Your thoughts on God

[Moonbeam]

You seemed to be reading things in my posts that weren't there. Are you saying that I am right or wrong about god being only an experience caused by the brain and not reality? I have already said I might be wrong, and that what they experience might be due to a "god". But I also said that there is no evidence of that, while there is evidence that the brain can and will make these experiences which we know to be not real. Thus I follow the evidence

If the evidence is that the brain can mislead and you follow that evidence then you should know that your conviction that you are following the evidence isn't real but just the brain fooling itself. The fact of the matter, more likely, it seems to me, is that you don't know anything but are given to holding opinions. What do you need those for. Why not just not know anything. It might get you along on that road of humility.

If you've never tasted an orange you can read all kinds of descriptions as to how they taste, but you will never really experience what an orange tastes like until you taste one. As you taste the orange certain chemicals in your brain will fire, but these chemicals firing in your brain are not the taste of the orange. And if you like the way an orange tastes, you may find yourself having them time and time again. Does this devotion to tasting oranges or engaging in what pleases something like religion?

But if you have never tasted an orange, I must warn you. There is no proof to somebody who has never tasted one that they taste like anything at all. Sure we can see some chemicals going off in the gray matter, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I try to stay out of these as I agree with another poster earlier about how religous arguments raely ever stay a discussion but devolve into what this one has become. Still, just to throw in a bit of argument for the God exists side.

St Anselm
The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.

Descartes
Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.

Leibniz
God is at least possible since the concept of Him as the Infinite implies no contradiction; but if He is possible He must exist because the concept of Him involves existence.

there are certainly many more arguments that could be raised. And the God does nto exist crowd has their own arguments. My point here is that there is reasoned discourse on each side by smarter people than onyone here ever could hope to be.

The ontological argument is possibly the worst theistic argument I have ever encountered, and it truly does a violent disservice to the theists that submit it in earnest for a discussion such as this one.

Please tell me that you do not find this kind of pitiful sophistry convincing.

 

[ThinClient]

I've been waiting to see you link something peer-reviewed and verified to support your conclusion concerning religious experiences.

Otherwise, your position is dismissed and sheer myth, which it probably is.

This is rich, coming from someone who has been charged with the same challenge, falls flat on his face the same way, and whose conclusion can be described in EXACTLY the same way (sheer myth).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This has everything to do with the possibility of being right or wrong...I'm talking about your apparent inability to acknowlege both of these distinct possibilities when it comes to you personally. The logic you use to prove you're infallable on this belief is based on the failure for anyone to provide evidence to your satisfaction..."simply asking for evidence to be presented". If that's your criteria for proving yourself "right" without possiblility of being wrong...then I ask you to simply present evidence there is no God....and until you do so, by your logic you're OK with me never admitting to the possibility that I might be wrong. Please do this or acknowledge that the very basis of your logic is completely irrational.

I suspect you two are talking past eachother.

If it were me making Paul98's point, I would clarify by noting that the atheist does not strictly purport to be correct in believing a fact which states "No gods exist." Rather, the atheist purports to remain unconvinced by all of the submitted and so-called "evidence" for the existence of any gods. Unconvinced, therefore, he is without a belief that gods exist.

He cannot be mistaken about the state of his own belief-set. Being his and his alone, he has direct cognitive access to it. If he had been convinced that a god exists and believed it as a result, he would know it. It is nonsensical to suggest that he should consider the possibility that he is mistaken about this.

You may suggest that there exists convincing evidence, and that perhaps he is mistaken about its persuasiveness. Naturally, you'd be expected to present that supposed evidence for evaluation.

I find it hard to believe that Paul98 supposes he it is justified in believing that it is impossible for a god to exist. There are few atheists that are athier than I am, and I'll easily acknowledge that it is impossible to exclude the logical possibility of the existence of His Supreme Indifference.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suspect you two are talking past eachother.

If it were me making Paul98's point, I would clarify by noting that the atheist does not strictly purport to be correct in believing a fact which states "No gods exist." Rather, the atheist purports to remain unconvinced by all of the submitted and so-called "evidence" for the existence of any gods. Unconvinced, therefore, he is without a belief that gods exist.

He cannot be mistaken about the state of his own belief-set. Being his and his alone, he has direct cognitive access to it. If he had been convinced that a god exists and believed it as a result, he would know it. It is nonsensical to suggest that he should consider the possibility that he is mistaken about this.

You may suggest that there exists convincing evidence, and that perhaps he is mistaken about its persuasiveness. Naturally, you'd be expected to present that supposed evidence for evaluation.

I find it hard to believe that Paul98 supposes he it is justified in believing that it is impossible for a god to exist. There are few atheists that are athier than I am, and I'll easily acknowledge that it is impossible to exclude the logical possibility of the existence of His Supreme Indifference.

Tell me if you think that what I posted above wasn't just this.

"There are few lovers of oranges who love them better than I do, but I can easily acknowledge that if one had only heard of oranges by word of mouth, that he or she might logically doubt they exist, and especially so if all the reports about them were from folk who had licked the peal and never had them served, say, as Grand Marnier.

I think that talking past each other is sometimes a function of perspective much the way a glass can be half full or half empty or a critic arguing the metaphorical content of a love poem with a lover. The words that are read are the same, but the meaning..............

For me the atheist chatters away about the illogicality of belief while the same God he swearers he sees no evidence for is the same God that makes him good. You can bread God out of the mind but not the bones. I think God is known in the will to live and all the joy that brings, the love of Being. It's just the act of raising a glass of wine to toast everything.

The thing that logic can never effect in the believer is the feeling that life is good, the core experience of our deepest state of being. You can't make people give up on what they know is real even if the way they believe in it is all kinds of crazy. Lots of atheists focus on the crazy, but I think they should focus of the good. What kind of God can you believe in? Could you maybe buy into the notion, say, that we may have unconscious fears that make it difficult to trust and that maintain that separation as long as they are felt at an unconscious level?

 

[ThinClient]

If it were me making Paul98's point, I would clarify by noting that the atheist does not strictly purport to be correct in believing a fact which states "No gods exist." Rather, the atheist purports to remain unconvinced by all of the submitted and so-called "evidence" for the existence of any gods. Unconvinced, therefore, he is without a belief that gods exist.

This is correct.

This point has been made COUNTLESS times in this thread, but theists just don't care because it doesn't fit their agenda so they conveniently ignore such a stance.

Hell, Rob M. was arguing about the belief system of rocks in another thread. Rocks!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hell, Rob M. was arguing about the belief system of rocks in another thread. Rocks!!

Yes, I've borne witness to that rather puerile objection to the general definition of atheism before. It's nothing more than obfuscation, motivated by the believer's impetus to shirk his burden. Desperately he stuffs his imagined atheist opponents with false straws so he can proclaim that he "doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist" -- revealing rather openly his insecurities about the basis of his own beliefs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Tell me if you think that what I posted above wasn't just this.

I'll confess, I don't often read your posts. I don't generally take issue with the things you argue, after all, and your posts are often lengthy. Forgive me if I argue redundantly on occasion.

 

[ThinClient]

Yes, I've borne witness to that rather puerile objection to the general definition of atheism before. It's nothing more than obfuscation, motivated by the believer's impetus to shirk his burden. Desperately he stuffs his imagined atheist opponents with false straws so he can proclaim that he "doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist" -- revealing rather openly his insecurities about the basis of his own beliefs.

This post is so beautifully written, so linguistically elegant, that it nearly brings a tear to my eye. :wub:

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll confess, I don't often read your posts. I don't generally take issue with the things you argue, after all, and your posts are often lengthy. Forgive me if I argue redundantly on occasion.

Oh, that's OK. I wasn't trying to draw attention to the possibility you were duplicating something I said, but to ask if you thought I said something different. Now I understand the situation.

 

[PowerEngineer]

If it were me making Paul98's point, I would clarify by noting that the atheist does not strictly purport to be correct in believing a fact which states "No gods exist." Rather, the atheist purports to remain unconvinced by all of the submitted and so-called "evidence" for the existence of any gods. Unconvinced, therefore, he is without a belief that gods exist.

For better or worse, I understand the definition of atheism to be broad enough to encompass both what you describe above (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism") and a belief that "no gods exist" (which is "strong atheism"). IMHO there's a very important difference here. I can see why believers might argue that "strong atheists" make the same sort of leap of faith to decide that no gods exists.

I can squeeze within the bounds of "weak atheism" but usually characterize myself as agnostic. An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated (i.e. "weak atheism"), but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

For better or worse, I understand the definition of atheism to be broad enough to encompass both what you describe above (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism") and a belief that "no gods exist" (which is "strong atheism"). IMHO there's a very important difference here. I can see why believers might argue that "strong atheists" make the same sort of leap of faith to decide that no gods exists.

Indeed, and at an even more granular level it is true to say that most atheists are "weak" atheists with respect to certain unfalsifiable god-concepts (i.e. a deistic god or the aforementioned His Supreme Indifference), and simultaneously "strong" atheists with respect to more absurd god-concepts (i.e. a god that knows the future inerrantly and yet created free-will beings, or an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god that allows evil).

I can squeeze within the bounds of "weak atheism" but usually characterize myself as agnostic. An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated (i.e. "weak atheism"), but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated.

Alternatively to the "weak" and "strong" designations, I prefer to describe atheists with respect to their gnostic position, illustrated thusly:

 

[ThinClient]

Gnostic atheist? Does not believe that any gods exist but claims to know that god exists?

Flawed graphic, anyone? wtf? lol

 

[serpretetsky]

I dont know what gnostic means, but I think you misread it, unless it's been modified after you posted.
"Claims to know no god exists"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Indeed, and at an even more granular level it is true to say that most atheists are "weak" atheists with respect to certain unfalsifiable god-concepts (i.e. a deistic god or the aforementioned His Supreme Indifference), and simultaneously "strong" atheists with respect to more absurd god-concepts (i.e. a god that knows the future inerrantly and yet created free-will beings, or an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god that allows evil).

I'm quoting myself simply to add that I suspect that most of the frustration theists and atheists have in deciding on an agreeable definition of atheism stems from the fact that most believers struggle to comprehend the idea that there are actually multitudes of god-concepts with which an atheist must contend.

For the believer (typically) there is but one god: his god; so it isn't completely unreasonable for him to suppose that an atheist must be absolutely "weak" or "strong" in his position. In reality, as I said above, most atheists are BOTH "weak" and "strong" atheists, depending entirely on which god-concept is at hand. The theist thinks that the atheist is being shifty or sly trying to dodge a burden of proof, but if that same theist hasn't been thoroughly rigorous in defining the god in which he believes, the atheist cannot rationally begin from any position but "weak" atheism.

It is only worsened by the typical course of such a discussion, as the theist either directly or indirectly reveals the attributes and characteristics of his god, and then the atheist responds by attacking those same facets when they appear to be inconsistent with each other, and/or inconsistent with reality. "You're not a 'weak' atheist," he says, "I notice the way you argue so strenuously against my god. You don't merely lack belief." And then it is true. The atheist might then have good reason to believe affirmatively that this theist's god is false.

But this is a singular case and a particular instant in time. With the theists' ever-changing ideas about their gods, the next encounter might play out differently, and the theist may describe a wholly different god-concept. In the theist's mind, the god hasn't changed, merely his understanding of god has evolved. The atheist regardless is being painted a new picture, however, and then again he must begin from a "weak" atheist position until that picture becomes clear enough that he can decide whether it is simply unconvincing or demonstrably false.

 

[Ventanni]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm one of the few believers on this forum.

I was raised in a non-denominational church to which, I admit, I never cared for growing up. I resented having to go to church every Wednesday night and Sunday morning, and I loathed singing hymns I felt had no relevant bearing in life; not to mention I could always remember when we sang them last, which further added to my resentment in singing them. After the age of 18, I was finally given choice, and I chose to leave the church without looking back.

As the years went on, I found myself drawn to the logical arguments of fellow atheists. I remember watching YouTube videos on topical discussions regarding subjects like the creation of the universe and the flood, and comparing data between what the Bible taught with what evidence scientists have found in the field. I even remember reading/watching these things and frothing at the mouth for the chance for the discussion to come up between my parents and I, like I was just waiting and eager to create a rift between me and those whom I loved.

I had questions. Lots of them. Why is it the Bible states there was a worldwide flood when we find no evidence in the soil layers of any worldwide floor to have occurred? Why doesn't the creation story match with what we observe in the known universe? Slowly but surely however, God called me back. During this time, I also suffered from a great deal of depression. I would go jogging a lot when I was younger (still do), and I remember going up to the top of the USF Tampa campus parking garages and look down. I was too chicken to jump, but I wanted to.

I started to pray again. I felt like what harm could it do? If he's really there, he'll hear me. Maybe he'll even listen. Admittedly, this went on for a while. None of this happened overnight, but one day I woke up, and the feeling was gone. I haven't felt that since, and that was over 4 years ago. It was then I realized that my prayer had finally been answered, and maybe there was some real truth to this after all. Only now, I felt like I had actually experienced God's love first-hand; evidence I found very difficult to question.

Over time, my relationship with God strengthened. I realized more and more prayers were being answered. I become [much] more successful at my job, and even realized a level of fulfillment that I lacked for many years. My finances and ability to manage money substantially improved. I now find joy in life, even four years later, and that's something I went a long, long time without. Quite simply, I became a much happier, more energetic, more loving, more selfless, and more compassionate individual.

Before my ex's stepfather died earlier this year, we were having dinner at Outback Steakhouse and he asked many of the same questions you all have brought up in this very thread. He questioned me regarding things like the flood and the creation of the universe, and I remember what I told him. I said, "Dan, I used to ask those very same questions. And yes, even now those questions remain specifically unanswered. But what I can say is that given my experience and what God has done in my life, I haven't any reason to believe otherwise."

That's not to say that life has been without its struggles. I lost my friend, Dan, to a freak tree-felling accident in his very own backyard. The relationship between my fiance and I fell apart due to what had actually been cancer running through her veins all along. We've since reconnected quite a bit, but it's hard watching the love of your life struggle with her own. I'm only 30, guys. I'm not ready to have to bury her.

The difference is now is that I know I don't go at it alone. When I needed to forgive, I looked for God to teach me. When I felt like I had lost everything after the break up: My home, my family, my relationship, I felt him picking back up the pieces. I regularly take care of her, and when I see her suffer so much through her treatment and just want to fall apart, it's his strength that keeps me standing. Suddenly those questions of whether the flood really happened or how evolution doesn't align with what the Bible teaches don't really matter anymore. It's just me and him, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

I admit I don't have years of wisdom to fall back on, but I do know that given what I'm experiencing now, I wouldn't be able to get through it without him. One day this difficult chapter of my life will come to an end and trees and flowers will start blooming again. But what I can say is despite throughout all of this, God has made it abundantly clear that he's there, and that he's still sovereign. I would never wish any of you for God or religion to be forced upon you, but I can say that if you take a step of faith and believe in him first, he'll reveal himself to you. You'll find the answers you're looking for.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm quoting myself simply to add that I suspect that most of the frustration theists and atheists have in deciding on an agreeable definition of atheism stems from the fact that most believers struggle to comprehend the idea that there are actually multitudes of god-concepts with which an atheist must contend.

For the believer (typically) there is but one god: his god; so it isn't completely unreasonable for him to suppose that an atheist must be absolutely "weak" or "strong" in his position. In reality, as I said above, most atheists are BOTH "weak" and "strong" atheists, depending entirely on which god-concept is at hand. The theist thinks that the atheist is being shifty or sly trying to dodge a burden of proof, but if that same theist hasn't been thoroughly rigorous in defining the god in which he believes, the atheist cannot rationally begin from any position but "weak" atheism.

It is only worsened by the typical course of such a discussion, as the theist either directly or indirectly reveals the attributes and characteristics of his god, and then the atheist responds by attacking those same facets when they appear to be inconsistent with each other, and/or inconsistent with reality. "You're not a 'weak' atheist," he says, "I notice the way you argue so strenuously against my god. You don't merely lack belief." And then it is true. The atheist might then have good reason to believe affirmatively that this theist's god is false.

But this is a singular case and a particular instant in time. With the theists' ever-changing ideas about their gods, the next encounter might play out differently, and the theist may describe a wholly different god-concept. In the theist's mind, the god hasn't changed, merely his understanding of god has evolved. The atheist regardless is being painted a new picture, however, and then again he must begin from a "weak" atheist position until that picture becomes clear enough that he can decide whether it is simply unconvincing or demonstrably false.

This is a good post, Taxt, but in response to the bold...sure, I've thought that some have attempted to dodge a potential burden, but that is based on statements similar to the one made by, none other than, Mr. Dawkins. I will paraphrase:

On a scale from 1 to 7, "1" being God absolutely does exists and "7" being absolutely not existing, I'm a 6.9.

I don't quite understand how he (I am of the opinion that he doesn't have a doubt in his mind that God isn't real) could be a 6.9 and not completely deny the existence of God. I could be dead wrong on this and you'd know better than I, but this seems a convenient way to make an assertion God doesn't exists, while not taking an absolute stand technically, and at the same time, effectively avoiding being asked for evidence.

I don't know, but that's how I read his statement(s).

OTOH, I agree that one making a case for God has to be clear.

 

[ThinClient]

I dont know what gnostic means, but I think you misread it, unless it's been modified after you posted.
"Claims to know no god exists"

It was late, I was tired, and my brain was failing.

 

[ThinClient]

This is a good post, Taxt, but in response to the bold...sure, I've thought that some have attempted to dodge a potential burden, but that is based on statements similar to the one made by, none other than, Mr. Dawkins. I will paraphrase:

On a scale from 1 to 7, "1" being God absolutely does exists and "7" being absolutely not existing, I'm a 6.9.

I don't quite understand how he (I am of the opinion that he doesn't have a doubt in his mind that God isn't real) could be a 6.9 and not completely deny the existence of God. I could be dead wrong on this and you'd know better than I, but this seems a convenient way to make an assertion God doesn't exists, while not taking an absolute stand technically, and at the same time, effectively avoiding being asked for evidence.

I don't know, but that's how I read his statement(s).

OTOH, I agree that one making a case for God has to be clear.

How is his statement so confusing to you?

He's a 6.9 because he cannot prove that god does not exist but he has seen so little evidence for god that there is no reason to believe that one does.

The same can be said for unicorns. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist but I'm certain that even you, Rob M., would be a 6.9 on the same scale about unicorns. Or fairies. Or Peter Pan living in Neverneverland. Or Vampires. Or heaven. Or hell. Or Stephen King's Langoliers. The list is endless and the statement Dawkins made is rock-solid rational.

 

[Retro Rob]

How is his statement so confusing to you?

He's a 6.9 because he cannot prove that god does not exist but he has seen so little evidence for god that there is no reason to believe that one does.

The same can be said for unicorns. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist but I'm certain that even you, Rob M., would be a 6.9 on the same scale about unicorns. Or fairies. Or Peter Pan living in Neverneverland. Or Vampires. Or heaven. Or hell. Or Stephen King's Langoliers. The list is endless and the statement Dawkins made is rock-solid rational.

FWIW, I am not "6.9" on the scale in regards unicorns, vampires, goblins, Peter Pan...and you know why? Because I don't concern myself with the existence/non existence of any of those things.

It doesn't matter to me if those are real or not, so evidence or the lack thereof, is simply a non-issue.

 

[sandorski]

7 is absolute, 6.9 is not.

 

[ThinClient]

FWIW, I am not "6.9" on the scale in regards unicorns, vampires, goblins, Peter Pan...and you know why? Because I don't concern myself with the existence/non existence of any of those things.

It doesn't matter to me if those are real or not, so evidence or the lack thereof, is simply a non-issue.

"You tell me why you dismiss my [fairy tale make believe entity] and I'll tell you why I dismiss yours."

You don't concern yourself with such things because you KNOW they're bullshit. You can't prove it, but that doesn't mean that it's irrational to be reasonably certain enough that they don't exist.

This is the foundational principle behind atheism.

 

[Retro Rob]

"You tell me why you dismiss my [fairy tale make believe entity] and I'll tell you why I dismiss yours."

You don't concern yourself with such things because you KNOW they're bullshit. You can't prove it, but that doesn't mean that it's irrational to be reasonably certain enough that they don't exist.

This is the foundational principle behind atheism.

Well, good for you, and great for atheism! If you reject God on the same grounds of my rejection of [insert fairly tale here], have a peaceful existence -- enjoy your life, and I'll enjoy mine!!

That's really what these discussions ultimately boil down to. Enjoy your lack of belief, and I will enjoy my belief as I have been.

Whatever makes you happy, and keeps you at peace.

 

[ThinClient]

Well, good for you, and great for atheism! If you reject God on the same grounds of my rejection of [insert fairly tale here], have a peaceful existence -- enjoy your life, and I'll enjoy mine!!

That's really what these discussions ultimately boil down to. Enjoy your lack of belief, and I will enjoy my belief as I have been.

Whatever makes you happy, and keeps you at peace.

I will never rest until those who desperately cling to bronze age myths stop lying to children about their immoral, unethical religion, until they stop propagating a LIE to themselves and the rest of the world, until they stop shoving their religion down other people's throats, until they stop trying to control how everyone else lives.

You want peace? Get the hell out of government and keep thy religion to thyself (a collective you, not a personal you).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the evidence is that the brain can mislead and you follow that evidence then you should know that your conviction that you are following the evidence isn't real but just the brain fooling itself. The fact of the matter, more likely, it seems to me, is that you don't know anything but are given to holding opinions. What do you need those for. Why not just not know anything. It might get you along on that road of humility.

If you've never tasted an orange you can read all kinds of descriptions as to how they taste, but you will never really experience what an orange tastes like until you taste one. As you taste the orange certain chemicals in your brain will fire, but these chemicals firing in your brain are not the taste of the orange. And if you like the way an orange tastes, you may find yourself having them time and time again. Does this devotion to tasting oranges or engaging in what pleases something like religion?

But if you have never tasted an orange, I must warn you. There is no proof to somebody who has never tasted one that they taste like anything at all. Sure we can see some chemicals going off in the gray matter, but it doesn't prove anything.

^This. I was hoping someone would comment besides me. Seems that you're casting pearls before swine. Oink.