NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to discuss theology with no one in particular. That is to say, I am curious about religious beliefs, being an atheist, and I would like to explore the subject further with whomsoever happens to be up for it. I'd like to keep it civil and thoughtful, but I fear that may not be possible, given the nature of religious discussion on the internet.

To that end, what do you believe, and why?

/in b4 barrel rolls.

Well, you will find no debate from me.

I am a "militant" atheist, if you will.

I am atheist because I see the idea of an omni-potent and omni-present being zapping the universe into existence is so incredibly laughable that I will not entertain the notion for one fraction of a second.

Why is such an idea any more laughable than the universe popping into existance all by its lonesome?

It requires a little less blind belief?

However, I do not claim that there was a Big Bang.

Honestly, I do not know how the world was created.

I wasn't raised in a religious family. I don't believe in the afterlife or any new age thing. I don't belong to any religion and I don't believe in humanoid immortal beings that set up weird rules. I don't believe in fate, karma, souls, or anything like that. However I can't rule out the existence of a god. Like I said, not a god in the sense of a humanoid who creates things out of mud, but a god in the sense of a mysterious force who encompasses everything and ties it together. I can feel the presence of it at certain times.

When I was younger I believed in a lot of weird stuff like palmistry and astrology. I ate up a bunch of books that I consider stupid now. I'm not sure why I used to believe this stuff or why I have changed so much. I was just different. I was desperate for explanations and to understand the forces that control my life. Now I accept that many things are beyond my control, but that isn't an excuse.

Human brains are naturally suited to finding patterns. The human brain will find the pattern in nonsense. If you stare at the tv static long enough, eventually you will start to see shapes in the static. Try it. That's what religion is. Those shapes in the tv static don't really exist. They're created involuntarily by your brain because your brain will NOT accept mere static for long.

"The fact that man produces a concept "I" besides the totality of his mental and emotional experiences or perceptions does not prove that there must be any specific existence behind such a concept. We are succumbing to illusions produced by our self-created language, without reaching a better understanding of anything. Most of so-called philosophy is due to this kind of fallacy." -- Einstein

Why is such an idea any more laughable than the universe popping into existance all by its lonesome?

The crucial assumption there is that the universe moved from a state of non-existence to one of existence. If the universe - matter, space, the laws of physics - have always existed, then the question of who or what created it must be discarded by default.

The crucial assumption there is that the universe moved from a state of non-existence to one of existence. If the universe - matter, space, the laws of physics - have always existed, then the question of who or what created it must be discarded by default.

and again I ask the question, why is that any less fantastic and unusual a proposition than an omnipotent entity?

It requires a little less blind belief?

However, I do not claim that there was a Big Bang.

Honestly, I do not know how the world was created.

How does the statement "I know god exists" require any more blind belief than the statement "I know god does not exist?"

and again I ask the question, why is that any less fantastic and unusual a proposition than an omnipotent entity?

An omnipotent deity who created the universe introduces an unecessary regression of causes. If the universe must have been created, it must have had a designer, then the designer must also have been designed, ad infinitum. You wind up no better off, and with an infinitely complex heirarchy of ascending "first causes".

Why is such an idea any more laughable than the universe popping into existance all by its lonesome?

Because the universe popping into existence from nothingness makes much more sense than an omnipotent, omniscient being popping into existence from nothingness.

There is absolutely no credible evidence to support the existence of any god.

Thus my belief isn't that he doesn't exist but rather there is no proof that he exists.

The closest thing to a logical argument for theism is Pascal's Wager, and I do not promote god fear.

How does the statement "I know god exists" require any more blind belief than the statement "I know god does not exist?"

This is a good point, which is why I've seen very few atheists take this stance. It's indefensible.

An omnipotent deity who created the universe introduces an unecessary regression of causes. If the universe must have been created, it must have had a designer, then the designer must also have been designed, ad infinitum. You wind up no better off, and with an infinitely complex heirarchy of ascending "first causes".

On the other hand, by stating the universe did not need a creator accepts the possibility that things can exist without being created.

A universe without a creator requires us to accept the premise that things can exist without being created by a creator. Once we accept the premise that something can exist without a creator, than we must accept the possiblity that a creator can exist without a creator, and we're no better off.

Each proposition creates an argument for the other side. If the universe needed a creator, than wouldn't the creator need a creator? If the universe did not need a creator, than surely the creator of the universe would not require one either. It's quite the fallacy to presume that the universe could exist without a creator on the premise that if it had a creator, that creator would need a creator. You already accept that something can exist without being created.

There is absolutely no credible evidence to support the existence of any god.

Thus my belief isn't that he doesn't exist but rather there is no proof that he exists.

The closest thing to a logical argument for theism is Pascal's Wager, and I do not promote god fear.

Pascal's wager is a poor one, for you must choose from among a staggering array of religions and pray you've beaten the odds.

Because the universe popping into existence from nothingness makes much more sense than an omnipotent, omniscient being popping into existence from nothingness.

why? In what way is the first premise any more sensical than the second premise?

On the other hand, by stating the universe did not need a creator accepts the possibility that things can exist without being created.

A universe without a creator requires us to accept the premise that things can exist without being created by a creator. Once we accept the premise that something can exist without a creator, than we must accept the possiblity that a creator can exist without a creator, and we're no better off.

Each proposition creates an argument for the other side. If the universe needed a creator, than wouldn't the creator need a creator? If the universe did not need a creator, than surely the creator of the universe would not require one either. It's quite the fallacy to presume that the universe could exist without a creator on the premise that if it had a creator, that creator would need a creator. You already accept that something can exist without being created.

This is not necessarily true. Existence is not a quality of the universe, it is the premise upon which the universe is founded. The universe is a property of existence, not the other way around. The creator god is predicated on existence as well, and must therefore have been created by something or have created itself.

If you concede the universe lies within existence and has always done so, you arrive at a much simpler and much more logical point of view.

Personally I believe the universe always was.

Religion was made for the ignorant to help themselves feel more secure in there existence. "When I die I go to heaven" sounds better than "I rot in the earth", so people choose the former.

This is not necessarily true. Existence is not a quality of the universe, it is the premise upon which the universe is founded. The universe is a property of existence, not the other way around. The creator god is predicated on existence as well, and must therefore have been created by something or have created itself.

If you concede the universe lies within existence and has always done so, you arrive at a much simpler and much more logical point of view.

deoends on whether we qualify the universe as a thing in and of itself, or merely the space in which all things are. If we take the second premise, then where did all this "stuff" come from? If it needs nothing to have created this "stuff", then a creator would not necessarily need to have been created either.

Personally I believe the universe always was.

Religion was made for the ignorant to help themselves feel more secure in there existence. "When I die I go to heaven" sounds better than "I rot in the earth", so people choose the former.

yet "I rot in the earth" sounds a lot better than "I will be punished for eternity, yet some religions contain that concept as well. So if religion was purely about comfort, why do many incorporate ideas of divine punishment? That's not very comforting.

deoends on whether we qualify the universe as a thing in and of itself, or merely the space in which all things are. If we take the second premise, then where did all this "stuff" come from? If it needs nothing to have created this "stuff", then a creator would not necessarily need to have been created either.

Then why impose one? It still introduces an unecessary regression of causes, which can only confuse one's understanding of existence.

Personally I believe the universe always was.

Religion was made for the ignorant to help themselves feel more secure in there existence. "When I die I go to heaven" sounds better than "I rot in the earth", so people choose the former.

So people of faith are ignorant?

I can make generalizing statements to:

Atheists are arrogant, self-righteous, haughty, holier-than-thou pricks.

So people of faith are ignorant?

I can make generalizing statements to:

Atheists are arrogant, self-righteous, haughty, holier-than-thou pricks.

Easy, now. Discussion, not flaming.

yet "I rot in the earth" sounds a lot better than "I will be punished for eternity, yet some religions contain that concept as well. So if religion was purely about comfort, why do many incorporate ideas of divine punishment? That's not very comforting.

Scare tactics.

If you don't follow the rules I set before you, donate a sizable amount of money to the church, and lose your individuality then you will be punished.

Then why impose one?

Why not? Again I ask my question. Why is "a being created everything, but that being required no creator" any more a matter of faith or any more an illogical position than "all things exist on their own, and did not require a creator". In the end it would appear to boil down to which system we feel more comfortalbe believing in, without proof either way.

I'd like to note again that personal attacks are not helpful, and civilized discourse should be encouraged. This goes for whatever side you happen to endorse. Take a moment to think about your post before you hit "submit".

Scare tactics.

If you don't follow the rules I set before you, donate a sizable amount of money to the church, and lose your individuality then you will be punished.

and how do you know that this is not, in fact true?

So people of faith are ignorant?

I can make generalizing statements to:

Atheists are arrogant, self-righteous, haughty, holier-than-thou pricks.

I am not saying theists are ignorant. However, I do believe that religion was founded on the ignorance of the universe around us.

We don't know why we are here, how we got here, or what happens when we are gone.

So we make up for this ignorance with blind belief.

Why not? Again I ask my question. Why is "a being created everything, but that being required no creator" any more a matter of faith or any more an illogical position than "all things exist on their own, and did not require a creator". In the end it would appear to boil down to which system we feel more comfortalbe believing in, without proof either way.

I'm afraid the burden is on the theist in this case. We have two possible worldviews: one in which the universe is as we see it, extant and knowable; one in which we have the universe as proposed by theists, in which the very fundamental laws that govern reality are subject to the whims of powerful and unknowable beings. All things being equal, a rational person must be inclined to favor the simpler answer, in which the universe exists without the benefit of a creator or tender god. The theist, in asserting the existence of such beings, should provide evidence, or at least arguments, for us to consider before adding the existence of a god to our world view.

ZOMG LEVELZOR

Raem just leveled!

And once again I agree with him.

I mean I can say that Billweazle the magical unicorn-leprechaun answers all my prayers. I have just as much evidence to my "god" as you have for your "god".

I'm afraid the burden is on the theist in this case. We have two possible worldviews: one in which the universe is as we see it, extant and knowable; one in which we have the universe as proposed by theists, in which the very fundamental laws that govern reality are subject to the whims of powerful and unknowable beings. All things being equal, a rational person must be inclined to favor the simpler answer, in which the universe exists without the benefit of a creator or tender god. The theist, in asserting the existence of such beings, should provide evidence, or at least arguments, for us to consider before adding the existence of a god to our world view.

You see it as "adding god to a world view". I think that's a false premise. I believe, rather, that they are two seperate and incompatable world views. Your premise seems to be that religion is basically taking the world as we know it, and saying "god did it". On the contrary, the "theist" and "non-theist" viewpoints are radically different. One posits that the universe exists by itself, without intervention. The other states that the universe exists due to intervention.

You say the former is "simpler" without explaining why it is, in fact, the simpler way. Why is the universe existing by itself any more "simple" than a creator creating it? I see the universe in all its vastness and complexity popping into existance (or, indeed, always existing) no more and no less a fantastic and incomprehensible idea than an all powerful being creating it.

Both things run very contrary to our fundamental world views which consist of the understanding that things don't just appear out of nothing. The rational person therefore must conclude that not only is neither premise any more or less likely than the other, but we lack the capacity to even begin to determine what the likelihood of either concept is, given they are both beyond our understanding of existance.

I mean I can say that Billweazle the magical unicorn-leprechaun answers all my prayers. I have just as much evidence to my "god" as you have for your "god".

You certainly do. You also have as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, and that there is no deity whatsoever of any kind. Which is the exact point. We have no evidence for any one diety, as we have no evidence that there is no diety at all.

Given that the only rational response is "I don't know"

You see it as "adding god to a world view". I think that's a false premise. I believe, rather, that they are two seperate and incompatable world views. Your premise seems to be that religion is basically taking the world as we know it, and saying "god did it". On the contrary, the "theist" and "non-theist" viewpoints are radically different. One posits that the universe exists by itself, without intervention. The other states that the universe exists due to intervention.

You say the former is "simpler" without explaining why it is, in fact, the simpler way. Why is the universe existing by itself any more "simple" than a creator creating it? I see the universe in all its vastness and complexity popping into existance (or, indeed, always existing) no more and no less a fantastic and incomprehensible idea than an all powerful being creating it.

Both things run very contrary to our fundamental world views which consist of the understanding that things don't just appear out of nothing. The rational person therefore must conclude that not only is neither premise any more or less likely than the other, but we lack the capacity to even begin to determine what the likelihood of either concept is, given they are both beyond our understanding of existance.

You have a point. I have failed to specify what I mean. What I mean by one worldview is "simpler" than the other is this: One has N moving parts, with N meaning all the universe. The other has N+1, meaning all the universe plus a god to oversee it. The former is simpler by dint of having fewer moving parts.

To answer your point, though, I have not asserted that the universe came into being without being created. The universe is, the universe was, the universe will be. It has never needed to be created, because there was never a moment in which the universe did not exist.

I'd like to go into more detail, citing entropic heat death as the "base line" of the universe, with our current epoch being a fluke, but a completely predictable one. However, that's incredibly complicated, and not easily done in a forum post.

You certainly do. You also have as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, and that there is no deity whatsoever of any kind. Which is the exact point. We have no evidence for any one diety, as we have no evidence that there is no diety at all.

Given that the only rational response is "I don't know"

I was agnostic for a long time prior to my atheism. After giving it serious thought I figured the odds that god exist are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

or smaller.

And if there is some benevolent god in existence maybe then he will have forgiveness when he finds out that I didn't beleive in your "false god".

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/jesusjeez.jpg

You have a point. I have failed to specify what I mean. What I mean by one worldview is "simpler" than the other is this: One has N moving parts, with N meaning all the universe. The other has N+1, meaning all the universe plus a god to oversee it. The former is simpler by dint of having fewer moving parts.

I see it differently. Let's start with the premise "N". N, as you say, means all the universe as it exists.

Then there exists two premises. One is N+S where S is "spontanious creation" by which I mean the universe came to be, without outside intervention. This formula contains the entire universe, and the conditions of its non divine existance.

On the other hand we have N+D in which N is again the universe, and D is the divinity that popped it into reality. On one hand we have the universe, and all its contents, along with the premise that its existance just exists (N+S). On the other hand we have the universe, and all its contents, along with the premise that a divine force made it so (N+D).

Without knowing the likelihood of S, or the likelihood of D, or even how to begin figuring that out, or any way to determine such, we can't conclude that "N+S" is any more or less rational, realistic or likely than "N+D", nor can we even begin to figure out how we WOULD conclude that.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/jesusjeez.jpg

lmao.

There is nothing quite like a rousing atheist vs theist debate though!

You certainly do. You also have as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, and that there is no deity whatsoever of any kind. Which is the exact point. We have no evidence for any one diety, as we have no evidence that there is no diety at all.

Given that the only rational response is "I don't know"

Actually, the only rational response is "I don't believe in a deity." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but one can reasonably dismiss a claim if evidence would reasonbly be expected to exist. Evidence is not a concept that easily applies to deities.

Actually, the only rational response is "I don't believe in a deity."

Actually the rational response is "I don't believe in a deity, and I don't believe there isn't a deity". Which is the same as "I don't know"

I see it differently. Let's start with the premise "N". N, as you say, means all the universe as it exists.

Then there exists two premises. One is N+S where S is "spontanious creation" by which I mean the universe came to be, without outside intervention. This formula contains the entire universe, and the conditions of its non divine existance.

On the other hand we have N+D in which N is again the universe, and D is the divinity that popped it into reality. On one hand we have the universe, and all its contents, along with the premise that its existance just exists (N+S). On the other hand we have the universe, and all its contents, along with the premise that a divine force made it so (N+D).

Without knowing the likelihood of S, or the likelihood of D, or even how to begin figuring that out, or any way to determine such, we can't conclude that "N+S" is any more or less rational, realistic or likely than "N+D", nor can we even begin to figure out how we WOULD conclude that.

Again, that assumes the universe spontaneously generated itself from nothing. Which it could not possibly have, by anyone's worldview.

You certainly do. You also have as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, and that there is no deity whatsoever of any kind. Which is the exact point. We have no evidence for any one diety, as we have no evidence that there is no diety at all.

Given that the only rational response is "I don't know"

Or, whichever religion feels right to you.

Again, that assumes the universe spontaneously generated itself from nothing. Which it could not possibly have, by anyone's worldview.

and why is "it's always been there" any MORE likely than the other options. I find infinity to be an equally troubling concept. Again, you speak of "imposibilities" without any way of substantiating that position.

Actually the rational response is "I don't believe in a deity, and I don't believe there isn't a deity". Which is the same as "I don't know"

Honestly if I knew that Christianity's god existed I would still want NOTHING to do with him.

That does not stand for any other deity however.

Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to the planet.

Or, whichever religion feels right to you.

Not at all. What "feels right" is not at all a rational position.

Actually the rational response is "I don't believe in a deity, and I don't believe there isn't a deity". Which is the same as "I don't know"

As I said before, the second part of that statement is troublesome. It suggests the possibility of evidence at some future date that could vindicate the potential existence of a deity. However, evidence is not a concept that can be applied to a deity, as deities are intrinsically supernatural beings. They could not be measured, quantified, or detected in any meaningful way.

Without evidence of the deities, there is no practical distinction between supernatural deities and nonexistant deities.

and why is "it's always been there" any MORE likely than the other options. I find infinity to be an equally troubling concept. Again, you speak of "imposibilities" without any way of substantiating that position.

I don't recall having referred to impossibilities before that post. "It's always been here" is more likely simply because it requires less in the way of explanation. Did the world jump into existence when you were born, or did it exist long before you, and will it continue to exist long after your personal extinction?

The existence of the universe is not unlike here. There is a measure of matter and energy we refer to as the cosmos. It was here long before we showed up, will be here long after we're gone. Should we assume that our existence is somehow important to the universe?

It is the same with the universe itself. There was SOMETHING here before the Big Bang, there will be SOMETHING here when entropy leeches all heat and light and energy from the universe.

Not at all. What "feels right" is not at all a rational position.

Bah, meant to type:

Or, people can choose whichever religion feels right to them.

But, doing something because it feels right is perfectly logical-because it...feels like the right thing to do.

Bah, meant to type:

Or, people can choose whichever religion feels right to them.

But, doing something because it feels right is perfectly logical-because it...feels like the right thing to do.

Feeling isn't logical. It's a nebulous, indefensible position.

To belabor the point, what if I felt that killing someone was the right thing to do?

Feeling isn't logical. It's a nebulous, indefensible position.

To belabor the point, what if I felt that killing someone was the right thing to do?

and indefensible position? what the hell are you talking about? Feeling is an essential part of being human. What are you saying?

I'd ask why you felt like killing the person.

I'd ask why you felt like killing the person.

Oh, no reason... and now we're back to reason, rationality. Feeling unjustified by reasoning is a poor guide to life, and is terribly likely to get anyone who practices it into quite a lot of trouble.

Oh, no reason... and now we're back to reason, rationality. Feeling unjustified by reasoning is a poor guide to life, and is terribly likely to get anyone who practices it into quite a lot of trouble.

People do lots of things just because they feel like it.

People who do rash things, such as killing someone, just because they felt like it are few and far between. Most people can think better of such actions.

Doing other things just because you feel like is not bad. Choosing a religion because is seems right is not wrong.

Choosing to be an athiest or agnostic because it feels right is not wrong either.

People do lots of things just because they feel like it.

People who do rash things, such as killing someone, just because they felt like it are few and far between. Most people can think better of such actions.

Doing other things just because you feel like is not bad. Choosing a religion because is seems right is not wrong.

Choosing to be an athiest or agnostic because it feels right is not wrong either.

What is right or wrong has nothing to do with what is rational. Which is what i was talking about. More to point I was discussing the act of belief, not the pursuit of that belief. Holding a belief in a god is simply not a rational position. Neither is believing there is no god. Neither are rational positions.

People do lots of things just because they feel like it.

People who do rash things, such as killing someone, just because they felt like it are few and far between. Most people can think better of such actions.

Doing other things just because you feel like is not bad. Choosing a religion because is seems right is not wrong.

Choosing to be an athiest or agnostic because it feels right is not wrong either.

Wrong? Perhaps not, but it remains an indefensible position. Someone will ask "why", as you did, and "It feels right" is no better an answer than "Just because." If you want to make decisions based on your feelings, that's fine, but reason will more reliably guide decision-making every time, whatsoever you feel about the subject. Feelings are inferior.

What is right or wrong has nothing to do with what is rational. Which is what i was talking about.

It is rational to do something because it feels it right.

It would be irrational to do something that felt wrong.

It is rational to do something because it feels it right.

That's very nice. Also totally unrelated to what I was saying. The feeling itself is what is irrational

Wrong? Perhaps not, but it remains an indefensible position. Someone will ask "why", as you did, and "It feels right" is no better an answer than "Just because." If you want to make decisions based on your feelings, that's fine, but reason will more reliably guide decision-making every time, whatsoever you feel about the subject. Feelings are inferior.

Feelings are not inferior to reason and logic at all. They are essential part of being human. Without emotions people might as well be robots.

It is rational to do something because it feels it right.

It would be irrational to do something that felt wrong.

That's not how reason works. If it's rational to do something that feels right, then weeks-long cocaine binges are healthful, rejuvinating, not at all harmful, and the very soul of goodness.

I'd like to discuss theology with no one in particular. That is to say, I am curious about religious beliefs, being an atheist, and I would like to explore the subject further with whomsoever happens to be up for it. I'd like to keep it civil and thoughtful, but I fear that may not be possible, given the nature of religious discussion on the internet.

To that end, what do you believe, and why?

/in b4 barrel rolls.

My mother taught me never to discuss anything that remotely approaches religion, like Theology does with strangers so, there.

Now, you´re interested in beliefs. Start by telling me, Raem, how would you define belief and we´ll go from there.

Feelings are not inferior to reason and logic at all. They are essential part of being human. Without emotions people might as well be robots.

it depends on what it is you ar ediscussing. "Feelings" and "reason" are not ranked side by side because they do not exist as comparable entities. However, when deciding on the proper course of action to reach a desired result, logic and reason is often a better guide than feelings.

it depends on what it is you ar ediscussing. "Feelings" and "reason" are not ranked side by side because they do not exist as comparable entities. However, when deciding on the proper course of action to reach a desired result, logic and reason is often a better guide than feelings.

Fair enough.

My mother taught me never to discuss anything that remotely approaches religion, like Theology does with strangers so, there.

Now, you´re interested in beliefs. Start by telling me, Raem, how would you define belief and we´ll go from there.

I would define a belief as an assertation about some aspect of the world. It is not necessary for a belief to be justified (the world is a hypersphere) or even rational (the world is a negatively-curved sphere), at its most basic level. However, it is merely a report of an individual's psychology state unless it is justified. Justified, it becomes worthy of serious consideration. To progress to being an accepted bit of knowledge, it must also be internally consistent and not diametrically opposed to the rest of existence, thus exhibiting rationality.

Edit: a side note - the belief in a god is therefore unjustified. Neither evidence for nor evidence against the existence of a god can be presented. There is no evidence available one way or the other. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the question of a god's existence seriously. Secondarily, the number of ways in which the proposition "God exists" fails rationally is staggering. Having discarded it as unjustified and found it wanting for reason, the only rational conclusion is that the god constructed by any given mortal mind does not exist.

I would define a belief as an assertation about some aspect of the world. It is not necessary for a belief to be justified (the world is a hypersphere) or even rational (the world is a negatively-curved sphere), at its most basic level. However, it is merely a report of an individual's psychology state unless it is justified. Justified, it becomes worthy of serious consideration. To progress to being an accepted bit of knowledge, it must also be internally consistent and not diametrically opposed to the rest of existence, thus exhibiting rationality.

Hm... good definition. Now, when it comes to religious belief, going by your interest in theology, and I remit to the last part of your definition, it´s not always rational. And those who believe, although capable of rationality, tend to lose it. Of course, this happens to those who go to extremes. Although I do agree that even this sort of behavior in believers has a certain justification, thusly making it worthy of serious consideration.

They believe in God, and this God is the reason, the beginning and end of what surrounds them. This always amazes me, being agnostic, because in a day and age where we´re so homo-centric in our ways, there are still those who take refuge in the idea of an all powerful, all seeing deity.

Hm... good definition. Now, when it comes to religious belief, going by your interest in theology, and I remit to the last part of your definition, it´s not always rational. And those who believe, although capable of rationality, tend to lose it. Of course, this happens to those who go to extremes. Although I do agree that even this sort of behavior in believers has a certain justification, thusly making it worthy of serious consideration.

They believe in God, and this God is the reason, the beginning and end of what surrounds them. This always amazes me, being agnostic, because in a day and age where we´re so homo-centric in our ways, there are still those who take refuge in the idea of an all powerful, all seeing deity.

My apologies, I added some to my post, apparently after you'd read my reply. I'll reproduce it here as well:


a side note - the belief in a god is therefore unjustified. Neither evidence for nor evidence against the existence of a god can be presented. There is no evidence available one way or the other. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the question of a god's existence seriously. Secondarily, the number of ways in which the proposition "God exists" fails rationally is staggering. Having discarded it as unjustified and found it wanting for reason, the only rational conclusion is that the god constructed by any given mortal mind does not exist.

My apologies, I added some to my post, apparently after you'd read my reply. I'll reproduce it here as well:

No worries. Remit to my last post.:)

NOTE: As soon as I feel rested enough, I´ll check the thread and answer any of your posts addressed to me, Raem. I´m so tired I fear I might end up posting something about pansies and wine instead of sticking to theology.:p Sorry.

It saddens me that there are people who are willing to sacrifice their reason, if only in one field of beliefs, on the altar (literally) of feelings. The terror of death, the desire to understand, these things were assuaged by our earliest religions. We could comfort ourselves that Bob still lives, somewhere else, and that the lightning-god what smote him can be appeased.

It's frightening to learn he doesn't, and the lightning can no more be appeased than Bob's son could reverse time. But his son could learn to build a lightning rod, thus resolving both issues in the future. This requires reasoning and an understanding of the world not provided by religion.

Time for me to go to bed. I should be back in eightish hours. Please keep this civil, it's been great so far. I've really enjoyed matching wits with Tsuki and Neo Art tonight. It's been fun, and nary a flame in sight!

Wow, I figured this thread would be all but overrun by morning. Guess not.

*feels left out*

And as seeing as there was no antagonist/ protagonist there was no reason to debate further XD

*feels left out*

And as seeing as there was no antagonist/ protagonist there was no reason to debate further XD

I didn't really debate you at any point, since we more or less agree. So it would be hard to have enjoyed it. :D

And I wonder, am I the protagonist or antagonist?

Sorry I'm late. :D

I enjoy theological debates, too, when they're civil. :) So here goes:

1) MY VIEW ABOUT WHETHER RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS RATIONAL OR NOT:

Religious belief is neither rational nor irrational, in and of itself.

First off, I have to announce that I am a believer in things that cannot be proven, or even tested, empirically. Specifically, I am an animist. That word describes a belief system that assumes the existence of a potentially infinite number of spirits and/or souls, more or less possessed of consciousness, not one detail of which can actually be proven to be fact. Text-book irrational, right?

No. It is not necessarily irrational at all. My reasoning is as follows:

I am using "rational" as meaning: "1 a:*having reason or understanding b:*relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>" (Merriam-Webster).

I am using "irrational" as meaning: ":*not rational: as a (1):*not endowed with reason or understanding (2):*lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b:*not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>" (Merriam-Webster).

You will notice that none of these definitions make any reference to factuality. (All the other definitions of the words were about math.) From these definitions, I think it is clear that rationality is not related to factuality or to truth/untruth. Rather, it is a way of thinking, a way of using one's mind. It is not a catalogue of concepts which have some inherent quality which is "rational," in contrast to a list of other concepts which are inherently "irrational." Almost any thought can be either rational or irrational, determined by how it is formulated, but not determined by whether its content refers to any external facts or not. This is how you can hear rational statements about things that might happen in the future and irrational statements about things that actually did happen in history.

If an idea is rational or irrational based on how it is constructed -- in other words, if rationality is dependent on the thinker rather than the thought -- then I suggest that there is no validity in declaring that a thought is irrational just because of what it is about. One must examine the reasoning of the person who holds the thought to determine whether they are being rational or not. By the way, even if a person's thought is rational, that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or that it is right. It only means it is not irrational.

It is my position that there can be both rational and irrational structures to religious beliefs, and to people's motivations for holding one or another religious belief, but religion, as a general proposition, is not inherently either rational or irrational. It depends entirely on how any given belief is constructed and how/why it is used.

Does a religion blur the distinction between belief and fact? If so, then I would say it is irrational. If not, then it may be rational, depending on other factors as well.

Does a religion create problems or solve problems for its adherents? If it creates problems (such as imposing very intrusive demands, creating conflicts, or making it difficult to cope with daily life), then I would say it is likely an irrational system. If it solves problems (such as relieving anxiety, providing social stability, or providing satisfactory answers to certain kinds of questions), then I would say it is likely a rational system.

Does a person experience personal benefit from holding a religious belief? If so, then I would say their reasons for holding the belief are rational. If it does not benefit them in any way, then I would consider that their reasons for holding the belief might be irrational.

For example, my religious beliefs address certain specific issues that are personal to me. They demand very little of me and create no burdens or obstacles in my daily life. They have the practical benefit of enhancing my personal sense of well-being. These beliefs were not imposed on me by family or culture but were chosen from among many other belief systems in response to the aforementioned personal issues, so my views about their relative cost/benefit balance is not based on assumptions or "what I am used to." Due to all this, I consider my choice to hold my beliefs to be rational.

I consider the construct of my beliefs to be rational as well, because they do not conflict with any provable facts of the world around me. That's all I think I should say about that, because this isn't a "explain/compare your beliefs" thread. I just wanted to mention it because, while I do think it is rational to construct concepts to fill in the blanks of knowledge, I do not think it is rational to reject knowledge in favor of belief. If one's beliefs about the unknown conflict with facts about the known, that creates a disconnect between the believer and the world he/she lives in that causes nothing but trouble.

But where there are no such facts, no such conflict can exist.

2) ABOUT WHETHER IT IS MORE RATIONAL TO THINK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER:

It is my view that a rational thinker must always be aware of the limits of his/her own knowledge. A rational thinker must always keep track of when he is stating facts and when he stating beliefs/opinions. When he catches himself presenting belief/opinon as if it were fact, then he must step back and moderate his statements.

The one fact about theological or metaphysical beliefs is that there are no facts related to them that can be used as either proof or disproof. ALL theological and metaphysical statements/arguments/theories are about belief/opinion, not fact.

To my mind, it does not matter whether you argue for or against theology/metaphysics. What matters most is that you recognize that you are merely expressing opinion and not "proving" anything. When we start insisting that our theological/metaphysical beliefs are more true than someone else's, that is when rational people stray into irrationality.

For example:
Personally I believe the universe always was.
Obviously, this is a statement of belief, not a statement of fact.

Religion was made for the ignorant to help themselves feel more secure in there existence. "When I die I go to heaven" sounds better than "I rot in the earth", so people choose the former.
But you follow it up by a statement in the form of an assertion of fact (about what religion was made for) which is really nothing more than a prejudicial dismissal of a different belief set, which you personally disagree with. Your bias is made even clearer in a later post by you:

Honestly if I knew that Christianity's god existed I would still want NOTHING to do with him.

That does not stand for any other deity however.

Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to the planet.
This is a rather confused statement, because in the first sentence, it denigrates Christianity in particular, in the second it holds out the possibility of approval for other religions, and in the third it condemns religion altogether. The one constant in it is an apparent hostility. That hostility undermines any objectivity in your remarks about religion, and makes it very likely that you are asserting opinion as fact when you discuss this topic. In fact, judging by the remark above, I would wonder if your hostility is even about religion itself, or rather about the actions/histories of particular relgious groups. Failing to make such distinctions undermines the objectivity and, thus, the rationality of what you say about religion.

You certainly do. You also have as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster, and that there is no deity whatsoever of any kind. Which is the exact point. We have no evidence for any one diety, as we have no evidence that there is no diety at all.

Given that the only rational response is "I don't know"
Neo Art's argument is entirely rational, coming from a starting point of using testability as a measure of factuality. Admitting a lack of testable/provable evidence either for or against, he concludes that there is not enough data from which to draw a conclusion and then HE DOES NOT DRAW A CONCLUSION. This is a rational thought process of analyzing available data, and "I don't know" is a simple statement of fact in response to a question for which there is so little data.

Of course, I would repeat that I think there can be rational constructs that are not dependent on factuality, but if we are using factuality to judge the god-question, then "I don't know" is the most rational response because it is the most factual.

Actually, the only rational response is "I don't believe in a deity." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but one can reasonably dismiss a claim if evidence would reasonbly be expected to exist. Evidence is not a concept that easily applies to deities.
This response to Neo Art diverges from factuality and veers into assumption. It is also a bit self-contradictory. First you assert that a statement of belief is more rational than a statement of fact. By stating that an absence of any data should lead one to disbelieve in a deity, you are effectively saying that it is correct to draw a conclusion without evidence or information. Then you turn around and insist that evidence is needed to validate a belief, and at the same time, you acknowledge that this is not a standard that applies to theology. And in the middle, you admit that lack of evidence is not disproof of a proposition, but then claim that "one can reasonably dismiss a claim if evidence would reasonbly be expected to exist." I would very much like to know what "reasonable" expectation of evidence you can have on a topic to which you yourself say the standards of evidence do not apply. You can't have it both ways. You can't rationally admit a standard does not apply to the topic and then judge the topic by that standard at the same time.

Feeling isn't logical. It's a nebulous, indefensible position.

To belabor the point, what if I felt that killing someone was the right thing to do?
I disagree. There is nothing nebulous or illogical at all about the basic pleasure principle.

Rather than nebulous, doing something because it feels right or good is the simplest, most concrete standard one can apply. As we live our lives, the "because it feels right/good" motivation must often be supplanted by motivations of ethics, morality, or future planning, which are arguably far, far more nebulous.

Rather than illogical, there are sound, logical reasons for doing what one likes -- what feels right or good, on a personal level. They are related to the reasons why sex feels good, why food tastes good, etc -- all the reasons why we do things that make us happy and avoid doing things that make us unhappy. Happiness brings practical personal and social benefits. Unhappiness brings practical personal and social harm. Feeling right is a desirable condition for many reasons, so it is entirely logical to choose to do something because it feels right personally. If we are going to use logic as a measure of rationality (which is not always a good idea, by the way), then it is rational to adhere to a religion because it feels right.

As to your point-belaboring question: People decide that killing other people is the right thing to do every day. Some of those decisions are based on pragmatic considerations, some on philosophical or religous beliefs, some on personal feeling. But all of them boil down to, if the people did not think or feel it was the right thing to do, they wouldn't decide to do it. People who go to war or commit terrorism decide that killing people is the right course under their current circumstances, to secure a desirable condition, or to gain power. People who support death penalty laws and/or impose/carry out death penalty sentences decide that killing people is the right thing to do for public safety. People who support euthanasia decide that killing people is the right thing to do to end suffering. People who kill in self-defense or defense of another decide that killing people is the right thing to do to preserve their own or others' lives. People who commit murder for profit, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to enrich themselves. People who commit murder to remove an irritating or threatening enemy decide that killing people is the right thing to do to make themselves feel better. Even people who commit murder because voices in their heads tell them to, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to relieve their own inner conflicts or suffering.

Now we can argue over whether we would make the same choices under the same circumstances, but we cannot say that a choice to do something to achieve a specific end is inherently irrational. Their choices may be rational or irrational, but it is not irrational only becuase we would have done something different.

We'll just leave it at the fact that my religious beliefs are weird, they aren't like anyone else's, and I'm perfectly happy with keeping it so.

A little bit of secret elaboration. I accept and embrace the core Christian beliefs, things like the Trinity, the Resurrection, life after death, and so on. Unlike many, though, I approach these beliefs with a very Eastern point of view, an almost Buddhist take on the matter. It's a very stripped down version, and I have little patience for the shiny, fancy-pants evangelical type of stuff that some people are in to. But, yeah, I guess that's about that.

Sorry I'm late. :D

I enjoy theological debates, too, when they're civil. :) So here goes:

1) MY VIEW ABOUT WHETHER RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS RATIONAL OR NOT:

Religious belief is neither rational nor irrational, in and of itself.

First off, I have to announce that I am a believer in things that cannot be proven, or even tested, empirically. Specifically, I am an animist. That word describes a belief system that assumes the existence of a potentially infinite number of spirits and/or souls, more or less possessed of consciousness, not one detail of which can actually be proven to be fact. Text-book irrational, right?

No. It is not necessarily irrational at all. My reasoning is as follows:

I am using "rational" as meaning: "1 a:*having reason or understanding b:*relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>" (Merriam-Webster).

I am using "irrational" as meaning: ":*not rational: as a (1):*not endowed with reason or understanding (2):*lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b:*not governed by or according to reason <irrational fears>" (Merriam-Webster).

You will notice that none of these definitions make any reference to factuality. (All the other definitions of the words were about math.) From these definitions, I think it is clear that rationality is not related to factuality or to truth/untruth. Rather, it is a way of thinking, a way of using one's mind. It is not a catalogue of concepts which have some inherent quality which is "rational," in contrast to a list of other concepts which are inherently "irrational." Almost any thought can be either rational or irrational, determined by how it is formulated, but not determined by whether its content refers to any external facts or not. This is how you can hear rational statements about things that might happen in the future and irrational statements about things that actually did happen in history.

If an idea is rational or irrational based on how it is constructed -- in other words, if rationality is dependent on the thinker rather than the thought -- then I suggest that there is no validity in declaring that a thought is irrational just because of what it is about. One must examine the reasoning of the person who holds the thought to determine whether they are being rational or not. By the way, even if a person's thought is rational, that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or that it is right. It only means it is not irrational.

It is my position that there can be both rational and irrational structures to religious beliefs, and to people's motivations for holding one or another religious belief, but religion, as a general proposition, is not inherently either rational or irrational. It depends entirely on how any given belief is constructed and how/why it is used.

Does a religion blur the distinction between belief and fact? If so, then I would say it is irrational. If not, then it may be rational, depending on other factors as well.

Does a religion create problems or solve problems for its adherents? If it creates problems (such as imposing very intrusive demands, creating conflicts, or making it difficult to cope with daily life), then I would say it is likely an irrational system. If it solves problems (such as relieving anxiety, providing social stability, or providing satisfactory answers to certain kinds of questions), then I would say it is likely a rational system.

Does a person experience personal benefit from holding a religious belief? If so, then I would say their reasons for holding the belief are rational. If it does not benefit them in any way, then I would consider that their reasons for holding the belief might be irrational.

For example, my religious beliefs address certain specific issues that are personal to me. They demand very little of me and create no burdens or obstacles in my daily life. They have the practical benefit of enhancing my personal sense of well-being. These beliefs were not imposed on me by family or culture but were chosen from among many other belief systems in response to the aforementioned personal issues, so my views about their relative cost/benefit balance is not based on assumptions or "what I am used to." Due to all this, I consider my choice to hold my beliefs to be rational.

I consider the construct of my beliefs to be rational as well, because they do not conflict with any provable facts of the world around me. That's all I think I should say about that, because this isn't a "explain/compare your beliefs" thread. I just wanted to mention it because, while I do think it is rational to construct concepts to fill in the blanks of knowledge, I do not think it is rational to reject knowledge in favor of belief. If one's beliefs about the unknown conflict with facts about the known, that creates a disconnect between the believer and the world he/she lives in that causes nothing but trouble.

But where there are no such facts, no such conflict can exist.

2) ABOUT WHETHER IT IS MORE RATIONAL TO THINK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER:

It is my view that a rational thinker must always be aware of the limits of his/her own knowledge. A rational thinker must always keep track of when he is stating facts and when he stating beliefs/opinions. When he catches himself presenting belief/opinon as if it were fact, then he must step back and moderate his statements.

The one fact about theological or metaphysical beliefs is that there are no facts related to them that can be used as either proof or disproof. ALL theological and metaphysical statements/arguments/theories are about belief/opinion, not fact.

To my mind, it does not matter whether you argue for or against theology/metaphysics. What matters most is that you recognize that you are merely expressing opinion and not "proving" anything. When we start insisting that our theological/metaphysical beliefs are more true than someone else's, that is when rational people stray into irrationality.

For example:

Obviously, this is a statement of belief, not a statement of fact.


But you follow it up by a statement in the form of an assertion of fact (about what religion was made for) which is really nothing more than a prejudicial dismissal of a different belief set, which you personally disagree with. Your bias is made even clearer in a later post by you:


This is a rather confused statement, because in the first sentence, it denigrates Christianity in particular, in the second it holds out the possibility of approval for other religions, and in the third it condemns religion altogether. The one constant in it is an apparent hostility. That hostility undermines any objectivity in your remarks about religion, and makes it very likely that you are asserting opinion as fact when you discuss this topic. In fact, judging by the remark above, I would wonder if your hostility is even about religion itself, or rather about the actions/histories of particular relgious groups. Failing to make such distinctions undermines the objectivity and, thus, the rationality of what you say about religion.


Neo Art's argument is entirely rational, coming from a starting point of using testability as a measure of factuality. Admitting a lack of testable/provable evidence either for or against, he concludes that there is not enough data from which to draw a conclusion and then HE DOES NOT DRAW A CONCLUSION. This is a rational thought process of analyzing available data, and "I don't know" is a simple statement of fact in response to a question for which there is so little data.

Of course, I would repeat that I think there can be rational constructs that are not dependent on factuality, but if we are using factuality to judge the god-question, then "I don't know" is the most rational response because it is the most factual.


This response to Neo Art diverges from factuality and veers into assumption. It is also a bit self-contradictory. First you assert that a statement of belief is more rational than a statement of fact. By stating that an absence of any data should lead one to disbelieve in a deity, you are effectively saying that it is correct to draw a conclusion without evidence or information. Then you turn around and insist that evidence is needed to validate a belief, and at the same time, you acknowledge that this is not a standard that applies to theology. And in the middle, you admit that lack of evidence is not disproof of a proposition, but then claim that "one can reasonably dismiss a claim if evidence would reasonbly be expected to exist." I would very much like to know what "reasonable" expectation of evidence you can have on a topic to which you yourself say the standards of evidence do not apply. You can't have it both ways. You can't rationally admit a standard does not apply to the topic and then judge the topic by that standard at the same time.


I disagree. There is nothing nebulous or illogical at all about the basic pleasure principle.

Rather than nebulous, doing something because it feels right or good is the simplest, most concrete standard one can apply. As we live our lives, the "because it feels right/good" motivation must often be supplanted by motivations of ethics, morality, or future planning, which are arguably far, far more nebulous.

Rather than illogical, there are sound, logical reasons for doing what one likes -- what feels right or good, on a personal level. They are related to the reasons why sex feels good, why food tastes good, etc -- all the reasons why we do things that make us happy and avoid doing things that make us unhappy. Happiness brings practical personal and social benefits. Unhappiness brings practical personal and social harm. Feeling right is a desirable condition for many reasons, so it is entirely logical to choose to do something because it feels right personally. If we are going to use logic as a measure of rationality (which is not always a good idea, by the way), then it is rational to adhere to a religion because it feels right.

As to your point-belaboring question: People decide that killing other people is the right thing to do every day. Some of those decisions are based on pragmatic considerations, some on philosophical or religous beliefs, some on personal feeling. But all of them boil down to, if the people did not think or feel it was the right thing to do, they wouldn't decide to do it. People who go to war or commit terrorism decide that killing people is the right course under their current circumstances, to secure a desirable condition, or to gain power. People who support death penalty laws and/or impose/carry out death penalty sentences decide that killing people is the right thing to do for public safety. People who support euthanasia decide that killing people is the right thing to do to end suffering. People who kill in self-defense or defense of another decide that killing people is the right thing to do to preserve their own or others' lives. People who commit murder for profit, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to enrich themselves. People who commit murder to remove an irritating or threatening enemy decide that killing people is the right thing to do to make themselves feel better. Even people who commit murder because voices in their heads tell them to, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to relieve their own inner conflicts or suffering.

Now we can argue over whether we would make the same choices under the same circumstances, but we cannot say that a choice to do something to achieve a specific end is inherently irrational. Their choices may be rational or irrational, but it is not irrational only becuase we would have done something different.

Wow. This is the first time since I came back I've had to fight the urge to post "tl;dr." Are you writing a novel? o-O

Alright, to begin: I find that animism is the least offensive religious belief, and can be quite compatible with scientific findings (i.e., if you want to call the lesser nuclear force a spirit, I don't really have a problem with that).

Rationality is not related to truthiness or falsity, per se. You're right about that. Reason, by which I mean a synonym for rationality, is nothing more than an internally consistent set of rules. It's a sieve through which we filter data; the purities we retain as "factual" (more on that in a moment) knowledge, while the dregs are rejected as false. It's easy to confuse rationality or reason with inherent truthiness or falsity, whereas it's actually more like a lense through which we can perceive truthiness or falsity.

Saying there's no call to discard beliefs as irrational based on that, though, is silly. Rationality calls for us to accept only that which is internally and externally consistent with beliefs that have been previously distilled in the crucible of reason. Theistic beliefs are irrational because they cannot pass that test. An all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence) deity is demonstrably irrational. Could an all-knowing god know what it is to be suprised? If not, then he doesn't know everything. If so, then there must be some bit of knowledge he was not aware of at some point, which again brings us to the falsity of the omniscience claim. This paradox can be avoided by claiming God's knowledge is different in kind than ours, which raises its own questions (What does that even MEAN?).

The problem with claiming that religion, when chosen freely and in good will, produces beneficial results is that most people never get the choice. Children indoctrinated in their parents' religion will be haunted by that belief structure for the rest of their lives. In many cases that belief structure brings the child to harm, physically or mentally, as they wrestle with moral and spiritual questions they simply lack the faculties to process. This is one of my objections to religion.

I'm finding it difficult to keep my thoughts organized in the face of your wall o text post. :D So I'm going to break here and pick up section 2 in my next post.

I didn't really debate you at any point, since we more or less agree. So it would be hard to have enjoyed it. :D

And I wonder, am I the protagonist or antagonist?

To me you are the protagonist XD

This response to Neo Art diverges from factuality and veers into assumption. It is also a bit self-contradictory. First you assert that a statement of belief is more rational than a statement of fact. By stating that an absence of any data should lead one to disbelieve in a deity, you are effectively saying that it is correct to draw a conclusion without evidence or information. Then you turn around and insist that evidence is needed to validate a belief, and at the same time, you acknowledge that this is not a standard that applies to theology. And in the middle, you admit that lack of evidence is not disproof of a proposition, but then claim that "one can reasonably dismiss a claim if evidence would reasonbly be expected to exist." I would very much like to know what "reasonable" expectation of evidence you can have on a topic to which you yourself say the standards of evidence do not apply. You can't have it both ways. You can't rationally admit a standard does not apply to the topic and then judge the topic by that standard at the same time.

Perhaps this will allow me to keep my thoughts more organized. I did not sufficiently explain my response in the post you quoted, but I anticipated I might be called upon to do so. Without that explanation, it does seem like I'm being arbitrary, but I actually have two points to substantiate my rejection of evidence of the existence of deities.

My first lies in the nature of evidence and the supernature of deities. Evidence is a measurement of some kind pertaining to some aspect of reality. The humidity, the distance to the nearest star, the DNA sequence of a murder victim; all evidence (measurements) of some aspect of reality. Deities would by definition be supernatural entities, beyond the scope of the natural order. This is evident (pardon the pun) in the powers ascribed to deities, almost all of which involve contravening the natural order.

It follows, then, that if deities are capable of subverting the laws of nature, then using the laws of nature to measure them is an exercise in futility. Therefore, evidence is not a concept that can be applied to deities.

My second point is that very few people would actually rationally accept such evidence if it could be produced. If God gave you an order to kill someone, gave you a special edict and some kind of tablet or something as proof of that edict, do you imagine it would save you from law enforcement? Would you accept the encounter at face value, or would your instincts for benevolence and self-preservation cast your experience into doubt? Where DID that tablet come from, anyway? Could that be YOUR handwriting? Could you have been hallucinating in some half-awake state of consciousness, an almost lucid dream?

Given that evidence is inapplicable to deities, and human nature, I am forced to draw the conclusion that the suspension of disbelief in classical deities is a pointless exercise. I will never encounter something I would accept as evidence of the supernatural (It's far easier to accept that such evidence is merely some aspect of nature with which we are not already familiar, anyway), and the non-interfering/non-existent blur leaves me with my conclusion.

I disagree. There is nothing nebulous or illogical at all about the basic pleasure principle.

Rather than nebulous, doing something because it feels right or good is the simplest, most concrete standard one can apply. As we live our lives, the "because it feels right/good" motivation must often be supplanted by motivations of ethics, morality, or future planning, which are arguably far, far more nebulous.

Rather than illogical, there are sound, logical reasons for doing what one likes -- what feels right or good, on a personal level. They are related to the reasons why sex feels good, why food tastes good, etc -- all the reasons why we do things that make us happy and avoid doing things that make us unhappy. Happiness brings practical personal and social benefits. Unhappiness brings practical personal and social harm. Feeling right is a desirable condition for many reasons, so it is entirely logical to choose to do something because it feels right personally. If we are going to use logic as a measure of rationality (which is not always a good idea, by the way), then it is rational to adhere to a religion because it feels right.

As to your point-belaboring question: People decide that killing other people is the right thing to do every day. Some of those decisions are based on pragmatic considerations, some on philosophical or religous beliefs, some on personal feeling. But all of them boil down to, if the people did not think or feel it was the right thing to do, they wouldn't decide to do it. People who go to war or commit terrorism decide that killing people is the right course under their current circumstances, to secure a desirable condition, or to gain power. People who support death penalty laws and/or impose/carry out death penalty sentences decide that killing people is the right thing to do for public safety. People who support euthanasia decide that killing people is the right thing to do to end suffering. People who kill in self-defense or defense of another decide that killing people is the right thing to do to preserve their own or others' lives. People who commit murder for profit, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to enrich themselves. People who commit murder to remove an irritating or threatening enemy decide that killing people is the right thing to do to make themselves feel better. Even people who commit murder because voices in their heads tell them to, decide that killing people is the right thing to do to relieve their own inner conflicts or suffering.

Now we can argue over whether we would make the same choices under the same circumstances, but we cannot say that a choice to do something to achieve a specific end is inherently irrational. Their choices may be rational or irrational, but it is not irrational only becuase we would have done something different.

My point with regards to feelings being nebulous and indefensible is that feelings can do no more than form the basis for such decision-making. They can only set you on the path to the outcome which will result in your pleasure.

Like it or not, you will come up with reasons to satisfy your desires. Thus are feelings lashed to reason, and subservient. If someone were to simply pick up a gun and shoot some random person, without reasons, without knowing that person or having any call to want to destroy their life, but simply because they think they'd enjoy doing it is irrational. THAT is the nebulous and indefensible enslavement to feeling that I reject.

Eating whatever is in front of you because you are hungry, having sex with whomsoever you find yourself with, killing without regard for past or future events, taking whatever you like, are all supported by feeling/pleasure feedbacks. They're all also destructive behaviors that could result in you winding up sick, injured, or dead. The only shield between this kind of behavior and society is reason resting upon the back of those feelings.

Rereading my posts, I see I promised more on "factuality" and did not deliver. Therefore:

Factuality is a myth of religious making. Fact is often used as a substitute for "absolute certainty", which defies reasoning. Reason and its child, the scientific method, offer only degrees of certitude. We have been horribly wrong in the past, we may still be wrong, and only a fool will refuse to admit that (Ha ha, I made a funny).

Edit: "Proof" also suffers from this flaw. I cannot "prove" the Earth will turn in such a way as to make the sun rise tomorrow, but I am reasonably certain it will. I cannot "prove" there are no gods, but I am reasonably certain there are no gods resembling anything human imagination has conjured.

Many people still cling to religion because of its absolutist claims. God is ALL-good, ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, and he WILL take care of you if you do what he wants. The universe proceeds exactly according to his will, and nothing can change that. I can see the comfort in that, but I reject false comfort in favor of a deeper understanding of the world around me.

Apologies if I have not answered all your points. I tried to respond in as broad a fashion as I could while still making my own points, and I fear my arguments have suffered for it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmcdonald'smmmmm
You say there's no proof of a deity's existence, but is there not proof?

The Judaism-christianity-islam group of religions all seem to point to there being one god. This god supposedly talked to humans, giving them almost the same rules. The god tried to put his point across that he existed, talking through several people and said that he created the universe. These three religions that are almost the same all tell us that this god exists.

There are other theistic religions that have evidence:

Wicca - well how do you explain that they can perform magic? Huh?

There are many others but I'm tired and I can't be bothered to think and type any more...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmcdonald'smmmmm
You say there's no proof of a deity's existence, but is there not proof?

The Judaism-christianity-islam group of religions all seem to point to there being one god. This god supposedly talked to humans, giving them almost the same rules. The god tried to put his point across that he existed, talking through several people and said that he created the universe. These three religions that are almost the same all tell us that this god exists.

There are other theistic religions that have evidence:

Wicca - well how do you explain that they can perform magic? Huh?

There are many others but I'm tired and I can't be bothered to think and type any more...

What's more likely, that an invisible, all-powerful god had His words perfectly recorded across thousands of years or that there is enough similarity in human desires, fears, and instinctive morals that similar societies and religious structures have appeared worldwide?
The "God did it" argument gets even weaker if you even pause to consider the countless gods posited by humans over our evolutionary lifespan.

Wiccan magic is false data - literally. It's nothing more than an exercise in ritual and stacking the results by holding up the positive hits and ignoring the negative hits. It's no more effective than cold reading psychics, prayer, or placebos.

Atheism is just another breed of those who are anti-things

just more of those who refuse to obey any power above them regardless that said powers exist, because of pride, arrogance, ignorance, etc, they just refuse to hold anything greater than them as being real without having 'proof'

Just as there are the religious fanatics who preach that every word in the bible is true, and live by that, there are those who are fanatical to science and follow every word a 'professional' who has conducted 'studies' tells that what is true

Atheism is just a form of extremist ideology that is devoted to the scientific side of life, where their opposites sit on the religious side

technically both are in fact WRONG, as both religion and science work hand in hand to prove many of the things in life are true with their own unique methods of explanation

What religion cannot explain, science does, and what science cannot explain, religion does

- - - - -

Even a suicide bomber holds both sides of religion and science - He fights and dies for his religion, but using explosives that science made :D

The Judaism-christianity-islam group of religions all seem to point to there being one god. This god supposedly talked to humans, giving them almost the same rules. The god tried to put his point across that he existed, talking through several people and said that he created the universe. These three religions that are almost the same all tell us that this god exists.
How?

There are hundreds of pictures, songs, films, books and cards show a fat bearded man in a fur-trimmed red suit. They are all very similar depictions. Moreover, millions of people believe this man to exist, albeit the vast majority of these people are young children.

However, this doesn’t prove in any way that Santa exists

Wicca–well how do you explain that they can perform magic?
First you’ll have to show someone performing magic.

And I don’t mean Paul Daniels.

Atheism is just another breed of those who are anti-things

just more of those who refuse to obey any power above them regardless that said powers exist, because of pride, arrogance, ignorance, etc, they just refuse to hold anything greater than them as being real without having 'proof'

Just as there are the religious fanatics who preach that every word in the bible is true, and live by that, there are those who are fanatical to science and follow every word a 'professional' who has conducted 'studies' tells that what is true

Atheism is just a form of extremist ideology that is devoted to the scientific side of life, where their opposites sit on the religious side

technically both are in fact WRONG, as both religion and science work hand in hand to prove many of the things in life are true with their own unique methods of explanation

What religion cannot explain, science does, and what science cannot explain, religion does

- - - - -

Even a suicide bomber holds both sides of religion and science - He fights and dies for his religion, but using explosives that science made :D

A new challenger appears! I honestly don't know how to respond to this. It seems like whatever I choose to say, I would just reinforce the your stereotypical belief of an atheist.

Yes, I reject god. I do not reject all powers greater than mine. I am a very, very tiny, insignificant bit of animate matter clinging to the surface of a very, very tiny speck of dust. Anywhere I care to look, there is a power greater than mine: light, gravity, the vast, yawning gulf of the cosmos. I wish to understand it, though, rather than worship it. Yes, I want to tame it, I want to yoke the universe to human ingenuity. It's not our destiny, but it's the only way we're going to make it off this rock alive.

A new challenger appears! I honestly don't know how to respond to this. It seems like whatever I choose to say, I would just reinforce the your stereotypical belief of an atheist.

Yes, I reject god. I do not reject all powers greater than mine. I am a very, very tiny, insignificant bit of animate matter clinging to the surface of a very, very tiny speck of dust. Anywhere I care to look, there is a power greater than mine: light, gravity, the vast, yawning gulf of the cosmos. I wish to understand it, though, rather than worship it. Yes, I want to tame it, I want to yoke the universe to human ingenuity. It's not our destiny, but it's the only way we're going to make it off this rock alive.


Oh, so you want to conquer the world and space?
a bit of inter-galactic capitalism too?

I partly agree with taking off this rock, as it is our god-given power of curiosity that will make us seek new frontiers to move to - part of this can be done with help from the slave labor idea posted on another thread

but a little bit of FAITH can give us some heartfelt courage that we can succeed and perform that which we seek to do

Oh, so you want to conquer the world and space?
a bit of inter-galactic capitalism too?

I partly agree with taking off this rock, as it is our god-given power of curiosity that will make us seek new frontiers to move to - part of this can be done with help from the slave labor idea posted on another thread

but a little bit of FAITH can give us some heartfelt courage that we can succeed and perform that which we seek to do

Conquer the world and space? Maybe not. Conquer the atom, the quark and the gluon? Absolutely. What's wrong with capitalism?

There is no need for faith to bring us courage, or the werewithal to reach for the stars. And in what compassionate construct of religion is slavery a good idea? This is another of my objections to religion - it belittles this life. It doesn't matter how you're made to suffer for your beliefs, it will all be better. Just die first. Suffer and die.

I just remebered this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

It's a recording of Carl Sagan reading from Pale Blue Dot. It's the most moving material I've ever run across. Every time someone acuses atheists of being arrogant, mean-spirited, or prideful, I remember this recording. There is wonder and beauty in a universe without gods and demons. There is awe and there are moments when all one can do is sit and stare.

There is no need for God in this: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5939/96664maingalaxystring4fn9.jpg

It's a picture of a tiny slice of the sky. Every point of light is a galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies. To imagine that God has somehow tapped us, out of all the potential and all the possibilities is folly of the highest order.

It's a picture of a tiny slice of the sky. Every point of light is a galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies. To imagine that God has somehow tapped us, out of all the potential and all the possibilities is folly of the highest order.


And if the bacteria in a petri dish could think at our level, they would say the same about us

Why is such an idea any more laughable than the universe popping into existance all by its lonesome?

Big Bang theory.
Big Bang theory (and evidence) shows that our universe was born as a little teensy fireball that expanded to become the universe in seconds. There is plenty of evident to show we are living in an expanding universe that has it's origins in a small fireball. Although we have an inkling of what the universe was like at T=0.0001 we don't have any idea of what it was like at T=0. Or T=-0.000000001.

For me, this is about the only place that God could hide. There's a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny part of me that considers the possibility that some kind of entity created the universe in some form which quickly became a fireball and then the big bang. From all the evidence I've seen, I'm 99.9% sure that there is no God. But I can't know for sure. Of course, invoking God invokes the problem of infinite regress.

I am 100% sure there is no God in the biblical/talmudic/koranic sense - that is the ridiculous laughable God)


This is why I'm an agnostic atheist.

And if the bacteria in a petri dish could think at our level, they would say the same about us

The difference being that we are of the same kind and order of life as bacteria. A bacteria that could think at our level could understand us, our ways and thoughts. God is often asserted to be unknowable by theists, to which I ask "How do you know?"

How does the statement "I know god exists" require any more blind belief than the statement "I know god does not exist?"

Because you have to deliberately and willfully ignore literally mountains of evidence to say 'I know god exists' whereas to say 'I know god does not exist' is only a tinsy steap from the available evidence (Big Bang, evolution, geology, nuclear physics among many others) to a position of faith.

Even then you could argue it's not faith to say 'god does not exist'. You could say it's a rational conclusion drawn from the evidence and as such is not 'faith' because it could, theoretically, be falsifed and the holder of the opinon would change his or her mind if presented with contrary evidence.

Because you have to deliberately and willfully ignore literally mountains of evidence to say 'I know god exists' whereas to say 'I know god does not exist' is only a tinsy steap from the available evidence (Big Bang, evolution, geology, nuclear physics among many others) to a position of faith.

Even then you could argue it's not faith to say 'god does not exist'. You could say it's a rational conclusion drawn from the evidence and as such is not 'faith' because it could, theoretically, be falsifed and the holder of the opinon would change his or her mind if presented with contrary evidence.

That, of course, assumes that contrary evidence could be produced. Which I believe I've demonstrated it cannot.

I'd like to go into more detail, citing entropic heat death as the "base line" of the universe, with our current epoch being a fluke, but a completely predictable one. However, that's incredibly complicated, and not easily done in a forum post.

Try. I'd like you to go into more detail 'cos I'm suspecting it explains the origins of Big Bang.

Plus, it's evidence based rather than logical theorising.

Don't know about you guys, but I'll take incontrovertibly hard evidence found in mere seconds by a dimwit over centuries of incredibly refined arguments by geniuses.

Because you have to deliberately and willfully ignore literally mountains of evidence to say 'I know god exists'

Can you show me one piece of evidence that shows god does not exist? Because from where I sit, one would first need to define a divine being in order to determine what evidence we'd expect to see to demonstrate its existance, to then show that this evidence is lacking.

In short, to say there is "mountains of evidence" against god, we first would have to define god, know the qualities of god, then show how the evidence we have runs counter to the existance of a god.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arrogant to presume you can define god. But go ahead, give it a shot.

That, of course, assumes that contrary evidence could be produced. Which I believe I've demonstrated it cannot.

It does indeed so assume. Where did you demonstrate it can't?

Cheers

BC

Try. I'd like you to go into more detail 'cos I'm suspecting it explains the origins of Big Bang.

Plus, it's evidence based rather than logical theorising.

Don't know about you guys, but I'll take incontrovertibly hard evidence found in mere seconds by a dimwit over centuries of incredibly refined arguments by geniuses.

There's little hard evidence to back this up, but it is in line with this model: http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html of the universe. I don't have a link readily at hand, or any of the math. I realize this mostly confines it to hearsay, but here goes.

The entropic model holds that the base line state of the universe is what we've referred to as "heat death", in which the universe does not collapse in on itself, but simply fizzles until all light, heat, and energy is uniformly distributed throughout the uniformly distributed matter of the universe. So the possibilities of anything happening are very low. However, once in a while the universe spontaneously organizes itself to some degree. This would not be unlike all the air in a room moving into the right half of the room spontaneously, but is significantly less likely.

So examining the entropic distribution of energy in the universe over time, you'd see something like an EKG line, that is mostly flat, but experiences sudden peaks and valleys. The Big Bang would be at the bottom of such a valley, because it is the moment at which entropy is at its lowest point. Time would progress up along the slopes of the valley because of our entropy-based perception of time, so that both slopes of the valley experience the Big Bang as the start of time and the heat death of the universe as the end of time.

So you get two mirror-image universes, neither of which appeared out of nothing, but were ordered by probability from extant material, in which time flows in opposite, but concurrent, directions.

I hope that made as much sense as it did when I researched the topic. :X

It does indeed so assume. Where did you demonstrate it can't?

Cheers

BC

From a couple of pages ago:

My first lies in the nature of evidence and the supernature of deities. Evidence is a measurement of some kind pertaining to some aspect of reality. The humidity, the distance to the nearest star, the DNA sequence of a murder victim; all evidence (measurements) of some aspect of reality. Deities would by definition be supernatural entities, beyond the scope of the natural order. This is evident (pardon the pun) in the powers ascribed to deities, almost all of which involve contravening the natural order.

It follows, then, that if deities are capable of subverting the laws of nature, then using the laws of nature to measure them is an exercise in futility. Therefore, evidence is not a concept that can be applied to deities.

My second point is that very few people would actually rationally accept such evidence if it could be produced. If God gave you an order to kill someone, gave you a special edict and some kind of tablet or something as proof of that edict, do you imagine it would save you from law enforcement? Would you accept the encounter at face value, or would your instincts for benevolence and self-preservation cast your experience into doubt? Where DID that tablet come from, anyway? Could that be YOUR handwriting? Could you have been hallucinating in some half-awake state of consciousness, an almost lucid dream?

yet "I rot in the earth" sounds a lot better than "I will be punished for eternity, yet some religions contain that concept as well. So if religion was purely about comfort, why do many incorporate ideas of divine punishment? That's not very comforting.

The truth isn't always comforting.

Can you show me one piece of evidence that shows god does not exist? Because from where I sit, one would first need to define a divine being in order to determine what evidence we'd expect to see to demonstrate its existance, to then show that this evidence is lacking.

In short, to say there is "mountains of evidence" against god, we first would have to define god, know the qualities of god, then show how the evidence we have runs counter to the existance of a god.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arrogant to presume you can define god. But go ahead, give it a shot.

God is undefinible, according to most theists I know. Being undefinible is a knowable fact. Knowing that something is unknowable violates the internal consistency of that object. Ergo, the object you claim knowledge of does not exist.

Knowing that something is unknowable violates the internal consistency of that object.

That's complete and total gibberish.

That's complete and total gibberish.

How? If you assert God is unknowable, as you just did, then you violate your own conception of God. You can't know ANYTHING about an unknowable (undefinible, ineffable, etc) deity, including whether or not it's knowable.

Placing God on the pedestal of being unknowable removes your conception of God from rational consideration. If one cannot know anything about God, then one cannot claim to know that God exists. "God is unknowable" places God beyond serious consideration on multiple fronts.

How? If you assert God is unknowable

When did I ever say that?

If one cannot know anything about God, then one cannot claim to know that God exists.

When did I ever say that?

Seriously, if you're going to try to respond to what I say, it behooves you to respond to what I actually say. Not what you wish to pretend I said.

Can you show me one piece of evidence that shows god does not exist? Because from where I sit, one would first need to define a divine being in order to determine what evidence we'd expect to see to demonstrate its existance, to then show that this evidence is lacking.

In short, to say there is "mountains of evidence" against god, we first would have to define god, know the qualities of god, then show how the evidence we have runs counter to the existance of a god.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arrogant to presume you can define god. But go ahead, give it a shot.


Yes, good point. The definition of God. I'm carrying around in my head a Judeo-Christian style god as found in the Bible.

You originally said:

How does the statement "I know god exists" require any more blind belief than the statement "I know god does not exist?"

So you're right. "I know god exists" requires the same blind belief that "I know god does not exist" because we don't know what concept of god we are talking about. But it's a fairly pointless question because it's so meaningless. If we want to take it any further we need a common definition.

So, given that you asked the question, I'll ask you to define what god you're talking about and then we can look at the qualities and evidence of god before we can attempt a refutation.

One last thing though, why do you think it is "pretty arrogant to presume you can define god"? Many millions, billions, of people have tried to do so throughout history. Were they all arrogant? Every single one of them? And what exactly do you mean by "arrogant" anyway?

When did I ever say that?



When did I ever say that?

Seriously, if you're going to try to respond to what I say, it behooves you to respond to what I actually say. Not what you wish to pretend I said.

To whit:
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty arrogant to presume you can define god. But go ahead, give it a shot.

If God is not undefinible, why would it be arrogant to try to define him?

So, given that you asked the question, I'll ask you to define what god you're talking about and then we can look at the qualities and evidence of god before we can attempt a refutation.

I didn't attempt to define god for the very reason that such a definition would inherently be lacking. I don't mean the judeo-christian "God". I mean a being of supernatural existance and divine power. I do not define such because any effort would be pointless, even if I laid down qualities of "a god" so that we may seek to determine whether or not this god exists, this accomplishes little, since there's no way of determining if the god I defined is in any way accurately resembling the god that does exist, if it in fact exists.

Now if I want to define "God" as a giant pink chicken that appears every third sunday of the month in the middle of times square and reads the complete works of william shakespeare backwards before disappearing in a cloud of smoke, we can easily disprove such a god due to the absence of such gargantuan literate pultrey. But what good does that definition give us?

One last thing though, why do you think it is "pretty arrogant to presume you can define god"? Many millions, billions, of people have tried to do so throughout history. Were they all arrogant? Every single one of them? And what exactly do you mean by "arrogant" anyway?

I define arrogance as an attempt to do that which one can not in any way be expected to do, and expect any measure of success.

If one cannot in any way be expected to define God, how is this not calling God undefinible?

If God is not undefinible, why would it be arrogant to try to define him?

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, define for me the color or title of the book sitting by my right hand? Or if there is any such book there at all?

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, tell me what movie I watched last night? Or if I watched one at all?

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, tell me what my wife's name is? Or if I have a wife at all?

No, of course not. Why? Because you lack sufficinet information to reach those conclusions. None of those are unknowable things, one merely has to have sufficient information about them to know the answers. Information which you lack.

If one cannot in any way be expected to define God, how is this not calling God undefinible?

can a cockroach be expected to define a person? If not, does this mean a person is undefinable?

No, the cockroach merely lacks sufficient information, and the intellect necessary to evaluate that information.

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, define for me the color or title of the book sitting by my right hand? Or if there is any such book there at all?

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, tell me what movie I watched last night? Or if I watched one at all?

Could you, with any reasonable likelihood of success, tell me what my wife's name is? Or if I have a wife at all?

No, of course not. Why? Because you lack sufficinet information to reach those conclusions. None of those are unknowable things, one merely has to have sufficient information about them to know the answers. Information which you lack.

Yes, yes, and yes. Those are all answerable questions. You seem to be confusing difficulty with possibility. If there is NO EXPECTATION that something is possible, it is not possible. I could discern what movie you watched last night by examining your cable box, or a movie rental receipt. I could define the color of your book in terms of wavelength of light, and its absence or presence.

There is no amount of information that can lead to a definition of a supernatural god. Supernatural things are inherently above or beyond natural understanding. Which leads us back to the inefficacy of evidence and the internal inconsistency of God.

There is no amount of information that can lead to a definition of a supernatural god. Supernatural things are inherently above or beyond natural understanding. Which leads us back to the inefficacy of evidence and the internal inconsistency of God.

And once again you keep leading yourself into circles. Why can't something that exists beyond our natural understanding exist? By definition such a thing can not be known to exist, and it can not be known not to exist. And that's the point. You seem to posit that because we can not know such an entity to exist, it does not. That's a ludicrus assumption. If it's beyond our ability to know it exists, it's beyond our ability to know it exists. Which inevitably leads back to what I said before. The only rational answer is "I don't know".

If it exists beyond our capabilities to observe it, you can not say with any certainty whether it exists or not.

Now if I want to define "God" as a giant pink chicken that appears every third sunday of the month in the middle of times square and reads the complete works of william shakespeare backwards before disappearing in a cloud of smoke, we can easily disprove such a god due to the absence of such gargantuan literate pultrey. But what good does that definition give us?

Not much good at all, although it would be good for a giggle every third sunday of the month :D

I mean a being of supernatural existance and divine power. I do not define such because any effort would be pointless, even if I laid down qualities of "a god" so that we may seek to determine whether or not this god exists, this accomplishes little, since there's no way of determining if the god I defined is in any way accurately resembling the god that does exist, if it in fact exists.


On this point, I agree with you. And it rather renders the whole debate pointless, which was your point, if you see my point. And we all might as well get on with doing other things instead.

And once again you keep leading yourself into circles. Why can't something that exists beyond our natural understanding exist? By definition such a thing can not be known to exist, and it can not be known not to exist. And that's the point. You seem to posit that because we can not know such an entity to exist, it does not. That's a ludicrus assumption. If it's beyond our ability to know it exists, it's beyond our ability to know it exists. Which inevitably leads back to what I said before. The only rational answer is "I don't know".

If it exists beyond our capabilities to observe it, you can not say with any certainty whether it exists or not.

If it exists beyond nature, what does that mean? God surely does not eat, or breathe. God does not depend upon the interaction of ozone and ultraviolet light for his continued survival. There may be aliens out there different from us enough that they don't do those things, but they are still predicated upon the natural laws of the universe for their existence.

If you want a supernatural deity, you can't claim God existence is predicated on those laws. A supernatural deity defies them, or controls them. In either case, the supernatural deity's "existence" is meaningless to us. It makes no difference whether it exists or not, since it has no effect upon us. Why would someone choose the more complicated option?

Time for me to go to bed. I should be back in eightish hours. Please keep this civil, it's been great so far. I've really enjoyed matching wits with Tsuki and Neo Art tonight. It's been fun, and nary a flame in sight!

Likewise, Raem.:)

Wow. This is the first time since I came back I've had to fight the urge to post "tl;dr." Are you writing a novel? o-O
"tl;dr" is a lazy person's cop-out. If you're going to open NSG threads that are of interest to me, you'll have to get used to marathon reading. :p

Alright, to begin: I find that animism is the least offensive religious belief, and can be quite compatible with scientific findings (i.e., if you want to call the lesser nuclear force a spirit, I don't really have a problem with that).
Well, that's enormously big of you. Thank you so much for mentioning that you don't disapprove of my religious beliefs. I feel privileged now. :rolleyes:

Rationality is not related to truthiness or falsity, per se. You're right about that. Reason, by which I mean a synonym for rationality, is nothing more than an internally consistent set of rules. It's a sieve through which we filter data; the purities we retain as "factual" (more on that in a moment) knowledge, while the dregs are rejected as false. It's easy to confuse rationality or reason with inherent truthiness or falsity, whereas it's actually more like a lense through which we can perceive truthiness or falsity.
1) "Truthiness" is a joke word made up by comedian Steve Colbert to satirize the practice of political spin doctoring. The word you want as the opposite "falsity" is "truthfulness" or "verity." Or you could say "truth" versus "falsehood."

2) I don't think you are using "reason" correctly. According to Merriam-Webster:

Reason: "Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
<snip>
2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): sanity b: the sum of the intellectual powers
<snip>"

Reasoning: "1: the use of reason; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason2: an instance of the use of reason : argument"

Neither of those says anything about a set of rules to follow nor about factuality. If factuality were required for an idea to be rational or reasonable, then it would be impossible to have rational, well reasoned discussions of fictional literature since fictional stories are not factual, and all gamblers, explorers and scientific researchers would be considered insane, since their activities depend on predictions/expectations of things that haven't happened yet, and thus do not exist and are not facts.

Saying there's no call to discard beliefs as irrational based on that, though, is silly. Rationality calls for us to accept only that which is internally and externally consistent with beliefs that have been previously distilled in the crucible of reason. Theistic beliefs are irrational because they cannot pass that test. An all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good (omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence) deity is demonstrably irrational. Could an all-knowing god know what it is to be suprised? If not, then he doesn't know everything. If so, then there must be some bit of knowledge he was not aware of at some point, which again brings us to the falsity of the omniscience claim. This paradox can be avoided by claiming God's knowledge is different in kind than ours, which raises its own questions (What does that even MEAN?).
It doesn't mean a damned thing, as far as I'm concerned, but neither does your objection. The dictionary definitions of "reason" and "rational" require only that the thought be formulated in a certain way. You, however, seem to want to impose additional requirements to the words. According to you, the idea must also be factual and it must make sense to you. Well, higher math doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me, but that fault is mine, not math's. My failure to comprehend higher math does not mean that mathematicians are not rational, reasoning people. Your inability to understand or find value in religious ideas does not mean that the ideas are not constructed in a rational, reasonable manner. This is because there is no requirement for factuality or accessibility for an idea to be rational. That is just a hurdle you added to the race, as it were.

You have to keep in mind that standard dictionary definitions of words reflect the generally accepted ideas that the words represent. Since your requirements for "rational" and "reasoned" are not included in the standard definitions, what you are really doing is measuring the topic according to your own personal standard, which is fine for you, but I don't you and don't know whether you're rational yourself, or just another opinionated nut. So you will understand, I hope, if I prefer to use the common standard rather than your personal one.

Therefore, you have failed to prove to me that your standard actually applies.

The problem with claiming that religion, when chosen freely and in good will, produces beneficial results is that most people never get the choice. Children indoctrinated in their parents' religion will be haunted by that belief structure for the rest of their lives. In many cases that belief structure brings the child to harm, physically or mentally, as they wrestle with moral and spiritual questions they simply lack the faculties to process. This is one of my objections to religion.
This sounds like a personal bias talking. You seem so intent on denigrating religion that you merely brush right by the suggestion that choices made freely often bring good results, to focus solely on conditions that are forced onto people without choice. One has nothing to do with the other. Also the statement that having an ideology forced upon one against one's will is harmful does not in any way address the question of whether religious ideas and/or the choice to be religious can be rational.

Having medication or surgery forced upon one can be harmful, too, but that doesn't mean that medicine is an irrational practice or that going to a doctor is an irrational decision.

Also, you make inflammatory assumptions about the experience of children raised in religious households or cultures. I also personally disapprove of indoctrination of children into active religious practice before age 16, but I know many, many people who were raised in religious families but have not suffered any physical or mental harm, nor have they reported being noticeably haunted by anything.

I'm finding it difficult to keep my thoughts organized in the face of your wall o text post. :D So I'm going to break here and pick up section 2 in my next post.
Wimp. :p

Perhaps this will allow me to keep my thoughts more organized. I did not sufficiently explain my response in the post you quoted, but I anticipated I might be called upon to do so. Without that explanation, it does seem like I'm being arbitrary, but I actually have two points to substantiate my rejection of evidence of the existence of deities.

My first lies in the nature of evidence and the supernature of deities. Evidence is a measurement of some kind pertaining to some aspect of reality. The humidity, the distance to the nearest star, the DNA sequence of a murder victim; all evidence (measurements) of some aspect of reality. Deities would by definition be supernatural entities, beyond the scope of the natural order. This is evident (pardon the pun) in the powers ascribed to deities, almost all of which involve contravening the natural order.

It follows, then, that if deities are capable of subverting the laws of nature, then using the laws of nature to measure them is an exercise in futility. Therefore, evidence is not a concept that can be applied to deities.

My second point is that very few people would actually rationally accept such evidence if it could be produced. If God gave you an order to kill someone, gave you a special edict and some kind of tablet or something as proof of that edict, do you imagine it would save you from law enforcement? Would you accept the encounter at face value, or would your instincts for benevolence and self-preservation cast your experience into doubt? Where DID that tablet come from, anyway? Could that be YOUR handwriting? Could you have been hallucinating in some half-awake state of consciousness, an almost lucid dream?

Given that evidence is inapplicable to deities, and human nature, I am forced to draw the conclusion that the suspension of disbelief in classical deities is a pointless exercise. I will never encounter something I would accept as evidence of the supernatural (It's far easier to accept that such evidence is merely some aspect of nature with which we are not already familiar, anyway), and the non-interfering/non-existent blur leaves me with my conclusion.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you reject anything that purports to be "evidence" or "proof" of the existence of some supernatural/divine entity as a fact. Fine, I have no argument with that. Perhaps I did not make myself clear before, but I believe that anyone who makes claims of factuality about things that cannot be proven to be factual are veering away from rationality -- this applies equally to those who claim to be able to prove the existence of god(s) as to those who claim to be able to disprove it.

But what does any of that have to do with:

A) the rationality of the structure of religious concepts;

B) the rationality of people's choices about and uses of religion; and

C) non-empirical-claim aspects of theology, by which I mean ideas that are about things that do not depend on proofs or claims of factuality, such as moral precepts or metaphysics or mysticism?

Just because some people make up lies about a thing, it does not necessarily follow that there is nothing to it but the lies.

My point with regards to feelings being nebulous and indefensible is that feelings can do no more than form the basis for such decision-making. They can only set you on the path to the outcome which will result in your pleasure.
So?

Like it or not, you will come up with reasons to satisfy your desires. Thus are feelings lashed to reason, and subservient. If someone were to simply pick up a gun and shoot some random person, without reasons, without knowing that person or having any call to want to destroy their life, but simply because they think they'd enjoy doing it is irrational. THAT is the nebulous and indefensible enslavement to feeling that I reject.
It's nice that you reject enslavement as a general principle, but actually, nobody picks up a gun and starts shooting for no reason. There is ALWAYS a reason. It may not be a very good reason, but there is always a reason that precipitates the action. By that same token, nobody joins a religion for no reason, either.

Eating whatever is in front of you because you are hungry, having sex with whomsoever you find yourself with, killing without regard for past or future events, taking whatever you like, are all supported by feeling/pleasure feedbacks. They're all also destructive behaviors that could result in you winding up sick, injured, or dead. The only shield between this kind of behavior and society is reason resting upon the back of those feelings.
Eating because you're hungry is a destructive behavior? Look, I think that, once again, you are completely sidestepping what I actually said in order to promote a different argument of your own. I talked about normal behaviors and whether a choice to pursue pleasure can be a rational choice. You seem to be talking about abnormal, addictive, or criminal behaviors and then concluding that the existence of destructive behaviors is evidence, somehow, that pursusing pleasure is not rational.

But if "the only shield" protecting society from such excesses (my, such drama!) is reason, does that mean that you are you agreeing with me that it is possible to pursue pleasure in a rational manner, and that, therefore, a choice to do something because it feels right can be a rational choice? Or are you trying to argue that any time anyone does anything just because it feels right or good, they are being destructive to society?

I rather hope it's not the second option, because that would render altruism destructive to society, since there is seldom any other reason to be altruistic other than that it feels right or good. Good feeling is certainly the only direct benefit one gets from being altruistic.

Rereading my posts, I see I promised more on "factuality" and did not deliver. Therefore:

Factuality is a myth of religious making. Fact is often used as a substitute for "absolute certainty", which defies reasoning. Reason and its child, the scientific method, offer only degrees of certitude. We have been horribly wrong in the past, we may still be wrong, and only a fool will refuse to admit that (Ha ha, I made a funny).

Edit: "Proof" also suffers from this flaw. I cannot "prove" the Earth will turn in such a way as to make the sun rise tomorrow, but I am reasonably certain it will. I cannot "prove" there are no gods, but I am reasonably certain there are no gods resembling anything human imagination has conjured.

Many people still cling to religion because of its absolutist claims. God is ALL-good, ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, and he WILL take care of you if you do what he wants. The universe proceeds exactly according to his will, and nothing can change that. I can see the comfort in that, but I reject false comfort in favor of a deeper understanding of the world around me.

Apologies if I have not answered all your points. I tried to respond in as broad a fashion as I could while still making my own points, and I fear my arguments have suffered for it.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as facts? That "facts" are a religious myth? Does that mean it is not a fact that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue"? Is that just a rumor spread by the absolutist Spanish Inquisition?

You are complaining about people making claims of fact about things which are manifestly not factual nor required to be factual in order to be meaningful. Fine, point taken already. But what possesses you to write something that seems to question the existence of facts in general? I mean, that's just crazy talk.

And what the fuck does it have to do with whether ideas about non-facts can be rational or not?

Look, if you want merely to state that you reject religion because (a) as a construct it conflicts with your own rational thought processes, and (b) you don't like the way it functions in society, that's perfectly well and good. By all means, do not burden yourself with things you neither need nor want.

But your opinion of religion is not proof that religion is an irrational construct, which as I read it, was your original argument.

Because you have to deliberately and willfully ignore literally mountains of evidence to say 'I know god exists' whereas to say 'I know god does not exist' is only a tinsy steap from the available evidence (Big Bang, evolution, geology, nuclear physics among many others) to a position of faith.
Not true. There is no evidence regarding god, so there is no evidence that god does not exist, therefore you don't have to ignore anything in order to believe god exists.

Now, there IS evidence that proves that god did not do things in the world in the past in precisely the way certain religious texts say he did. But proving that someone did not do something is not the same as proving that that person does not exist.

Even then you could argue it's not faith to say 'god does not exist'. You could say it's a rational conclusion drawn from the evidence and as such is not 'faith' because it could, theoretically, be falsifed and the holder of the opinon would change his or her mind if presented with contrary evidence.
The same thing happens with religious believers too when real world experience conflicts to the point of breaking with expectations based on religious belief, only they have a special term for it. They call it a "crisis of faith," and it also requires the person to readjust their thinking.

On second thought, I'm pretty much done with this thread.

<snip>


So you're right. "I know god exists" requires the same blind belief that "I know god does not exist" because we don't know what concept of god we are talking about. But it's a fairly pointless question because it's so meaningless. If we want to take it any further we need a common definition.

<snip>
If the question is pointless then so are the two statements related to it, including the one you believe.

Yes, yes, and yes. Those are all answerable questions. You seem to be confusing difficulty with possibility. If there is NO EXPECTATION that something is possible, it is not possible. I could discern what movie you watched last night by examining your cable box, or a movie rental receipt. I could define the color of your book in terms of wavelength of light, and its absence or presence.

There is no amount of information that can lead to a definition of a supernatural god. Supernatural things are inherently above or beyond natural understanding. Which leads us back to the inefficacy of evidence and the internal inconsistency of God.
If you can answer Neo Art's questions, then do so. Tell us if a book is next to him and, if so, which one. Tell us if he saw a movie last night and, if so, which one. Tell us whether he is married and, if so, the name of his wife.

Prove that the fact that the things are knowable/definable means that you, in your current state, are able to know/define them.

Or figure out some way to prove that the fact that you cannot name the book, movie or wife is proof that he has no book, movie or wife.

Your insistance that your inability to find evidence that there is such a thing as god(s) is proof that there is no such being is merely a case of you presenting your opinion as fact. You said it yourself: lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Also you are repeating the error I attacked before: claiming that standards of evidence do not apply to religion, yet trying to apply a standard of evidence to religion at the same time. Talk about internal inconsistency!

On second thought, I'm pretty much done with this thread.

Why?

Why?

I just don't really feel like arguing with you. I don't feel like being patronized.

If you can answer Neo Art's questions, then do so. Tell us if a book is next to him and, if so, which one. Tell us if he saw a movie last night and, if so, which one. Tell us whether he is married and, if so, the name of his wife.

Prove that the fact that the things are knowable/definable means that you, in your current state, are able to know/define them.

Or figure out some way to prove that the fact that you cannot name the book, movie or wife is proof that he has no book, movie or wife.

Your insistance that your inability to find evidence that there is such a thing as god(s) is proof that there is no such being is merely a case of you presenting your opinion as fact.

Thanks Mur, I was worried I wasn't making sense.

You can't give up Raem, you have to stand up in the face of your oppressors! Win one for atheism!!!

Heh. Thank you, Crawfonton, but like I said, this has become an argument rather than a debate. It's too personal and antagonistic. It was fun while it lasted, but I really have no desire to watch this descend into vague flamebait.

Alright then...

I just don't really feel like arguing with you. I don't feel like being patronized.

Ha! I have not yet begun to patronize.

I am not talking down to you. I am pointing out some flaws in your arguments, flaws which it seems you would rather ignore than address.

It's like this, from my point of view: You started out suggesting that religion is an inherently irrational concept. I challenged you on two grounds: first, that under the standard definiton of "rational," which tells us what constitutes rationality, religious concepts can be just as rational as non-religious ones; and second, that the structure of your argument was self-contradictory. You responded by positing a definition of "rational" that deviates from the standard. I suggested that this was not persuasive. From that point, I believe you have just repeated your original assertions.

Now, what is the problem? Do you want to take time to resolve the internal problems of your argument and maybe come up with a more compelling argument for the irrationality of religion? Then, yes, please do so. But if it's just that you don't like the way I express myself, I would suggest you stop caring about me and concentrate on the points instead.

Heh. Thank you, Crawfonton, but like I said, this has become an argument rather than a debate. It's too personal and antagonistic. It was fun while it lasted, but I really have no desire to watch this descend into vague flamebait.
What nonsense. Honestly, some people are so delicate around here, all you have to do is attack their argument to be accused of "vague flamebait"ing them personally. :rolleyes: 'Bye then. I will take your abandonment of the field as concession of the point.

And by the way, if you really just hate me that much, you can always put me on ignore.

Thanks Mur, I was worried I wasn't making sense.

You made perfect sense, but I get the feeling that the person you were addressing was perhaps not prepared to have the foundational logic of his arguments challenged.

You can’t give up Raem, you have to stand up in the face of your oppressors! Win one for atheism!!!
I don’t see how Raem’s position is necessarily an atheist’s. I’m an atheist, and I don’t think all religious concepts/beliefs are irrational.

Mur on forums it is generally considered a bad idea to post 3 times in a row... if you have something to add thats why the edit button is there XD

Mur on forums it is generally considered a bad idea to post 3 times in a row... if you have something to add thats why the edit button is there XD
Yes, sir. Of course, I was not adding to a post of my own, but responding separately to several different posts. It's not my fault if I happened to be the only person in the thread at that given moment, so that my comments didn't have any buffers between them. But that's okay, you can make this thread be about me if you can't pursue the topic.

EDIT: Ooh, look, I'm using the edit button. Thank someone Crawfonton was here to teach it to me. ;) I'm going to bed. I will be excited to check in over breakfast tomorrow to see if anyone posted anything about religion or atheism while I was away.

Mur on forums it is generally considered a bad idea to post 3 times in a row... if you have something to add thats why the edit button is there XD
NSG marches to the beat of its own drummer. And I would look in askance at someone with a 90 post count who joined in January of this year giving an FYI on forum manners to someone whose post count is well over 7,000 and has been here since 2005.

NSG marches to the beat of its own drummer. And I would look in askance at someone with a 90 post count who joined in January of this year giving an FYI on forum manners to someone whose post count is well over 7,000 and has been here since 2005.

Haha, pwn that no0b!

NSG marches to the beat of its own drummer. And I would look in askance at someone with a 90 post count who joined in January of this year giving an FYI on forum manners to someone whose post count is well over 7,000 and has been here since 2005.

Wow you judge people on their post counts? Thats ludicrous. A high post count simply proves that you post a lot... It does not say you post quality posts or that you are superior to someone with a lower post count. And its not really surprising that he does have a high post count... seeing as he made 3 posts in a row.

Oh and Troll I don't even want to hear it from you.

Wow you judge people on their post counts? Thats ludicrous. A high post count simply proves that you post a lot... It does not say you post quality posts or that you are superior to someone with a lower post count. And its not really surprising that he does have a high post count... seeing as he made 3 posts in a row.
The quality of Muravyets' postings are not being called into question though. His high post count and long time on the forum does, however, mean that I would judge that he probably does know a lot more about how things are done on this forum than you do, so your arrogance in lecturing him on forum behavior is just that, arrogance.

Oh and Troll I don't even want to hear it from you.
Sadly you do not have that option on NSG, unless you put him on ignore.

The quality of Muravyets' postings are not being called into question though. His high post count and long time on the forum does, however, mean that I would judge that he probably does know a lot more about how things are done on this forum than you do, so your arrogance in lecturing him on forum behavior is just that, arrogance.


Sadly you do not have that option on NSG, unless you put him on ignore.

Mhm. Well I have been on this forum since January and I have rarely seen someone post twice in a row, let alone 3...

Trollgaard is simply what his name suggests a troll. He hates anyone that is different from him. I shall not put him on ignore because his posts are so out of touch that I find them humorous.

The quality of Muravyets' postings are not being called into question though. Her high post count and long time on the forum does, however, mean that I would judge that she probably does know a lot more about how things are done on this forum than you do, so your arrogance in lecturing her on forum behavior is just that, arrogance.


Sadly you do not have that option on NSG, unless you put him on ignore.

Fixed

Fixed
We REALLY need to come up with an all inclusive pronoun so these kind of things don't happen!

We REALLY need to come up with an all inclusive pronoun so these kind of things don’t happen!
Spivak pronouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun) are intriguing. I’ve come across their use in a number of Discordian publications, among others.

Spivak pronouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun) are intriguing. I’ve come across their use in a number of Discordian publications, among others.
I LIKE it!

Ok then:
The quality of Muravyets' postings are not being called into question though. Eir high post count and long time on the forum does, however, mean that I would judge that Ey probably does know a lot more about how things are done on this forum than you do, so your arrogance in lecturing em on forum behavior is just that, arrogance.

Sadly you do not have that option on NSG, unless you put em on ignore.
There we go, all better now.

I'd like to discuss theology with no one in particular. That is to say, I am curious about religious beliefs, being an atheist, and I would like to explore the subject further with whomsoever happens to be up for it. I'd like to keep it civil and thoughtful, but I fear that may not be possible, given the nature of religious discussion on the internet.

To that end, what do you believe, and why?

/in b4 barrel rolls.


Hey I'll discuss theology with anybody.

I'm a Sikh, I belive in God, the one God, that all Gods are one and the same. I belive in reincarnation, in all ultimatly reaching God, no hell, no punishment, free will, that all paths are valid and no one religion can claim to be 'the one true faith', that God is all.

You do know that an unimaginable amount of people dissagree with you, and say you will suffer eternaly because you would be spreading lies? Ofcourse, you dissagree with them, but if they're right you're in a whole lot of trouble. How do you form those thoughts anyway?
I really find such people interesting to study, how the hell do people get such incredible wierd thoughts? It's wierd, I never felt the urge (although my enviroment is pretty religious) to explain certain things with completly unrealistic and in the end useless thoughts. I just accepted that I don't know, and I wonder why people other people do get the urge to do that. Lots of times they're só convinced of it, that they see it as a fact. It's so incredibly odd to me. Sometimes, those beleives aren't just wierd, but they're also incredibly discriminating, racist, dangerous and downright evil!

You do know that an unimaginable amount of people dissagree with you, and say you will suffer eternaly because you would be spreading lies? Ofcourse, you dissagree with them, but if they're right you're in a whole lot of trouble. How do you form those thoughts anyway?
I really find such people interesting to study, how the hell do people get such incredible wierd thoughts? It's wierd, I never felt the urge (although my enviroment is pretty religious) to explain certain things with completly unrealistic and in the end useless thoughts. I just accepted that I don't know, and I wonder why people other people do get the urge to do that. Lots of times they're só convinced of it, that they see it as a fact. It's so incredibly odd to me.

Heh I guess that people are so incredibly odd anyhoo so!

An omnipotent deity who created the universe introduces an unecessary regression of causes. If the universe must have been created, it must have had a designer, then the designer must also have been designed, ad infinitum. You wind up no better off, and with an infinitely complex heirarchy of ascending "first causes".

That doesn't nesicarily follow though. How can people have no problems with the thought that the universe has always been, but not that God has always been?

Why logicaly must a designer have also been designed? Why can not God be the first cause?

I am a mystic. I believe that what I experience is true. I believe that only be experiencing god firsthand can we acknowledge the mystery of god and the pretensions of any system of thought claiming to have mapped out god's ways.