. I do not disregard testimonial evidence as delusion, all I'm saying is that testimony has to be supported by evidence before it's believable. If there is no evidence other than testimony, I can reason that perhaps the testimony is incorrect knowing that the human mind can be subject to delusions.

It is also not true that science only deals with the material world. It deals with reality and things that can be observed, including personal testimony of God. I agree there is personal testimony of God, and I'm using science to evaluate them.

Jan: "I believe God explains himself through scripture, and certain individuals throughout the history of the world. What is the basis of your disbelief in this? An explanation that doesn't include ''no scientific evidence'' would really liven things up right now."

I will answer your question with another question, why do you disbelieve in the scriptures of other religions?

Jan: "Why can't you respect my essence, my experience and my understanding of it? It's ironic, but you act the same as institute of christianity which for centuries forced the world to accept it's doctrine and disregard all others as nonsense."

I respect you as a person Jan, but not your ideas. This is a free market of ideas, and I think mine will prevail in the end. There is no forcing going on, except from theists who are trying to force Creationism in schools, erode the separation of church and state, limit reproductive rights, subvert the science of global warming, eliminate the promise of stem cells in medicine, start religious wars... and on and on.

Jan: "I, like you, am a person, and I, like you, have my experiences and the opportunity to experience them for myself, just like you.
Why do you feel it necessary to rubbish this? Variety is the spice of life SP, be happy with your life, and don't worry about others. We are, each and everyone of us different, that must mean something."

I subject your beliefs to the same criticism as my own. I could be full of crap too, that's why it's important to defend our ideas with evidence, otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss them without evidence.

Arioch,

3 responses?
I'll deal with the most emotional first.




As I've already shown, yes, it can.

You haven,t, and further more you can't.
If I've missed something please state it directly, as your condescending tones
don't have any effect on me.



I'm reminded of a quote from Charles Darwin.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."


For me, there is no problem, science cannot approach spirituality.
It can however improve our understanding of the material world, which can be of helpto some of us (namely westerners) in our search for truth.



While it may be true that there are important questions which science can't answer(I stipulate "important" for a reason), we will never know until we try now will we?


I suppose if I keep taking my car to the florist for it's M.O.T., my persistence will result in a bona-fide certificate, because I really tried.
Won't it? :rolleyes:



The point of critical thinking isn't to not ever make mistakes, it's to reduce the likelihood of making mistakes while being able to learn from the mistakes we do make. It's a way to interrogate the world and learn something from it. It also helps guard us from things like confirmation bias(which theists seem to have turned into an art) which all humans are prone to, hence why we have the peer review process in science.


Have a good read on what I said on critical thinking, then get back to me
with something relevant.



Citation needed on this one. Especially since it's an unnecessary assumption. To paraphrase Laplace, our models work perfectly well without that assumption. Ockham's Razor is what defeated you here, nothing else.


You mean there is something simpler than ''God did it''? :eek:



Testimony alone can not validate existence claims, that's not the way it works. Some form of observation, even indirect observation, is needed to validate such claims.


That's the way it works in science, I get it. But that's not how life works.



If I were to tell you that I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage you would rightly ask me to prove it(to show you in other words).


The reality is, I wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth.
If I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe God existed, even it was true.



So let's say that you come to my garage and look in and see no dragon. "Oh, the dragon is invisible.


I wouldn't believe you, even if it were true.
I get it, you're an atheist, God does not exist because you have not seen him
in the manner that you see ''things''. That's where you're at.



And don't try to say that this is an unfair analogy, it's the perfect analogy for the god claims made by theists. Every single possible test we conceive is swiftly countered with some special exemption(god is nonphysical[which raises the question of how it would interact with the universe], god is outside the universe[which raises the same question], etc.) and yet we're expected to accept on hearsay an element of the universe which would completely revolutionize our view of it and our place in it.

Well, that's how it is, and you don't believe. I can understand. It is a hard concept to understand from a purely material perspective.
But it doesn't mean we are wrong, or that God does not exist.
That's the best you're gonna get mate.



Science deals with reality, regardless of whether or not it's solely physical.


You say that, as if you know what the whole of reality is.
Can you cite any definition of science, or scientific paper which cites science knows what reality is?
I think you've been brainwashed if that's what you think.



If there were a phenomenon which only the supernatural could explain(and this is not entirely impossible) then science would be forced to include the supernatural.


Dude!
The ''supernatural'' refers to our perception of natural phenomena or activity, which we have yet to understand.
I never really mentioned ''supernatural'', I should tell you.
I'm interested in God, who is coined as ''supernatural, and I sort of go along with it.



If you're whinging because science looks for naturalistic explanations first, well duh. Naturalistic explanations don't require extra assumptions so parsimony requires that we look for them first, and so far we haven't been disappointed. To quote Tim Minchin, "Every mystery ever solve has turned out to be, not magic."

That's a good thing. It's what science is for.
God, isn't ''supernatural''. :)



Oh I'm so glad you went this route. The internal inconsistencies in every single holy text are more than enough to dismiss them as reflecting reality, what with god commanding one thing and in the next breath commanding the opposite.

Examples?



Beyond that there's the fact that every holy text deals solely with matters local to where it was written, not even a hint of the outside world. The bible only deals with the Mediterranean, Chinese texts deal only with China, Japanese texts deal only with Japan, and so on.


You misunderstand the essense, and point of the scriptures. IMO.



There's also the incredibly poor quality of information contained within such texts. The bible, for example, dictates that bats are birds and insects have four legs, now I'd think that an omniscient deity would know better than that, we certainly do. Even more damning, for the bible at least, is the abominable math contained within, such as pi being 3.1 which is a horrendous approximation considering that the Egyptians not only beat the bible to the punch, but calculated pi out to six decimal places. Again, a book inspired by a deity should be able to do much better than that.


The bible, IMO, has been poorly translted from hebrew, to greek, to english.
I tend to use other scriptures which have not been treated in that way.



You say that god is explained in scripture, if that's true then that mean that god is homicidal, genocidal, racist, misogynistic, jealous and proud of it, authoritarian and fascistic, and downright evil. Sorry, not exactly a being I'd worship even if it did exist.


The bible, as we know it, doesn't really describe God fully. For example it states that God is pure spirit, but it doesn't explain the nature of spirit. Which is why you equate him with humans.



That's not the way it works and you should know that by now. We explain phenomena by looking at their causes, postulating, and testing. We can explain the existence of everything from life to the universe without positing a god, this makes any such assertions superfluous and thus unnecessary.


Yes, and a good mechanic can explain everything about a car without the need to posit a creator, or as i like to put it: without stating the obvious.



Positing a god doesn't explain anything(it's just saying "god did it" and is no different from saying "the Giant Space Duck did it") and the god you posits requires an explanation as well, therefore multiplying your questions. That is not good science.

When I take my Nissan car to be fixed, just saying Nissan made it doesn't explain anything either. You might as well say Mick Murphy made it for all that kind of explanation is worth.
I get your point.



Beyond that though, this is very close to a god of the gaps argument, an argument which while not as weak as an argument from authority is very close.


It seems that way to you, but not to me.
And I see no reason to believe that you are a better person than me, or that
your experiences are are superior to mine.
D'ya get mi?



Because beliefs don't automatically deserve respect. For that matter, neither do people. Respect is earned and while your beliefs may not have led you to harm anyone, they are still unintelligible and thus deserving of ridicule. Show me that your beliefs deserve my respect and then I'll respect them.


I didn't ask SP to respect my beliefs, I asked him to respect my individual experience which lead me to the person/human being that I am.
Not respecting that, is what leads to unnecessary confrontations, paving the way for conflict.
Do you understand that?
Or do you disrespect my being a person on the basis that my personal experiences leads me to believe as I do?
There is a vast difference.



Really. Really? Last time I checked, Spidergoat wasn't forcing you to do anything.


He may not have reached that stage, but his whole attitude smacks of that territory.


Criticizing and ridiculing your beliefs is not the same as forcing you to do anything, there's a vast difference between the two things.


Well firstly, neither SP or you can ridicule my belief.
But the fact thay you feel you have a right to do so means you are trying to force me out of my belief.

The funny thing is, I think I know why you try and do that. You do that because: a) the mindset that is in contol of the world (monetry, media, education, food, etc..) do not want a population dependant on God for anything. It's just not good business.
Your mindset, as silly as it is, does have an effect on the population.

b) now you're all dressed up (with powerful backing) but have between nothing and very little to argue with. When you're points get shown for what they are, and you actually realise you have no material, you go for the lowest common denominator.
Of course you are helped with some religious groups and movements, which you then try to tar everyone with that brush.

It all came to me one day when I was shopping in Tesco, and saw a display of Dickie Dawkins comic masterpiece 'The God Delusion' displayed right next the fruit and veg section.


jan.

LIGHTBEING,



I guess you can make an argument for that but my position is that there is no valid reason to make that leap to any of the prevailing Gods that allegedly exist today.

I can respect that, but I don't understand God in the way that you do, so I can't see God the way that you do. You are looking at God from a material point view and, because you cannot find God, you conclude God doesn't exist.
The reason you think like this is because you believe that everything is matter. You then invoke science, a discipline that deals with matter and posit that science has found no evidence of God, therefore God ''cannot'' exist.
So ultimately you BELIEVE God does not exist, not that there is no evidence that God does not exist, because you know that God is nowhere defined as a material being.



Not exactly, your asserting one of the many complex gods to explain some of the most complex questions. To answer a question with something that demands more answers is not meaningful, is it?


''Complexity'' in this case is a relative statement, again, because you are attempting to put a round peg into a square hole. Meaning you are looking for something in the wrong place.
Writing a symphony to you and I may well be a very complex task, but to a 5 year old Mozart, it had to be very simple.




But that statement raises an interesting question.
If, as you say, science has no opinion on the subject, what is the basis of
non-belief by those who claim science disproves God?



It doesn't have an opinion because science and the scientific community isn't out trying to prove the existence of the numerous GODs known to date nor should they be. I'm not sure what the basis is, but you can certainly make a scientific case against the need for a God depending on how you define God.

Of course you can, but that's not pursuit of truth.
God is already defined, and the main scriptures of the world define him the same way, so why do talk about different Gods, and different definitions?
Why not look for the similarity, and move on from there?
From an intellectual perspective, the best known origin of God and religion are the scriptures, so why are you prepared to accept every tom, dick , and harry's version, knowing it's origin. It's hardly scientific.



Doesn't the knowledge of the creator of the universe have to be absolute unless otherwise it would be inaccurate? Or does it not necessarily matter that it's accurate?


Understanding the creator is not just an intellectual pursuit, it is an interactive one. It's more about being situated in the right position, mind, body, and soul, so to speak. That is the point of scripture, and that is the point of religion. If it were purely about intellect then it would be unfair.



Many ways to love many different gods (and godesses)


Loving gods and goddesses can increase our desire of matarial oppulence, which does nothing to increase spiritual awareness and love of God.



So you are not satified with your answer(s)?

That's not what I said, or meant.
I don't feel satisfaction that the natural world isn't everything, which is
my assumption.



Modern science is doing a pretty good job thus far.

In it's capacity.



LIGHTBEING? ;) lol, jk - of course humans make mistakes but we acknowledge them and work towards understanding why we made the mistake and find a solution via critical thinking.[/QUOTE]

What you're talking about really, is learning from experience, which was my point.


jan.

spidergoat,



If there is no evidence other than testimony, I can reason that perhaps the testimony is incorrect knowing that the human mind can be subject to delusions.

I understand this, but it does not prove, or show that God does not, or can not exist. That has to be believed.



It is also not true that science only deals with the material world. It deals with reality and things that can be observed, including personal testimony of God. I agree there is personal testimony of God, and I'm using science to evaluate them. [/I]


No, it deals with the material world, which you regard as the only reality, therefore you say ''science deals with reality''. You conveniently left out your spin.



I will answer your question with another question, why do you disbelieve in the scriptures of other religions?


I don't. And I'm surprised you don't know that.



I subject your beliefs to the same criticism as my own. I could be full of crap [too], that's why it's important to defend our ideas with evidence, otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss them without evidence.

Then you should dimiss your ideas, but I don't think you will.

[seen ya] :-)

jan.

The simple truth of the matter is that this conflict will never go away as long as you have theists preaching eternal damnation. There are many other factors of course, but this one, all by itself, ensures that there shall never be peace.

So in order to realize your vision of some sort of unity and mutual respect between theists and atheists, you'd have to ask the theists to make a sacrifice that would be impossible for them to make without violating one of the core tenets of their belief system, which is that not everyone is going to be 'saved'. And I can guarantee you that right now, most theists who read this will be thinking "well, it's actually true, atheists are destined for eternal damnation".

Is this a problem that can be solved kowalskil?

To put it another way, what hope do you think there would be for real peace between two nations if, in spite of a mutual effort toward workable diplomatic relations, it was known that one of those nations considered the other to be so fundamentally flawed that they deserved to be destroyed?

Yes, both sides of the conflict must revise, or reinterpret existing claims. The process will take time, a lot of time. But reducing the intensity of poisonous conflicts is possible. That is what I think.

..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Yes, both sides of the conflict must revise, or reinterpret existing claims. The process will take time, a lot of time. But reducing the intensity of poisonous conflicts is possible. That is what I think.


Regarding theism and atheism, can you point out the ''actual'' conflict (not mere disagreements), because in order to stamp out conflict we must identify it.

Regarding science and religion the conflict seems to be between an aspect of the christian religion, and an aspect of the scientific community, both who semed to have eclipsed the disciplines of their respective genres becoming the voice of focal point. The mentality of both groups seem identical to me, differing only by side they choose to bat with.

jan.

@Jan Ardena --


If I've missed something please state it directly, as your condescending tones don't have any effect on me.

I'll put this simply if I can. When we look to confirm the existence of a phenomenon we look for evidence that it is there, in some cases this means that we must model the effects of the hypothesized phenomenon and look for said effects as the phenomenon itself isn't detectable by our instruments(vacuum fluctuations are an excellent example of this). If the model contains effects that are not there(such as the aether model of the universe) then we know, for a fact, that the proposed phenomenon is either nonexistent or our model is flawed(at which time we correct our model). In the case of the aether model we discovered that it was hopelessly flawed and unfixable, so we threw it out, the aether doesn't exist. This is an example of absence of evidence in fact being evidence of absence, as I said earlier, the evidence that should have been there isn't and thus we know that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

In the case of the god hypothesis we have a plethora of models to choose from, and some can be ruled out right off the bat due to logical impossibilities(such as an omnipotent god) and internal inconsistencies(such as an omniscient god who gives us free will). Other models, such as the deistic god who merely created the universe and then just left(or died), can be discarded due to irrelevance. Now we can compare the effects of the models we have left to the world we observe to see if they match up. If they do then we have evidence that a god exists, if they don't then we either have to revamp our models or conclude that none of the gods we made models for exist. And after some ten thousand years of model revision and testing we have yet to find a single god model that fits with the reality we observe. By this method we can observationally rule out certain gods(though not the possibility of a god we don't have a model for).

As for the condescension in my tone, it's well deserved. This is a basic scientific principle here, one that even school children in most countries are aware of. That you are either not aware of it or are deliberately ignoring it to save your belief from skeptical inquiry is shameful.


For me, there is no problem, science cannot approach spirituality.

Thank you for proving Darwin right on this one. You believe that science can't tell us anything about spirituality yet you have no rational basis for such a belief. This just brings me back to a point I made in my first post, that ridicule is the only weapon we have against unintelligible propositions(thank you Jefferson).

How can you know that science must be mute on this subject when it's mute on no other? How can you posit such a thing without even attempting it? All you've done is attempt to wall off one of your cherished beliefs from the light of skeptical inquiry. This is the epitome of being closed minded. I don't have a single belief, cherished or otherwise, that I am not willing to submit to critical thought and skeptical inquiry and then willing to discard should it be shown to be in error. That is what being open minded really is.

We are also rapidly discovering that "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences, those things which theists and spiritualists bang on about like it's the greatest thing in the world, are merely the result of certain brain states and can easily be achieved without any reliance on spiritual or religious mumbo jumbo. We're learning this both through drug trials(many drugs bring about the exact same sensation as religious and spiritual experiences) and through neurological studies of people undergoing such experiences. I, personally, can achieve that sense of "oneness" that Buddhists are always going on about merely by examining my thought processes in explicit detail. Doing this brings about the realization that the "I" in our thought processes("I think this" and "I feel that") doesn't really exist, it's something of a cognitive illusion created by our model making brain. We're actually learning a whole hell of a lot about spirituality from science, something you'd know if you hadn't closed your mind to that possibility.


It can however improve our understanding of the material world, which can be of helpto some of us (namely westerners) in our search for truth.

Oh wow, the old "truth is relative" and the old "there are different kinds of truth" canards rolled into one, you're good.


I suppose if I keep taking my car to the florist for it's M.O.T., my persistence will result in a bona-fide certificate, because I really tried.
Won't it?

And a straw man argument, way to go. You're quickly surpassing even my most ridiculous opponents in the logical fallacy department. Next time you decide to attack one of my positions, try getting my position right before doing so.

Secondly, you imply here that there is some sort of "authority" on spiritual matters we can turn to in the same way that we turn to physicists in matters of physics. Of course you're dead wrong here as there's no comparison between scientific authorities and religious or spiritual "authorities". Scientific authorities don't just tell us, ipso facto, what is and isn't the way religious and spiritual authorities do, instead they present their evidence and their methods which they use to support their conclusions. Not only that, but every single person has the ability(if not necessarily the means) to test and verify scientific conclusions, the same can not be said or religious or spiritual "truths". Scientific conclusions are objective, the same no matter where or when they are or who's reading them, spiritual conclusions are subjective in that they change literally from person to person.


You mean there is something simpler than ''God did it''?

Quantum theory is simpler than "god did it". For starters, saying "god did it" doesn't actually tell you a damn thing about the phenomenon in question, you learn nothing about the mechanisms by which it functions nor about what sort of effects it has. Furthermore, by positing that "god did it" you must then explain god, where and how god came to be as well as how god achieved such a spectacular phenomenon. Of course, all of this is taking for granted that god exists, something which is undemonstrated in any way, so you must also demonstrate god before your explanation becomes parsimonious. You are multiplying your questions and answering none, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.


That's the way it works in science, I get it. But that's not how life works.

Actually that is the way it works in life. In a court of law(at least in civilized countries) testimony alone is not enough to convict anyone of a crime, you must have actual evidence that the defendant committed the crime. When you accuse someone of doing something, even outside of a court of law, they are going to rightly demand that you prove it, your testimony is not enough. In all matters we place a premium on evidence, all matters except for religion and spirituality that is. Those are the only two areas where we willingly grant credence to testimony over evidence to the contrary, and doing so is damn foolish.


The reality is, I wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth.

Thank you for proving, once again, just how closed minded you are.


If I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe God existed, even it was true.

Another straw man argument? Really?

I'm an atheist. I admit the possibility of some form of creator existing, though I put the odds of that being the case at being remarkably small. I am open to evidence that any of the religions are right(though they can't all be right), all I ask for is evidence that will stand up to skeptical scrutiny. So far I've gotten none, zip, zilch, nada, zero.

This is the stance of the overwhelming majority of atheists. Most of us are a six on the Dawkins scale, whereas you are a one.


I get it, you're an atheist, God does not exist because you have not seen him in the manner that you see ''things''. That's where you're at.

Swing and a miss. Perhaps you should take a moment to get to know my past before you make assumptions about me. Like most atheists in the United States, I used to be a christian, a fundamentalist christian at that. I was fully committed to seeking a life with God, I even went to seminary school to become a member of my churches clergy. I used to believe in god, I don't anymore because the more I submitted my thoughts and beliefs to critical thought, the less I was able to support them. The more I brought down the mental partition I had between my logic and my religion, the more I realized that my beliefs couldn't cut the mustard and I had no choice, if I wanted to maintain my new intellectual honesty, but to discard them.

You see, I have you at a disadvantage here....besides the fact that your arguments are logically fallacious and completely unsupported by evidence that is. The advantage that I have is that I understand your position, I understand it fully and completely because I was in your position. The disadvantage you have is that you've never even tried to understand my position, this is evident from your constant straw man arguments(which I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming are unintentional). I understand the appeal of theism and the rationality used to support it, you have a complete lack of understanding about what atheism even is. How can you hope to compete in a debate when your opponent completely understands your arguments and positions and you understand nothing about your opponent?


Well, that's how it is, and you don't believe. I can understand.

"Well that's how it is." Are you really going to just try to assert that without presenting any supporting evidence? How are you any better than those who slaughter women for trying to learn how to read and justify it by saying that "it's god's law, that's how it is"? Really. You're employing the exact same arguments here as they do.

Well you demonstrably don't understand because you can't seem to make heads nor tails of my arguments which is obvious because you can't refute a single one of them.


It is a hard concept to understand from a purely material perspective.

But I do understand, as evidenced by the way that I've been able to deconstruct your arguments and refute them. If I didn't understand then I would be constantly committing logical fallacies and making irrelevant statements, I'm not. I think it's you who fails to grasp the situation. The situation is this, I was a theist, I understand the theistic mentality as well as all of their arguments, you've never been an atheist and thus you understand nothing about the mentality and hence you fail to understand the arguments.


You say that, as if you know what the whole of reality is.

Nope, I say that as if I understand the way science works, and I do. Science depends on observation followed repeatable experiments, if the effect is not repeatable then the observation is in error. If repeatable experiments demonstrate a "supernatural"(perhaps "paranormal" would be a better word) effect, say that intercessory prayer actually works, then accepting the supernatural would be the only path available.

You see, I(and science) don't need to understand what the whole of reality is, just like I don't need to have all of the answers to know that your answer is wrong. This whole "understand the whole of reality" is irrelevant, it's a red herring, yet another logical fallacy.

You don't need to be well educated or an expert to spot logical and methodological flaws in an argument or assertion, you just need to be open minded and skeptical. Now, I have the added benefit of a scientific education which means that I have a fairly thorough understanding of scientific methods and procedures and that I understand the current limits of scientific inquiry. You lack such knowledge and as such you conjure limitations on scientific inquiry that are simply nonexistent.


Can you cite any definition of science, or scientific paper which cites science knows what reality is?

Nice red herring, again. Every single human being shares a working definition of reality which is fundamentally the same(this is due to our shared ancestry and the fact that our brains function in the same way). This definition, which we all accept(though some add on more, often unnecessarily so), is that reality is that which we observe around us. This is the most simplistic definition of reality available and it is universal in humans and, we can guess, to most mammals in general. Science only takes it a step further in trying to confirm observation through repetition. This helps remove the element of human error as our brains are notoriously prone to hallucination and outright fabrication of events.

Not that this has any relevance though, I already explained that science works through observation, and if the paranormal exists then it must be observable. If it's not repeatable then delusion or hallucination offer better explanations. Again, Ockham's Razor shreds your contention to ribbons here.


I think you've been brainwashed if that's what you think.

Nice! Demonize and belittle the man who's eviscerating your arguments so that you have an excuse to dismiss anything he says without even considering it. If this weren't a tactic that theists employ religiously(pun fully intended) then I'd almost be surprised by it.

Besides that, you had absolutely no way to know what I think, and it's obvious that you have no scientific education as you'd know better than this if you did. My suggestion, the next time you feel like making an assumption about what I think or what my past is(both of which you got woefully wrong), pick up a book and read instead. I would recommend Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, you might learn a thing or two about science and scientific thinking. Of course, Cosmos is always a good choice too.


The ''supernatural'' refers to our perception of natural phenomena or activity, which we have yet to understand.

Then, as I already mentioned, perhaps "paranormal" would be a better word for said phenomena.


I'm interested in God, who is coined as ''supernatural, and I sort of go along with it.

God is "coined", as you so put it, as supernatural because the actions and traits attributed to him would violate all of the known laws of physics. Now, it is possible that the laws are hopelessly flawed and we should just throw them out, however given how useful they've been in predicting natural phenomenon and building technology I highly doubt this. After all, how likely is the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be wrong?


That's a good thing. It's what science is for. God, isn't ''supernatural''.

So god, according to you, is both a nonphysical being who can intervene in the universe and yet isn't supernatural? Headdesk! (http://media.photobucket.com/image/head%20desk%20demotivational/phoebe_86/Motivators/headdesk.jpg) The Fail! It burns so bad!!!


Examples?

Gladly.

In Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 24:16 god is depicted as changing his mind about things(which, by the way, is irreconcilably inconsistent with the concept of omniscience). In Numbers 23:19-20, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17 god is said to not change his mind.

In Genesis 11:9 god confused the languages of the world(the whole Tower of Babel thing) and yet in 1 Corinthians Paul states unconditionally that god does not cause confusion.

In the books of Genesis(12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30), Exodus(3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11) Numbers(12:7-8, 14:14), Job(42:5), and Amos(7:7-8, 9:1) we are told that god can be, and has been, seen and heard by people. However in Exodus 33:20 we are told that no man can see god and live(despite the fact that people had apparently done so before and would do so after) and in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 we are told that no one has ever seen god and that god can not be seen.

Genesis 10:5, 20, and 31 tell us that there were many languages before the Tower of Babel, yet in Genesis 11:1 we are told that there was only one language before the Tower of Babel(which is it already!?).

Genesis 17:1 and 35:11, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, and Luke 1:37 tell us that god is all powerful(leaving aside, for the moment, that this is impossible) and that anything is possible with(or for) god. But in Judges 1:19 god couldn't drive out the plainsman because they had chariots of iron(apparently god is a fey).

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on all day long but I have other things to do so if you want more examples, GFE. The bible is hopelessly inconsistent with itself, with god at times commanding sacrificial offerings and then denying that he ordered it earlier, and other holy texts are just as bad if not worse. This is proof that no divine hand penned these texts and powerful evidence that there's nothing divine about them.


You misunderstand the essense, and point of the scriptures. IMO.

Why? Because I don't see a hopelessly inconsistent, mindbogglingly irrational, and stupefyingly ignorant text as a source of knowledge? Or is it because I think that we've learned far more than they could have even dreamed of knowing in the last fifty years along(thanks to science once again) and that their ignorant ideas are humorously quaint?

But I'm curious, what, in your oh so humble opinion is the "essence and point of the scriptures"?


The bible, as we know it, doesn't really describe God fully.

The bible, as we know it, describes god's personality explicitly, and even the worst and most immoral humans of all time compare favorably to how god is depicted. I would rather see Hitler as god than the god of the bible.


For example it states that God is pure spirit, but it doesn't explain the nature of spirit. Which is why you equate him with humans.

Actually, I equate him with humans because that's what the authors did, and that's what every single christian organization that has ever existed has ever done. I think that I'm on solid theological ground here, which is why it's so funny.

[quote]Yes, and a good mechanic can explain everything about a car without the need to posit a creator, or as i like to put it: without stating the obvious.

Positing a creator for a car is only obvious because it's necessary, no such necessity exists in explaining the origin of the universe. With the fact that our universe has a total energy of zero(if you took all of the energy in the universe and mashed it all together, you would get nothing) combined with what we know about quantum foam and vacuum fluctuations we know that an entire universe, an uncaused universe, can come into existence from nothing. No creator necessary. And that's merely one of the plausible origins of our universe, there are others and the book isn't closed yet, but every single one of them works without the need to include a creator. As I said, it's unnecessary and thus irrelevant.

Nice try though, but I've been doing this for a long time and you don't have any arguments that are new to me, at least you've not displayed any yet.


And I see no reason to believe that you are a better person than me, or that your experiences are are superior to mine.

I never said anything about being a better person, though my knowledge of the subject is demonstrably better. Nor did I say that my experiences are superior to yours, though I have had religious experience while I was religious and after I wasn't, so in that respect I have more experience on the subject than you.

However this is all irrelevant, yet another red herring. Experience and opinion mean squat when it comes to existence claims, all that matters is repeatable experimentation to confirm observation. Without such evidence no such existence claims have any sort of validity. In other words, unless you put up the evidence(and you haven't don so in this entire thread) you should get used to people telling you to shut up.


I didn't ask SP to respect my beliefs, I asked him to respect my individual experience which lead me to the person/human being that I am.

Again, I didn't seem him disrespecting your "experiences"(if that's even possible), SP and I merely doubt your interpretation of them and your opinions as to their cause. That's not disrespect.


Not respecting that, is what leads to unnecessary confrontations, paving the way for conflict.

Really? And here I thought that it was the explicit call of most holy texts to kill unbelievers and heathens(with unbelievers receiving the worst of the hatred) combined with the metaphysics of martyrdom endorsed by most holy texts. Damn, how could I have been so wrong? You've really shown me the light here.

I guess the best thing would be for us atheists to go back to the way things used to be, with our hands wrapped around our ankles waiting silently for theists to ram their beliefs up our....


Do you understand that?

Nope. I don't "understand it" as you say. In fact I attribute the cause of the conflict between science and religion as coming from the fact that religion just won't shut up about "how the world is" and merely asserts that it's right without ever providing one piece of evidence to support it's assertions. If religion would stay away from the realm of science there wouldn't be such a conflict, instead we have religious people and institution attempting to force creationism/ID crap into our schools to indoctrinate children. Instead we have religious organizations telling us that homosexuality is unnatural, despite the five thousand plus species that engage in homosexual behavior. Instead we have religious organizations condemning condom usage in Africa and thus condemning millions of people each year to death, they as good as slit their throats.

Do you really think that these conflicts are cause by a "lack of respect"?

Keep in mind that you(theists) have held the international stage, and the reigns of power, for over five thousand years now, perhaps it's time you step back and give someone else a try before you blow up the whole planet(a very real possibility).


Or do you disrespect my being a person on the basis that my personal experiences leads me to believe as I do?

I don't respect or disrespect you, you've done nothing to earn either(though your dogged insistence on using logical fallacies is working to earn you my disrespect). It is quite possible to disrespect a person's beliefs without disrespecting the person, you really should be aware of this.

[quote]He may not have reached that stage, but his whole attitude smacks of that territory.

Bullshit. All he's done is disagree with you and explain why. That is not even close to the territory you seek. If you want to see people embracing that territory you're going to have to look at the religious idiots trying to ban Huckleberry Finn from schools, or those attempting to force school prayer.

I still love getting this reaction from you though, because it's so out of proportion. Any criticism of your beliefs and you cry persecution, but it's perfectly alright for you to imply that all atheists are either dumb or ignorant or hateful or any combination thereof, which is exactly what you've been implying this entire thread.

Bottom line, criticism can never be the same thing as forcing you to do or think anything. It might cause you to reconsider some things, but no force of any kind was used. On the other hand, religion regularly attempts to force people to think and believe certain things, either through threats of damnation or through legislating their morality on the rest of us(see DOMA and Conscience Clauses). So perhaps you're projecting your discomfort with these tactics onto an "enemy" so that you can deal with these aspects of yourself better.


Well firstly, neither SP or you can ridicule my belief.

Only because I haven't bothered to get the specifics. The specifics aren't necessary for me to shred your beliefs like beef because they rest on the premises that god exists, that god interacts with the universe, that god cares about humans, and that you have had experiences which were sent or inspired by god(not to sure about this last one, guessing). If any one of these premises is shown to be faulty or outright wrong then your entire belief system collapses which explains your reluctance to submit your beliefs to skeptical inquiry.

I, on the other hand, have two fundamental premises underlying my beliefs, and you can't attack them because you've already accepted them as valid. The first is that the universe exists, and I already know you're not going to be arguing against that as it would also undermine your beliefs. The second is that we can learn something about it, again you're not going to attack this one because you share it(otherwise how would you have "learned" about god?).


But the fact thay you feel you have a right to do so means you are trying to force me out of my belief.

Nope, that would require us to use force. I don't know about SP, but I have literally no intentions of doing so unless your beliefs pose a threat to others. As of now they don't. Again, merely arguing against you and criticizing your beliefs is not forcing you to change them. All we're doing is presenting you with another piece of the puzzle, it's up to you whether or not to accept it.

Now, if we were threatening you...say, with eternal damnation...then we would be attempting to coerce you, which is a form of force. There are no threats and no possible use of physical force, therefore we are not attempting to force you into anything by merely ridiculing your position. You might feel like we're forcing you, but we're actually not. As I've said before, how you or I or anyone else feels about something doesn't necessarily make it true.


The funny thing is, I think I know why you try and do that.

Oh please, do tell.


You do that because: a) the mindset that is in contol of the world (monetry, media, education, food, etc..) do not want a population dependant on God for anything. It's just not good business. Your mindset, as silly as it is, does have an effect on the population.

Actually, this is pure tripe on a bike. If you look at all of the laws in this world, just how many are anti-theistic? A very small percentage(pretty much confined to China). Now, how many are pro-theistic? The overwhelming majority of them are, and that's not counting the theocracies still in existence(in the US alone we have DOMA, conscience clauses, federal "faith based" initiative, funding for religious sex ed in public schools, the list goes on). Now, how many of those laws are openly anti-atheistic? A fairly large percentage of them(even here in the US it's still legal to discriminate against atheists and there are seven states in which it is illegal to hold public office unless you believe in a supreme being).

Sorry, but the evidence sides against you on this account. But then, you should be used to that by now.


b) now you're all dressed up (with powerful backing) but have between nothing and very little to argue with. When you're points get shown for what they are, and you actually realise you have no material, you go for the lowest common denominator. Of course you are helped with some religious groups and movements, which you then try to tar everyone with that brush.

First of all, what "powerful backing" are you talking about? Is it the scientific evidence we have supporting a naturalistic origin of the universe and a naturalistic origin of life? That's not "powerful backing", that's facts baby.

Second, you have yet to actually rebut any argument brought against you in this thread(that I've seen) and you sure as hell haven't even scratched mine. Furthermore, on this train of thought, you haven't presented even one argument which wasn't a logical fallacy. It's obvious from this thread that you are the one without a leg to stand on. Your holy books are all forgeries and plagiarized, your god is AWOL, and your arguments fly in the face of even the barest grasp of logic. How, exactly is it the atheists who don't have any arguments.

Third, I haven't gone for the lowest common denominator here, you have. I may, indeed have, been cutting and snarky in my posts, however that's more of a personal flair(I write frequently you see) than anything else. You, on the other hand, have continuously misconstrued my arguments(deliberately or not I don't know), consistently put forth superfluous and irrelevant arguments, accused me of attempting to coerce you, and generally demonized me in an attempt to discredit me in your eyes. All of these are the tactics of those who know they can't win an argument through the use of logic and reason.

Fourth, I haven't painted any group with any brush. Yes, I have highlighted some of the evils that religion has committed, but my main argument has always been the fact that theism is a hopeless mess of inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and outright ignorance of the evidence. That wasn't always the case, in the far reaches of history religion represented mankind's best attempt to understand the world, but like all preliminary models, it was flawed.

Do you want to know the real reason I seek to ridicule your beliefs? I already stated it, they're unintelligible. They make no rational sense and rely on numerous unjustified assumptions. Against such unintelligible positions ridicule is the only effective weapon humans have, reason doesn't work(as is obvious from this and other threads) and neither does discourse as you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong(something which I've admitted multiple times in this thread). What other track are we supposed to take? Oh that's right, you would prefer it if all the atheists just shut up and took it.


It all came to me one day when I was shopping in Tesco, and saw a display of Dickie Dawkins comic masterpiece 'The God Delusion' displayed right next the fruit and veg section.

I actually thought that Dawkins' best work was Unweaving The Rainbow but I digress. It "all came to you" huh, did you even bother to check your idea against the evidence? Of course you didn't, you just ran with it because it fits well within your worldview.

If I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe God existed, even it was true. Another straw man argument? Really?

I'm an atheist. I admit the possibility of some form of creator existing, though I put the odds of that being the case at being remarkably small. I am open to evidence that any of the religions are right(though they can't all be right), all I ask for is evidence that will stand up to skeptical scrutiny. So far I've gotten none, zip, zilch, nada, zero.

This is the stance of the overwhelming majority of atheists. Most of us are a six on the Dawkins scale, whereas you are a one.

Excellent point, among many others.

Spectrum of theistic probability - Dawkins's formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27s_formu lation)

I'm certainly a 6 myself. It's interesting to see a theist come right out and essentially say that they'd embrace the same extreme form of dogmatism even if they happened to be an atheist.

This reminds me of the example of the geologist Kurt Wise (Dawkins is fond of quoting this) who once said "...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Kurt Wise is at most a 1; an argument could be made for an adjustment to the Dawkins scale to accomodate him. Translated to the other end of the spectrum, he'd be the kind of atheist that Jan is talking about, so a further argument could be made for an adjustment there as well.

Just for fun, then:

1. Unyeilding theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of Kurt Wise: "if all the evidence turns against creationism... I'd still be a creationist".
2. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
3. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
4. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
5. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
6. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
7. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
8. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
9. Unyielding atheist. "I'm an atheist in the same way that Kurt Wise is a theist".

Note: The above is not the Dawkins scale. I have extended it here for the purposes of discussion. For the original, see the Wikipedia article linked to above.

The justification for this exercise is to characterize the difference between someone who is certain about something, and someone who has made a commitment to remain certain even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is, afterall, normally possible (note: possible) to be certain about something, and then change your mind later.

According to the extended scale above, I would be a 7 (and again, so would most atheists).

Most proper theists are 2 on that scale they are de facto theists imho, though most atheists may be very close to 7 on the original scale.

Jan, your notions have been undone. No use trying to get out of it.

@Big Chiller --

Actually the overwhelming majority of atheists are a dead-on six while the overwhelming majority of theists are a full-blown one. Sevens and twos seem to be very rare.

Arioch,

Your post is just way too much hot air to wade through.
Instead I shall attempt highlight the important points in a series of conversations.

Before we begin.

What/who is God?
What is Religion?
What is Spirituality?

jan.

@Jan Ardena --

However long my post may be(I do tend to value accuracy over brevity for obvious reasons) I did answer every single one of your questions and rebutted your arguments. If you can't bring yourself to read a post because of it's length then you're not worth debating with.

God is not for me to define, that burden lies with the theist.

@Jan Ardena --

However long my post may be(I do tend to value accuracy over brevity for obvious reasons) I did answer every single one of your questions and rebutted your arguments. If you can't bring yourself to read a post because of it's length then you're not worth debating with.

God is not for me to define, that burden lies with the theist.

You haven't rebutted my arguments because you do not understand my position regarding God, religion, and spirituality, you only think you have.
So alot of your work was in vain.

You do need to define God, otherwise I actually don't know what you're talking about. That you regard ''God'' and it's meaning not worthy of your time to define, is not a concern of mine. But if you wish to engage me in a discussion about God, we need to know what we're talking about. As you have assumed that the god you claimed to believe in was/is the same god I currently believe in, you need to define him/it.

jan.

@Jan --


You haven't rebutted my arguments because you do not understand my position regarding God, religion, and spirituality, you only think you have.

I responded to general statements, we were never discussing the specifics of your belief, therefore your exact beliefs have been irrelevant to the discussion. The arguments you've made thus far have all been rebutted and your questions answered(with examples). If you wish to have a discussion about your specific beliefs then by all means let's do so, however you must first define what those beliefs are.


You do need to define God, otherwise I actually don't know what you're talking about.

I don't believe a damn thing about god so why should I be required to define something that is irrelevant to me? And I already defined which sort of gods can be rejected by science, several times. If the god you believe in isn't one of those then it is on you to say so, not on me to guess that.


That you regard ''God'' and it's meaning not worthy of your time to define, is not a concern of mine.

Whether or not I regard it as "not worthy of my time" is irrelevant, I can't define something which I have literally no belief in, I can only discuss the generalities and wait for people to specify their own beliefs about it. Until they do so I have literally nothing to go on.


But if you wish to engage me in a discussion about God, we need to know what we're talking about.

I agree. Thus far we've been discussing generalities and I've done a good job of highlighting exactly which general "gods" I've been talking about(from omnipotent gods to deistic gods to gods with mutually exclusive traits). I've never once gone into specifics about gods. I've been waiting on you to give your definition of god before I could get into specifics.


As you have assumed that the god you claimed to believe in was/is the same god I currently believe in, you need to define him/it.

1. I never claimed to believe in a god.

2. I never claimed that you believed in any of the gods I was talking about.

3. I never addressed any specifics about what you believe, in fact I'm on record as saying that I didn't really need to know the specifics because the generalities were enough for the discussion up until this point.

4. I can't define god because I don't believe in god, the burden of that is on those who do believe.

Arioch,



I responded to general statements, we were never discussing the specifics of your belief, therefore your exact beliefs have been irrelevant to the discussion.

You said:


...I understand your position, I understand it fully and completely because I was in your position....

....I was fully committed to seeking a life with God....

Your basing your argument on the notion that you know what i'm about.
But you don't. And now you're going to have to justify this delusion of grandeur, and as such we will not have good discussion.

I suggest we start again, and this time with you not being presumptious.




The arguments you've made thus far have all been rebutted and your questions answered(with examples). If you wish to have a discussion about your specific beliefs then by all means let's do so, however you must first define what those beliefs are.


You obviously misunderstood the arguments I made, thinking that you knew where I was coming from. You didn't bother to do any research, you just made standard assumptions.



I don't believe a damn thing about god so why should I be required to define something that is irrelevant to me?


How can you possibly believe God doesn't exist under any circumstances, and not have an idea of what it is that doesn't actually exist?
Apart from that, you believed in God, you KNOW where I'm coming from, so enlighten.



And I already defined which sort of gods can be rejected by science, several times. If the god you believe in isn't one of those then it is on you to say so, not on me to guess that.


And I want to know if you're talking about God.
I'm not interested in talking about gods.



Whether or not I regard it as "not worthy of my time" is irrelevant, I can't define something which I have literally no belief in, I can only discuss the generalities and wait for people to specify their own beliefs about it. Until they do so I have literally nothing to go on.

But you did believe in God, and as you boasted, you have an advantage over me in that you've been in my position. So if I ask you to define God for the purpose of the discussion, you should. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.



I agree. Thus far we've been discussing generalities and I've done a good job of highlighting exactly which general "gods" I've been talking about(from omnipotent gods to deistic gods to gods with mutually exclusive traits).

Can you think of any reason why I should be content with these ''general gods'', to the point where I ignore the fact (according to you) than you once believed in God, as I do, wanting to spend your life with him.
I'm afraid you need to back that up. I want to who and what God is from your experience. Not from a bunch of people who have no clue.


I've never once gone into specifics about gods. I've been waiting on you to give your definition of god before I could get into specifics.

My definition is simple; God is the absolute truth, the supreme, trancendental being from who everything emanates.



1. I never claimed to believe in a god.

So although you were a ''christian'', you never believed in God?



2. I never claimed that you believed in any of the gods I was talking about.


So what's the meaning of: ''The advantage that I have is that I understand your position, I understand it fully and completely because I was in your position.''



4. I can't define god because I don't believe in god, the burden of that is on those who do believe.

So what are you talking about?

jan.

Actually the overwhelming majority of atheists are a dead-on six while the overwhelming majority of theists are a full-blown one. Sevens and twos seem to be very rare.


In a theist's perspective at least really believing in God takes a great deal of inner strength so on that scale the majority of theists would not fall in one but two. A few would fall in one however people who simply love to indulge in following do not count as proper one-theists imo.

A big part of the ongoing confrontations is that everyone thinks they know what the subject of God means.

But most theists and atheists will talk about religion. Religions are not God, as such.
I am not religious, and I don't believe a lot of things religions have to say about the subject.

I can experience something which doesn't need to be labelled as this or that, it is what it is. But then, Arioch is sure that this experience is "false data". He also knows that there is no test available to confirm this, so there you have it, he can't be sure at all. That's science.
Atheism of the kind Arioch is attached to does depend on belief in ideas, rather than experience. Attachment to ideas, or to material possessions isn't really a very useful strategy, it tends to make your mind closed to the reality that you are more than a mind with ideas in it.

He's managed to "debunk" my claims, in his mind. That's nice for him, but it hasn't changed anything.

Arioch,

Your post is just way too much hot air to wade through.

An obvious deflection. Jan cannot respond.

A big part of the ongoing confrontations is that everyone thinks they know what the subject of God means.

But most theists and atheists will talk about religion. Religions are not God, as such.
I am not religious, and I don't believe a lot of things religions have to say about the subject.

I can experience something which doesn't need to be labelled as this or that, it is what it is. But then, Arioch is sure that this experience is "false data". He also knows that there is no test available to confirm this, so there you have it, he can't be sure at all. That's science.
Atheism of the kind Arioch is attached to does depend on belief in ideas, rather than experience. Attachment to ideas, or to material possessions isn't really a very useful strategy, it tends to make your mind closed to the reality that you are more than a mind with ideas in it.

He's managed to "debunk" my claims, in his mind. That's nice for him, but it hasn't changed anything.

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

The proof of God is in the pudding and there is none to be shown, so there is no substance to speak of. We could then go one to speak of what people have made up or wish for, but what sense does that make? Unless and until there is some meat, there is no entity for discussion.

Now if believers go and cause trouble in the world, then must come the unavoidable confrontation on them, as real people doing something harmful.

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

If we work with the dictionary definition of religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), then the only difference I can see between religion and a set of personal beliefs regarding the nature and purpose of existence is that the former has been formalized and agreed upon (at least for the most part) by a group of people, and usually includes some sort of system of devotional practice.

To me, then, if you have "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies", but don't identify as embracing anything already established and formalized, then you still fit most of the definition of a religious person, but are simply something of a 'free agent' in that regard. Furthermore, as Signal has alluded to, such 'freestyle' beliefs almost always derive from established religious beliefs anyway.

All in all I don't see much practical use for a distinction in discussions that are clearly about one's spiritual beliefs rather than whatever rituals they may or may not practice.

An obvious deflection. Jan cannot respond.

Just saying so doesn't turn it into truth, so why don't
you break with tradition and give an explanation or reason.


jan.

And yet were it not for religion, in some form or another, you would not be able to talk about your experiences of God.
Without religion, you would not even have the words to put your experiences into.

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes
no sense.

jan.

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if we go with the idea that God gave religion to mankind.

In Christianity, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church, thus starting the disciplic succession.


In a school of Hinduism, the disciplic succession is said to start thus:


BG 4.1: The Personality of Godhead, Lord Śrī Krishna, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikshvāku.

BG 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

BG 4.3: That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend and can therefore understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

or, in another rendition (http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en3):


Evam paramparā-prāptam imam rājarshayo viduh (Bhagavad-gītā 4.2). This Bhagavad-gītā As It Is is received through this disciplic succession:

1. Krishna
2. Brahmā
3. Nārada
4. Vyāsa
5. Madhva
6. Padmanābha
7. Nrihari
8. Mādhava
9. Akshobhya
10. Jaya Tīrtha
11. Jñānasindhu
12. Dayānidhi
13. Vidyānidhi
14. Rājendra
15. Jayadharma
16. Purushottama
17. Brahmanya Tīrtha
18. Vyāsa Tīrtha
19. Lakshmīpati
20. Mādhavendra Purī
21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita)
22. Lord Caitanya
23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana)
24. Raghunātha, Jīva
25. Krishnadāsa
26. Narottama
27. Viśvanātha
28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha
29. Bhaktivinoda
30. Gaurakiśora
31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī
32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svāmī Prabhupāda

This implies religious institutes are the cause of religion, which makes no sense.

And further, it makes perfect sense if we simply acknowledge where and how we actually learn "about God": namely, we do so essentially from other people.


Normally, people are not receiving private revelations like Moses, much less like Arjuna.
Instead, we "hear about God" from other people.

And further, it makes perfect sense if we simply acknowledge where and how we actually learn "about God": namely, we do so essentially from other people.


Normally, people are not receiving private revelations like Moses, much less like Arjuna.
Instead, we "hear about God" from other people.


So how does it make sense that people are the original cause of religion.?

jan.

It makes perfect sense if we go with the idea that God gave religion to mankind.

In Christianity, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church, thus starting the disciplic succession.


In a school of Hinduism, the disciplic succession is said to start thus:



or, in another rendition (http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en3):


You prove me right with this.

jan.

Just saying so doesn't turn it into truth, so why don't
you break with tradition and give an explanation or reason.


jan.

The reason is that you failed to answer the post. This is a discussion thread. 'Neglect' is a deflection against discussion.

The reason is that you failed to answer the post. This is a discussion thread. 'Neglect' is a deflection against discussion.


I'm in the process of doing that, I just want to clear some things up.

jan.

I'm in the process of doing that, I just want to clear some things up.

jan.

Good going.

Can you ask God to clear the hurricane that's going into New York City soon? I live about 75 miles up from there.

Good going.

Can you ask God to clear the hurricane that's going into New York City soon? I live about 75 miles up from there.

Yes.


jan.

You prove me right with this.

You seem to be missing my point.



So how does it make sense that people are the original cause of religion.?

I never said that people are the cause of religion.

I said that we learn "about God" from people. Note the quote marks.

We do not know, nowadays, whether what we learn "about God" indeed is about God.
We only have things that other people told us and which they claim are about God.

But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on.

Arjuna and Moses, for example, had first-hand revelations. We do not.

Signa,



You seem to be missing my point.


Probably.



I said that we learn "about God" from people. Note the quote marks.

We do not know, nowadays, whether what we learn "about God" indeed is about God.
We only have things that other people told us and which they claim are about God.



Initially, I suppose we do to some degree, but we can't actually learn about God from people, I doubt it's that simple. There has to be some input from the person themself in order to understand anything that he is told about God.

The scripture, is the best place to understand God from an intellectual point of view, and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.



But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on


Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.
Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.




Arjuna and Moses, for example, had first-hand revelations. We do not.

They only get first-hand revelations when they situated in the right position.

jan

Initially, I suppose we do to some degree, but we can't actually learn about God from people, I doubt it's that simple. There has to be some input from the person themself in order to understand anything that he is told about God.

Given how theists usually preach, the requirment seems to be just the opposite: namely, to not put in anything personal.

"Just try and understand" - which means: don't think, don't feel, don't speak, don't ask any questions; just repeat what you have been told.



The scripture, is the best place to understand God from an intellectual point of view,

Ah, which scripture, whose version, whose translation, whose commentary ...



and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.

How can God or knowledge of God possibly be put to the test??

If God is in charge of the whole Universe and everything in it, then surely He is in charge also of any attempt of putting Him (or anyone or anything to the test). Which makes the whole exercise of putting someone or something to the test, futile.



Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.

Nor does it help to give in to any person or scripture that claims to be about or from God.



Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.


I don't buy that. True love, like true faith, should be able to withstand any and all questions and doubts.



They only get first-hand revelations when they situated in the right position.

Sure, but that is not my point.

Signa,


Given how theists usually preach, the requirment seems to be just the opposite: namely, to not put in anything personal.


How do we usually preach?



"Just try and understand" - which means: don't think, don't feel, don't speak, don't ask any questions; just repeat what you have been told.


I'm not aware of this.
Do you have any examples?



Ah, which scripture, whose version, whose translation, whose commentary ...


An,y to begin with.




How can God or knowledge of God possibly be put to the test??



That's not what I said. ''and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.




If God is in charge of the whole Universe and everything in it, then surely He is in charge also of any attempt of putting Him (or anyone or anything to the test). Which makes the whole exercise of putting someone or something to the test, futile.


Read above.




Nor does it help to give in to any person or scripture that claims to be about or from God.


Why doesn't it help.
Relationships are all about giving, trusting.




But we currently have no independet way to prove that what those people say indeed is about God. They could very well be charlatans and false prophets, leading us on



Looking at it that way doesn't help, because we do not know anything, but act as though we do by giving God conditions.
Consider you are in a relationship, but you act as though you are an observer of the relationship trying to find out if love between you is real. You will never fully experience it becaue you have separated yourself from it.



I don't buy that. True love, like true faith, should be able to withstand any and all questions and doubts.


Of course, but the aim is not test love or faith, in a bid to decide whether they are real or not. You can only know that through personal experience, it is the same with God. So if we get duped by a charlaton, we have to accept that as part of the whole process of discrimination. IOW, experience counts, not talk.
This is relevant in all forms of knowledge.



Sure, but that is not my point.


Nevertheless, this is the qualification, so it acts as a basis for discrimination against charlatons.


jan.

Given how theists usually preach, the requirment seems to be just the opposite: namely, to not put in anything personal.

How do we usually preach?



"Just try and understand" - which means: don't think, don't feel, don't speak, don't ask any questions; just repeat what you have been told.


I'm not aware of this.
Do you have any examples?

A couple of months back, you were all lovey-dovey saying how you appreciate my mind and wouldn't want to lose touch and you even gave me your email address. But within a couple of weeks, you turned against me completely, criticized me into the ground, both in private as well as in the open forums. Some time later, giving me another bout of criticism.

From this criticism of yours, it was apparent you were working with some standards of what is acceptable for me to talk about and for how long.
For me, you might as well tell me to shut up and give in.




Ah, which scripture, whose version, whose translation, whose commentary ...
An,y to begin with.

To be clear:
I am not asking you for instructions.
My questions are here to bring about discussion.

You said, more than once, how "things have been explained to me." No, they have not. What happens normally at forums is that someone asks a question, and then they get numerous answers, many of them conflicting.
This way, things have NOT been explained to anyone. They were just discussed.

(Unless you consider yourself to be the one and only authoritative representative of God and neglect the fact that theists from other religions have given their input - different from yours - in that same thread, and unless you take for granted that the asker has accepted you as such an authoritative representative.)




How can God or knowledge of God possibly be put to the test??

That's not what I said. ''and the place to put what they may have learned from people to the test.

You mean something like compare whether what the people said, is really said in scriptures as well?




Nor does it help to give in to any person or scripture that claims to be about or from God.

Why doesn't it help.
Relationships are all about giving, trusting.

I am sure the battered wives and former cult members have things to say on this topic ...



Of course, but the aim is not test love or faith, in a bid to decide whether they are real or not.

Then what do you think is the aim?



You can only know that through personal experience, it is the same with God.

I really do not think that a relationship with God could possibly function the same way as a relationship with another human.

As it is, God gives us our bodies, our minds, our senses, air to breathe, food to eat, people in our lives, etc. etc.
People cannot give us that.

And those who do have an ordinary-seeming relationship with God (ie. being His servants, friends, parents or lovers) do not know they are dealing with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.



So if we get duped by a charlaton, we have to accept that as part of the whole process of discrimination. IOW, experience counts, not talk.
This is relevant in all forms of knowledge.

Sure. My point is that organized religion, in its various forms, puts people before an immense (literally immense) commitment that is all-encompassing and can be broken only at the cost of a believer's sanity.

The systems of tenets for all major theisms have such tenets that contextualize and discount any question or doubt that a person may have about the system. So if a person were to question what is going on, he would always have an answer provided ("You faith is weak," "It is your fault," "It is the devil's fault").



Nevertheless, this is the qualification, so it acts as a basis for discrimination against charlatons.

It is also a qualification that one cannot deliberately acquire. So it is pointless to hold it up as a standard.

Yes.


jan.

Tx. All well. God came through for me.

Signal,



A couple of months back, you were all lovey-dovey saying how you appreciate my mind and wouldn't want to lose touch and you even gave me your email address. But within a couple of weeks, you turned against me completely, criticized me into the ground, both in private as well as in the open forums. Some time later, giving me another bout of criticism.

From this criticism of yours, it was apparent you were working with some standards of what is acceptable for me to talk about and for how long.
For me, you might as well tell me to shut up and give in.


Let's get something straight, there is, and, never was any ''lovey-dovey'', ok.
Please retract statement.
Apreciating a person ''brain ability'' (not mind) does not equate to ''lovey-dovey''
And yes, I did like you at first, regardless of whether or not you were 120 year old same sex person. That has nothing to do ''lovey-dovey''.
Please correct that statement in public.

Do you know what the purpose of the private message facility is for?
Just in case it's slipped your mind, it is for the purpose of keeping aprivate, meaning not for public interest.

jan.

Let's get something straight, there is, and, never was any ''lovey-dovey'', ok.
Please retract statement.
Apreciating a person ''brain ability'' (not mind) does not equate to ''lovey-dovey''
And yes, I did like you at first, regardless of whether or not you were 120 year old same sex person. That has nothing to do ''lovey-dovey''.
Please correct that statement in public.

Do you know what the purpose of the private message facility is for?
Just in case it's slipped your mind, it is for the purpose of keeping aprivate, meaning not for public interest.

You had a thing for my intellect from the beginning on, both in public as well as in private.

And yes, given your subsequent change of mind about me (which you expressed, again, both in public as well as in private) that earlier appreciation indeed comes across as lovey-dovey.


I didn't say hanky-panky, you horny twat.

You had a thing for my intellect from the beginning on, both in public as well as in private.

And yes, given your subsequent change of mind about me (which you expressed, again, both in public as well as in private) that earlier appreciation indeed comes across as lovey-dovey.


I didn't say hanky-panky, you horny twat.


''A thing for your intellect'' :wtf:



Lovey dovey is not the description, so don't even go there, giving the wrong
impression.
You may not have meant hanky-panky, but it could constued as such.

jan.

''A thing for your intellect''

Yes. "Having a thing for something" means 'liking, appreciating something.'



Lovey dovey is not the description, so don't even go there, giving the wrong
impression.
You may not have meant hanky-panky, but it could constued as such.


By whom?? Trappist monks?
Uh. Hrmphh.

Really. This is beyond silly, Ardena.

I am sure that nobody at this forum - or anywhere else - would construe our relationship, at any point, as being about anything else than about being religious adversaries. This is what we are: religious adversaries.

The occasional nice word between us is nothing but meant cynically. I am sure everyone here understands that.

I'm from England, the birth place and home of the sexual inuendo. :)
So I know how that can be seen, which is why I nipped it in the bud.

We (english) can turn anything into sexual inuendo.

jan.

I'm from England, the birth place and home of the sexual inuendo. :)
So I know how that can be seen, which is why I nipped it in the bud.

We (english) can turn anything into sexual inuendo.


http://www.foxnews.com/images/267418/0_64_queen_elizabeth_030607.jpg

* * *


Do you have anything to say in reply to post 101?

So....this discussion is played out. On the one hand we have straw man arguments, red herrings, and various other flavors of logical fallacy(thank you Jan), and on the other we have people trying to apply logic to the problem and come to a valid conclusion.

So....this discussion is played out. On the one hand we have straw man arguments, red herrings, and various other flavors of logical fallacy(thank you Jan), and on the other we have people trying to apply logic to the problem and come to a valid conclusion.


What you regard as ''people trying to apply logic to the problem and come to a valid conclusion'' is what is known as ''new atheism'', new kids on the block who convince themselves that ''being right'' is part of their belief system. :D

Now, are you going to set our discourse on track by clarifying the points I raised?

jan.

@Jan --

There's literally nothing "new" about "new atheism" other then that people are now willing to speak up.

And I would love to clarify your points, as soon as you make some that aren't based on a straw man of my arguments. Until you start adhering to the rules of logic no rational discourse can commence.

Arioch,



There's literally nothing "new" about "new atheism" other then that people are now willing to speak up.
And I would love to clarify your points, as soon as you make some that aren't based on a straw man of my arguments. Until you start adhering to the rules of logic no rational discourse can commence.



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]


You accused me of this fallacy because of this:



I don't think science can explain everything, plus we are living in the here and now, not in some future.


While it may be true that there are important questions which science can't answer(I stipulate "important" for a reason), we will never know until we try now will we?


I suppose if I keep taking my car to the florist for it's M.O.T., my persistence will result in a bona-fide certificate, because I really tried.
Won't it?

That statement is a metaphor.
Here is a definition of Spiritual taken from Wiki (as are all the others):


Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”


Note the phrase ''immaterial reality''.
How can we appoach physicists, biologists, paleontologists, astro-physicists, with notions of the immaterial?
My metaphor merely showed this.



A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that uses an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea;

This is precisely why I ask for definitions.

Now are you going to comply, or waste time with nonsense claims?

jan.

@Jan --

Alright, since you're so eager for a debate-ass-whooping, I'll give it to you(I've got nothing better to do at the moment other than pound nails into my eyes).


How can you possibly believe God doesn't exist under any circumstances, and not have an idea of what it is that doesn't actually exist?

This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. I never once claimed to believe that god doesn't exist, in fact I explicitly explained that I merely lack a belief in any god or gods(which makes me definitionally an atheist). You have chosen to respond to an argument or claim which you attribute to me in the hopes of knocking it down(by catching me in a contradiction) when in actuality I never made such a claim. This is why you're rapidly losing any respect I might have given you.


So if I ask you to define God for the purpose of the discussion, you should. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

Lolz. You're so sure of yourself with this line of attack aren't you? No, I should not define god "for the purposes of discussion" because any definition from me would be irrelevant. Why should I clog the thread with further red herrings just to placate you?


And I want to know if you're talking about God.

And I keep telling you exactly what I'm talking about. I really don't see how I could have possibly been any clearer on that point as I not only carefully defined exactly what I was talking about but reiterated it twice. Perhaps the need for more clarity is on you as you've been incredibly obtuse in this thread.


I'm not interested in talking about gods.

*Chuckles*

Well then I guess you really shouldn't have responded to my posts about them. That's your fault, not mine.


I want to who and what God is from your experience.

When I was a christian I believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent yet paradoxically vengeful, god. However as I keep telling you, what I believed in is irrelevant, the mechanisms behind both your beliefs and my previous beliefs are identical and thus open to my understanding.


My definition is simple; God is the absolute truth, the supreme, trancendental being from who everything emanates.

That's damn close to a deistic belief, the only difference being your claimed experiences. However such a god would be irrelevant. If god is everything then everything is god and the word loses all meaning. Oh, and the entire idea of an omnipresent being as an "absolute truth" is silly. The only absolute truth known to any humans is that of the brute fact, something that can't be reduced any further(such as 1+1=2). If we reduce the universe down to it's most basic we get nothing, a zero total energy universe.


So although you were a ''christian'', you never believed in God?

Again, this is irrelevant, although I will grant that it was a response due to a lack of clarity and a misunderstanding on my part.

I never claimed that I believe in any gods, note the tense that is used. I used the word in it's present tense, so the statement you make is nothing more than an irrelevant red herring in which you hoped to catch me in a contradiction where there is none.

I misunderstood your question about the god I believed in verses the god you believe in, however I never actually claimed that I believed in the exact same god that you believe in, and this is where my lack of clarity came to bite me in the ass. What I should have said is that I understand the theistic mindset, which happens to be your mindset, fully and completely, not that I understand your position(which is still not your beliefs, though it can be interpreted that way if you so choose). And I do, the theistic mindset is something I've experienced every bit as much as you have, and the mechanics behind the theistic mindset are the same regardless of which flavor of theism you choose to embrace.

However, none of this places the definitional burden on me, it still lies squarely on you theists to define god. It's also irrelevant to the discussion we've been having up until now as I've just been discussing generalities(such as various flavors of god which can be ruled out by science) and thus specific, personal believes are absolutely irrelevant to every point I've made. Whether you believe in god as the universe as the pantheists do or the god of the bible, my points remain unchallenged.


So what are you talking about?

Simple, I can discuss the generalities without defining anything about a specific god, and if someone brings up a definition I can discuss that as well. Apply your logic, it's one of the only truly human traits we possess.


That statement is a metaphor.

Yes, yes, I already addressed this. You imply that scientists are the wrong experts to go to, however there aren't any experts on the spiritual. There are people who make lots of claims however no reason to trust them as experts any more than the crazy who says that he's talking to Thomas Jefferson in his head. They produce no evidence of being experts at anything other than fleecing people of their money, so if you happy trusting this to a bunch of conmen then you reveal yourself as a fool.


Note the phrase ''immaterial reality''.

Oh I note it alright. I also note that it's completely undemonstrated and that there are as many definitions and descriptions of said "reality" as there are people who believe it. Not only that, but I note that it's a self-collapsing term as reality denotes observation and something which is immaterial is by definition unobservable. This logical disconnect is fatal for the entire concept.


How can we appoach physicists, biologists, paleontologists, astro-physicists, with notions of the immaterial?

Leaving aside the aforementioned issues, yes. Who better to detect and describe reality than those whose job it is to do so? Surely you're not going to say that priests or shamans are better experts to turn to.


My metaphor merely showed this.

Your metaphor was both flawed and inaccurate. Flawed because it's a red herring and a straw man(implying an argument from authority when there was no argument from authority), inaccurate because you compared something with experts to something with no experts. Again, next time, try to get the argument right before responding.


Now are you going to comply, or waste time with nonsense claims?

I've not made one nonsensical claim yet. You, on the other hand, are not in the same boat as I. You make explicit claims about the beginning of the universe which are nonsensical and about some "immaterial reality" which are, by definition, self-refuting. Good job there.

Now, are you going to address the points made for once or are you going to continue on in the same manner as you've been in the rest of the thread?