Jump to content

Debate religion? Yes, please!


BadKarma

Recommended Posts

Okay. So, I'm making this thread with the intention of debating any and all religious/supernatural claims. This way we can avoid arguments in threads that are not intended to be argumentative, and I can stop feeling bad about that.

I am starting it off with a response to Stellian in the Share Your Religion thread, but don't assume that we NEED to continue on one topic. Simply use a link to this thread any time you feel the need to talk about religion/spirituality in another one. It will be our repository of bitter disappointment!

Oh, and let's keep it civil here. No name-calling or anything... And if someone critiques your worldview or points out fallacies, that doesn't mean they're attacking you. Actually, I'm gonna set up a few rules:

1. If you come in here to argue a point, expect to have that point assailed, no matter who you are (including atheists; expect the religious/spiritual people to critique you).

2. Don't get angry if someone points out your wrongness. Either demonstrate that you're not wrong, adjust your current worldview, or leave quietly.

3. If a premise in any argument is demonstrated to be indefensible or false, and that premise was the only thing validating another statement, don't use that other statement. Ex. If you are arguing for intelligent design and you use the "irreducible complexity" argument from Michael Behe, do not continue to argue other things based on it when I show you the piles of research papers that disprove this claim.

Furthermore, if your opponent clearly refutes one of your statements (or many of them), don't ignore the refutation or assert that they're wrong. Concede the point. I realize I can't enforce this (or any of these rules), but try to be intellectually honest while you're here!

4. Do not shift the burden of proof onto an opponent if there's no justification for it. If you make a claim, back it up; don't say that the other person can't disprove what you said.

5. Refrain from any personal attacks, please.

6. Don't be afraid to call out a fallacy. Be prepared to prove why it's applicable if challenged, of course, but otherwise let the fallacy accusations fly!

7. Please don't come in and state "I believe in this" and then walk away. That's for those other threads that I'm trying to stay out of. This thread is for actually discussing beliefs, not for proclaiming them.

8. Remember, it is not a bad thing to admit wrongness. Obviously we all think we're right, or we wouldn't have our independent worldviews, but just because something you once thought has been debunked, that doesn't mean you're a bad or a stupid person. It just meant that you were wrong. We're all wrong all the time about a great many things; those who never admit wrongness can never be right.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Have fun while you're here. Laugh a little! We're all gonna die far too soon to bother being angry about it.

Lastly (and this isn't one of my Commandmentslulz), note that this thread does not NEED to be about proving or disproving any particular belief. While I'm sure that's what it will mostly revolve around, we can--if it so pleases you--use our time here to discuss theological nuance, utilitarianism/the effect of religion on society (bleh), comparative religion, morality, or anything of the sort (even science!). I'm mostly going to post in a responsive manner myself--instead of asking questions and expecting people to show up and answer them--so the content of the conversation rests in all yallz handz!

From the other thread:

I'll keep this "brief" (I always have a tendency to write really long posts, after all, and this one is probably still gonna be lengthy).

Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. The existence of God wouldn't make reality useless - much to the contrary, it would make us more aware of its purpose.

They don't have to be, but it really stretches credulity when one applies even a small degree of thought regarding timescales, biological evolution, and the size of the universe. A person who actually understands modern science has to compartmentalize a lot of thoughts to keep their faith going. Otherwise, they have to come up with a satisfactory answer for why an infinite, eternal creator being would spawn an implausibly vast, hostile universe that is slowly tearing itself apart, just so that it could focus in on one planet with a size of less than 1.0x10^(-10)^(-10)^(-10) the mass of that universe nine billion years later in order to create a single-celled organism in a manner entirely indistinguishable from natural processes and subject it and its descendents to a cruel four-billion-year-long gauntlet of suffering and death, waiting for 99.9% of the life that ever walked that tiny planet to die off, so that it could focus in on one species of ape that has only been alive for a cosmic millisecond, ignoring even those humans for no less than one hundred thousand years before deciding to make itself known to a single, mostly illiterate tribe of goat herders in the Middle East, laying down parochial edicts about its opinion on sexual relations and eating shrimp and telling everyone that they were all going to burn in an infinite prison it made for no apparent reason while lying to them about how the universe actually formed and conveniently neglecting to inform any of them about germ theory or physics, just so that it could promptly disappear and never again revisit the planet in order to subject itself to scientific study.

This is a belief that cannot be held by a rational person. It might or might not directly contradict scientific findings, but it surely has as much intellectual weight as believing in psychic powers or Russell's Teapot.

Side note: I never said that the existence of God would make reality useless. I said that, by the typical parameters of God's being, its existence would call into question the objectivity and truth value of reality. There's a large difference between those two ideas.

Science answers questions about the material world, about what lies within the limits of our understanding. But that's the point: we're limited (and we're pretty good at forgetting it!). There are questions we can't answer by ourselves. We may know the "what", but only faith can give us insight into the "why".

This is setting up an argument from ignorance. You make an unfounded implicated assumption that there IS something beyond the "material world", as you call it. There's absolutely no evidence to believe such a thing. Furthermore, things that do potentially "lie beyond our understanding" should be responded to with a hearty "I don't know". Once again, doing anything else is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Furthermore, science explains the how and the why at the same time. The why of a situation is simply the product of causality; both 'why' and 'how' are explanations for the effect that rises from a causal 'what'. What you're looking for is a relegated purpose, not an explanation--a wherefore, in order to highlight an important distinction with what would be vernacular synonyms. And you're free to make up a wherefore if you wish or subscribe to someone else's wherefore, but that's not a pathway to any objective truth. That's a pathway to making yourself feel better. Faith gives assumption and comfort, but it does not give any demonstrable insight, and it never has. It is, by definition, the belief in something without proof or evidence.

Your argument relies on the belief that science can somehow explain things, reveal the specific causes of every phenomenon; but the scientific method relies on statistical correlation, not causation. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean your explanation for it is true. For any given phenomenon, there can be an infinite number of possible explanations.

There's no reason at all to think science CAN'T explain things. It's a process explicitly designed for that exact purpose. And as a nitpick, the scientific method relies on empirical observation. Correlation is the realm of statistics, and causation is simply the result of any effect. My argument relies on the understanding that there is a universe, and that we have a framework of reasoning and observation to explain that universe. Your argument relies on the assertion that there's something else magical in that universe, and that science is somehow unable to assess that magic. It's a hypothesis called non-overlapping magisteria, and NOM a load of pseudo-intellectual hogwash.

As for "infinite numbers" of possible explanations, that's just silly. Surely, one could decree that the reason life evolves is because of leprechauns who use magic dust to change DNA, except they can't be measured by any scientific instruments. Apply Occam's Razor in this case; if there's a supported, understood, naturalistic cause for something, more extraneous natural causes are less likely, and supernatural causes are almost entirely unlikely. It is a truth, in some sense, that one cannot have a 100% certainty in scientific postulations, but the certainty of many things is so concrete and so insurmountably evidenced that it's as truthful as one can get.

For me to accept your statement, you have to demonstrate that there's any decent reason to think there's more than the observable universe, and you also need to come up with something better than science. Considering that science has a near 100% track record for making everything better and more understandable, with self-correcting mechanisms to weed out fallacy and unsupported hypotheses and a resulting plethora of detailed, ludicrously accurate information that has taken humanity from being ill-fed and diseased and dying young to a position as a spacefaring, technologically advanced superspecies that's transcended beyond gross evolutionary pressures and asserted dominance as the long-lived, well-organized conquerors of this planet in only a few hundred years, I'd say you have some pretty big shoes to fill.

In short, prove to me that there's any reason to think that there's a thing science COULDN'T explain, and then come up with a non-inductive method of studying it that provides better results than science. Until you do that, your claims have no grounding in reality.

Have you never believed something that made perfect sense to you, only to later find out it wasn't true? We're tempted to pick the simplest one, or be seduced by the one that makes the most sense, that looks the most truthful given what we know, and we call that "being rational"... but often it's just rationalizing.

Yeah. I believed Christianity for half of my life. Then I actually studied it, read it, and learned what logic was and what depths modern science has delved into. I tried desperately to rationalize it, but I had to accept that I was being disingenuous and my arguments were fallacious. I was compelled to admit that it (that is, the supernatural) was almost certainly untrue, and even if it IS true, any and all religions hold heavy burdens of proof for their extraordinary claims that none of them have ever come close to demonstrating.

But there's a difference between belief and acceptance. I assume you're suggesting that I "believe" science. I don't. I accept the findings of modern science because they ARE demonstrable and they are consistently verified and scrutinized by men and women with more qualifications than either of us. Quantum theory is an impossibly unbelievable claim; one that is neither simple or intuitive or rational. Yet the support for it is overwhelming--and overwhelmingly accurate--so much so that I must realize that things which seem nice do not hold truth value compared to things which are demonstrated. The quantum world is a perfect example of an extraordinary, seemingly magical and difficult-to-observe hypothesis for which there is astounding, unbelievable mathematical and empirical evidence far surpassing the claims made. If we can find incontrovertible evidence of virtual particles that explode in and out of existence and make up the majority of the universe, the fact that we can find no proof at all for supernatural claims is a blaring red alert.

Anyway, you're kinda missing the point. The purpose of the story of Creation isn't to explain the origin of the universe in an undeniable way, or to convince others to accept it as fact. It's not worded as a scientific essay with arguments, it's worded as a story. The point is to get you (the reader) to think of the universe in terms of Scripture and live your life accordingly. Reconciling the perceived truth with the spiritual truth is a part of that.

Frankly, this is only your assertion. I know many Christians who would disagree with you, and then they'd disagree with each other. And they'd all read Scripture differently, too. In fact, I think you're the first theist I've ever heard who states that the Bible is a mythical narrative in order to somehow support it... And by the way, people DO attempt to posit creationism as a scientific argument. There's a whole field of people who get degrees to do this. They're called apologists.

To continue: You're once again committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You do not know how the universe started (nobody does, of course, even if we have some interesting hypotheses), so you state that your God did it. You then commit the argument from personal incredulity (and to some extent the mind projection fallacy), refusing to accept that "perceived truth" may be all there is. In fact, there's nothing at all to acceptably support another worldview. So your comment about "spiritual truth" sounds, frankly, like total nonsense to me. Without demonstrating that there IS a spiritual truth, or a spiritual world, or spirits at all, any commentary regarding it holds as much intellectual weight as commentary regarding the mating rituals of forest pixies.

If you don't know something, you say you don't know. If there's no evidence for something, you don't believe it. If you want to provide evidence, it must be proportional to how extraordinary the claim is.

I don't know if there are spirits or the supernatural or God or anything of the sort, and I don't know how the universe was created. Therefore, I admit my lack of knowledge. There's no evidence for these things. Therefore, I don't believe in them. All people who have tried to provide "logical proofs" (to anyone ever, not just to me) have committed fallacy after fallacy to do so, given absolutely no legitimate, testable evidence for their claims, and even if they could find said evidence, it would need to be overwhelmingly immense and extraordinary in order to believe something as extraordinary as the God claim.

Note, of course, that I do not think less of you as a person for any of this. I did it myself for a while, and made the same sorts of arguments you're making. There's a tendency for religious people to believe that criticism against their position is actually a direct attack on their character. I don't know if you're one of these people, but I want you to know that I respect you and tolerate your beliefs, even if I find those beliefs absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...they have to come up with a satisfactory answer for why an infinite, eternal creator being would spawn an implausibly vast, hostile universe that is slowly tearing itself apart, just so that it could focus in on one planet with a size of less than 1.0x10^(-10)^(-10)^(-10)...

Why do you assume that all religionists believe that a creator would focus on only one planet?

...laying down parochial edicts about its opinion on sexual relations and eating shrimp and telling everyone that they were all going to burn in an infinite prison it made for no apparent reason while conveniently neglecting to inform any of them about germ theory or physics, just so that it could promptly disappear and never again revisit the planet in order to subject itself to scientific study...

You're conflating what ancient Hebrews wrote in the Torah and what Christians have been taught by the Church about a supposed hell. Let's keep the religions seperate, because they are quite different.

Side note: I never said that the existence of God would make reality useless. I said that, by the typical parameters of God's being, its existence would call into question the objectivity and truth value of reality. There's a large difference between those two ideas.

There really are no "typical" parameters of God's being.

There's no reason at all to think science CAN'T explain things. It's a process explicitly designed for that exact purpose.

Isn't the scientific method actually a process designed to test things? As such, it can determine if something's not likely possible, but not that it is indeed causative (or non-causative).

you have to demonstrate that there's any decent reason to think there's more than the observable universe

Wouldn't it be better stated that there's no decent reason to claim there's more than the observable universe? Anyone may think what they wish (since thought is private), but claims tend to get in other peoples' faces.

In short, prove to me that there's any reason to think that there's a thing science COULDN'T explain

That would require proving a negative.

Yeah. I believed Christianity for half of my life. Then I actually studied it

From your posts, you're an exceptionally intelligent person. I don't know how long your life is, but it's hard for me that half of it was spent believing something you hadn't studied, especially a belief system so mystery-based as Christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume that all religionists believe that a creator would focus on only one planet?

I'm not. I'm talking specifically in regards to the evangelical Christian standpoint, of which the original poster belongs to. Obviously that statement wouldn't apply to, like, Hindus or something.

You're conflating what ancient Hebrews wrote in the Torah and what Christians have been taught by the Church about a supposed hell. Let's keep the religions seperate, because they are quite different.

http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

Hell is all through the Bible, even in the OT. Or rather, the modern conflation of Gehenna and Hades is all through the Bible. It's not some Church invention like purgatory or indulgences. It wasn't really physically defined until Dante came around, of course, but Hell is certainly part of biblical theology. I do concede that in Judaism it isn't as fiercely defined, but we're looking at the whole Bible right now, which includes the Torah and the New Testament, including Revelation.

There really are no "typical" parameters of God's being.

God (the monotheistic God, anyway) is typically defined as a transcendent being; one that exists without its own creator as a form of energy that's not like normal energy. It has all knowledge and all power in the universe, is everywhere at once, and is everlasting. It is claimed by most adherents to be simultaneously infinitely just, infinitely merciful, and infinitely benevolent (things that are logically contradictory, but alas), it created the universe we're in, and it is apparently a being of divine morality.

There are other things people might tack on, but what I've listed above is a standard framework of God to just about every theist I've ever heard of, heard FROM, talked to, or read about.

Isn't the scientific method actually a process designed to test things? As such, it can determine if something's not likely possible, but not that it is indeed causative (or non-causative).

scientific_method_2.gif

In the most rudimentary detail, it's a method of observation, experimentation, and conclusion. Observation is of a fact: a 'what' of some sort. A hypothesis is formed to come up with a potential 'how'/'why' of that what, based on supporting knowledge. Data is gathered to determine if that hypothesis is correct. If it isn't, the process starts over. If it is, you have a conclusion. The conclusion is the explanation of why/how the what does what it does. It does not NEED to be causative, but that's frequently a learned consequence.

you have to demonstrate that there's any decent reason to think there's more than the observable universe

Wouldn't it be better stated that there's no decent reason to claim there's more than the observable universe? Anyone may think what they wish (since thought is private), but claims tend to get in other peoples' faces.

Absolutely agreed. I think I said that earlier, though. I'm explaining, in this sentence, what a theist has to do in order to actually prove that science is not the best we've got. Obviously the best course of action is to not make unfounded hypotheses at all, but if we're already past that, the burden of proof sets in. If a believer keeps their beliefs to themselves, they encounter no quarrel from me, but if they're implying that there's somehow MORE than science/the material universe and using that claim as a disproof of my position, they need to back it up.

In short, prove to me that there's any reason to think that there's a thing science COULDN'T explain

That would require proving a negative.

No, it wouldn't. It would require proving a supernatural event that can't be observed through science. Admittedly, this may well be a nonexistent thing, but the request to see it is not a null hypothesis. I understand why it sounds like that (and I probably should have worded my statement better), but demonstrating/revealing the existence of something that can't be observed scientifically is not a negative proof.

From your posts, you're an exceptionally intelligent person. I don't know how long your life is, but it's hard for me that half of it was spent believing something you hadn't studied, especially a belief system so mystery-based as Christianity.

Actually, Sally, I'm only 22. Half of my life puts my deconversion from theism at around the age of 11-12, when I was old enough and curious enough to pick up the book that my pastor kept reading to us every week. I was a deist for some time after that, unwittingly masquerading as a very liberal Christian (because I didn't yet know what deism was), and by the time I started studying logic, I learned more of the argument from ignorance, which is, among conversations with atheist friends, what finally pulled me from that deistic assertion.

So when I say "half of my life", I literally mean half of it, and the half not spent studying was the half where I was an indoctrinated prepubescent child. I hope that clears up any confusion! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chaos Heart

Is not debating religion entirely pointless? There is no way to definitively prove or disprove any religion. To argue something that may or may not be real, and we have no way of proving or disproving, seems rather silly, does it not? I mean, at the base of any religion, is faith. Believing, despite proof of it being 100% real. So there's no real way you can justify saying that someone is "wrong", when you yourself can't prove that you are "right".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not debating religion entirely pointless? There is no way to definitively prove or disprove any religion. To argue something that may or may not be real, and we have no way of proving or disproving, seems rather silly, does it not? I mean, at the base of any religion, is faith. Believing, despite proof of it being 100% real. So there's no real way you can justify saying that someone is "wrong", when you yourself can't prove that you are "right".

There's no way to definitively prove anything--even if you demonstrate that something cannot logically exist, it might still ILLOGICALLY exist--but people can get pretty damn close nonetheless. Just because you can't absolutely 100% prove something doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about it or set aside a place to talk about it. If people were forced to have absolute proofs in order to discuss stuff, we'd literally never get anywhere.

Although many people think they have more than just faith for whatever supernatural claims they have. If they wish to post here, they may somehow be able to convince me that their reasoning is actually sound. Or I may be able to convince them that they have unsound reasoning and bolster the atheist ranks.

In regards to "right" and "wrong": Again, you can get so close to 100% as makes no legitimate difference. But even then, ideas do not require absolute evidence in order to be altered. Whichever side is more correct in an argument is the supposed winner, not whichever side is absolutely correct. Again, we may never well discuss anything ever again if the requirement for discussion is polarized truth and untruth.

Besides, we didn't have a thread for this, and I like this topic a lot. *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and away we go!!!

...next, please...

Oh, come off it, Sally. Don't you have a sense of humor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two things on this forum that my eyes usually glaze over at the prospect of:

1. BadKarma's walls of text.

2. Walls of text about religion.

Badkarma has now combined the two and forced me to look at the result (YES YOU FUCKING DID) and now I'm blind. Someone cure my blindness. Religion, miracle it off me, Science, make me some sweet robot eyes or something. Whoever gets there first wins One Internet. GO

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two things on this forum that my eyes usually glaze over at the prospect of:

1. BadKarma's walls of text.

2. Walls of text about religion.

Badkarma has now combined the two and forced me to look at the result (YES YOU FUCKING DID) and now I'm blind. Someone cure my blindness. Religion, miracle it off me, Science, make me some sweet robot eyes or something. Whoever gets there first wins One Internet. GO

Got a hearty chuckle out of me there, Muffin. And for that, you get a Giel Seal!

TheGielSeal.jpg

Sure, you supposedly can't see any of this, but it's the thought that counts, yes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] my fave quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is an all knowing god how can you have free will if you have free will how can you have an all knowing god? an immovable object and an unstoppable force cannot exists at the same time

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Barnes

BadKarma.

i must only assume that your use of the wheel of dhamma as your avatar is a sarcastic dig at buddhism (along with your username).

  • i fully accept the findings of science as truth concerning the perceived universe as was. that is, science can prove that the human organs of perception, including mind were able to consistently verify the proven fact was true at the moment in the past at which the causation and effect occured. it CANNOT prove that the same holds true either in the present or for the future. it is impossible to 'know' anything except the past.
  • scientific fact, however, is really only ever hypothesis, however strongly supported by evidence. we have no way to know if there may be more to a truth than we currently know or know how to measure and we are limited to our 6 methods of perception. for instance, it was scientific 'fact' that nothing can travel faster than light. until.... , the science of zoology used to state as fact that we were the only 'toolmaker' and posited this as a reason for our excelerated evolution. that is, until we observed other animals making tools!
  • i have of course intentionally stumbled into the controversial subject of evolution/creation. as a buddhist, i don't 'believe' in any god, and certainly, i don't belief in any creation. the entire concept of beginning/ending in the ultimate sense is sheer nonsense to me. but i stress - to me -. i generally subscribe to the evolution theory (note - theory) but i also do see holes i the theory that could be covered by the theory of intelligent design. with some caveats though. most proponents of intelligent design begin from the position that there is, therefore, a designer. here i part company. i do think there could be an intelligence doing some designing and using the process of evolution as the main method of creating it's design, but i think the intelligence is inherent within everything. just as it might be said that a plant has a ceertain level of 'intelligence' guiding it's growth, reaction to stimuli etc, so i would hazard that 'everything' is a unified whole, within which there is an intelligence. as this 'intelligence' would be operating beyond the sensitivities of our perception, we can only ever wonder at the activities and existence of this 'intelligence'.
  • i stated earlier that i don't 'believe' in any god. this doesn't mean that i don't accept the existence of gods, and indeed goddesses, avatars, devas and all many of non-material/physical entities. from the position wherein all thoughts are equally causative/reactive/real as physical realities, i am happy to accept that anyone's conception of a diety or any other thoughtform is indeed very real, not just to them, but to anyone else who perceives the same as real. you see, everything is perception, and that is all there is. all are equally valid.
  • i KNOW the various conditions and stats that i experience (perceive) in meditation, for instance. if your avatar badkarma does imply an interest in buddhism, i wonder if you too meditate and if so, what you have experienced when sitting. can you 'prove' any of this? you don't need to in order to know that it is 'true'. that is not to say that the same effect would be true for everybody and for sure, the actual experience would be different for all who used the same practice technique, but it would be no less true for you.
  • i would refer you to Plato's discussion of 'forms' and his distinction between opinion and truth. everything that can be perceived (including things perceived through science, as science can only be perceived) is necessarily opinion, and therefore falls short of truth. truth, by it's very nature can never be proven, and therefore will always be a matter of belief!

as an aside. it is very difficult to ask for a fair, open and frank discussion on matters of religion/belief and then set out a list of conditions based entirely on a scientific bias and position. to dictate that if something must be relinquished because it has been shown to be 'untrue' using scientific methodology is crass and disrespectful of all those that do not subscribe to such methodology. suggest you delete the 'rules' and reframe your thoughts of how you 'think' the thread should progress. last time i looked, no-one can dictate how a thread is conducted beyond complaint to the moderators!

Link to post
Share on other sites

as an aside. it is very difficult to ask for a fair, open and frank discussion on matters of religion/belief and then set out a list of conditions based entirely on a scientific bias and position. to dictate that if something must be relinquished because it has been shown to be 'untrue' using scientific methodology is crass and disrespectful of all those that do not subscribe to such methodology. suggest you delete the 'rules' and reframe your thoughts of how you 'think' the thread should progress. last time i looked, no-one can dictate how a thread is conducted beyond complaint to the moderators!

I see them more as guidelines than anything else. While naturally they cannot be enforced*, they are a really good idea to follow. I don't understand the scientific bias or position on them. If you just put forth some claim and expect it to not withstand scrutiny in this thread, maybe you should stay away.

*Except the part about personal attacks, obviously. Don't do it.

-----------

Anyway, question to those who are agnostic in regards to deities, more specifically on the basis of that they cannot be proven or disproven. Cats cannot be proven or disproven either, right? Would you call yourself agnostic in regards to cats?

If yes, while an intriguing concept in its own right, it also means agnosticism is wholly meaningless in that it can be applied to anything and everything.

If no, why do deities get special consideration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't cats be proven or disproven?

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't cats be proven or disproven?

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Does sound like his style.

Isn't that essentially just Descartes' Demon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BadKarma.

i must only assume that your use of the wheel of dhamma as your avatar is a sarcastic dig at buddhism (along with your username).

  • i fully accept the findings of science as truth concerning the perceived universe as was. that is, science can prove that the human organs of perception, including mind were able to consistently verify the proven fact was true at the moment in the past at which the causation and effect occured. it CANNOT prove that the same holds true either in the present or for the future. it is impossible to 'know' anything except the past.
  • scientific fact, however, is really only ever hypothesis, however strongly supported by evidence. we have no way to know if there may be more to a truth than we currently know or know how to measure and we are limited to our 6 methods of perception. for instance, it was scientific 'fact' that nothing can travel faster than light. until.... , the science of zoology used to state as fact that we were the only 'toolmaker' and posited this as a reason for our excelerated evolution. that is, until we observed other animals making tools!
  • i have of course intentionally stumbled into the controversial subject of evolution/creation. as a buddhist, i don't 'believe' in any god, and certainly, i don't belief in any creation. the entire concept of beginning/ending in the ultimate sense is sheer nonsense to me. but i stress - to me -. i generally subscribe to the evolution theory (note - theory) but i also do see holes i the theory that could be covered by the theory of intelligent design. with some caveats though. most proponents of intelligent design begin from the position that there is, therefore, a designer. here i part company. i do think there could be an intelligence doing some designing and using the process of evolution as the main method of creating it's design, but i think the intelligence is inherent within everything. just as it might be said that a plant has a ceertain level of 'intelligence' guiding it's growth, reaction to stimuli etc, so i would hazard that 'everything' is a unified whole, within which there is an intelligence. as this 'intelligence' would be operating beyond the sensitivities of our perception, we can only ever wonder at the activities and existence of this 'intelligence'.
  • i stated earlier that i don't 'believe' in any god. this doesn't mean that i don't accept the existence of gods, and indeed goddesses, avatars, devas and all many of non-material/physical entities. from the position wherein all thoughts are equally causative/reactive/real as physical realities, i am happy to accept that anyone's conception of a diety or any other thoughtform is indeed very real, not just to them, but to anyone else who perceives the same as real. you see, everything is perception, and that is all there is. all are equally valid.
  • i KNOW the various conditions and stats that i experience (perceive) in meditation, for instance. if your avatar badkarma does imply an interest in buddhism, i wonder if you too meditate and if so, what you have experienced when sitting. can you 'prove' any of this? you don't need to in order to know that it is 'true'. that is not to say that the same effect would be true for everybody and for sure, the actual experience would be different for all who used the same practice technique, but it would be no less true for you.
  • i would refer you to Plato's discussion of 'forms' and his distinction between opinion and truth. everything that can be perceived (including things perceived through science, as science can only be perceived) is necessarily opinion, and therefore falls short of truth. truth, by it's very nature can never be proven, and therefore will always be a matter of belief!

as an aside. it is very difficult to ask for a fair, open and frank discussion on matters of religion/belief and then set out a list of conditions based entirely on a scientific bias and position. to dictate that if something must be relinquished because it has been shown to be 'untrue' using scientific methodology is crass and disrespectful of all those that do not subscribe to such methodology. suggest you delete the 'rules' and reframe your thoughts of how you 'think' the thread should progress. last time i looked, no-one can dictate how a thread is conducted beyond complaint to the moderators!

1. No, actually. I consider myself a Zen Buddhist in a loose philosophical sense. I reject any spiritual aspects of it as unfounded, but Buddhism still has a pretty neat philosophy.

2. Regarding scientific truths: One should have a good reason to believe that explanations of the past will somehow not be relevant in the future.

3. You misunderstand terminology. A scientific fact is something that is clearly observable and non-specific. It is a scientific fact that light exists. A scientific theory is a framework of observations and results used to gain insight into a scientific fact. Relativity is a scientific theory, and it can be altered or outright refuted (and if you're discussing the faster-than-normal-light neutrino, note that neutrinos are also massless particles, and that they do not violate any relativistic understandings).

Likewise, it is not a scientific fact that humans are the only toolmakers (although it is a fact that they are toolmakers, it's never been a fact that they can be or are the only ones), and such an observation had nothing to do with "accelerated evolution", which makes little sense from a biological perspective. We're just as evolved as any other organism currently on this planet. Believing that we're more advanced simply because we have technological prowess is an example of the anthropic principle.

4. Intelligent design is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. A theory, like I said, is a framework of observations and results. ID has none of this. And even if there are "large holes in the theory", it is both an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy to jump to the conclusion that ID can answer those things. I'm glad you don't jump all the way to the assertion that there is a designerless designer (lolinfiniteregression), but you're equivocating chemistry with intelligence. Intelligence is being able to do something that you're capable of doing. Chemistry is doing something that you're programmed to do. Even humans are ruled by instinct and chemistry, but we can break free of those shackles. A planet photosynthesizing, however, is not intelligent. It's an organism without a shred of intelligence that's developed in a way that it's chemically compelled to do that. I take note of your single quotations regarding usage of that word and assume it means that you realize the difference between biological processes and abstract reasoning, but if you do, there's no reason to call it intelligence. Life is astoundingly awesome and brilliantly developed, but almost none of it could pass as intelligent.

5. When I meditate, I feel peaceful and euphoric. It occasionally gives me what I consider to be a great sense of insight or power, and it makes my body tingle. And yes, I can explain the entire thing through neuroscience (well, I personally can't because I'm not a neuroscientist, but there ARE perfectly good explanations for all of it). Mental states are well-observed neurological phenomena. I can't actually prove to another person my own subjective experience, but I can understand how that subjective experience came about without believing that it's actually my enlightened spirit.

6. Yes, I've read Plato. No, I don't accept his analysis. While one cannot know with 100% certainty any thing, separate, clear methods of mostly objective observation regarding a natural phenomenon can provide an understanding of that phenomenon so accurate that it makes no noticeable difference. If we measure that light is being red-shifted in the universe, and that galaxies are moving out in all directions, this is not something that can be "100% proven". But it is something for which there is overwhelming, independently verified, consistently demonstrable evidence of such a magnitude that only a lunatic could say "No, the galaxies are moving closer to us." They may somehow be correct, but reason and observation tells us that this most certainly is not so.

Most importantly, 7. How is my list "scientifically biased"? It's logically/rationally biased, perhaps, but I see nothing scientifically biased in there.

1. Be ready for criticism.

2. Don't get angry or bitter.

3. Don't use false premises to prove other statements.

4. Do not shift the burden of proof.

5. Don't use ad hominems.

6. Calling out fallacies is fun. Using them is not.

7. Don't declare and leave. It's a waste of space.

8. We can all be wrong. If proven wrong, don't be ashamed to admit it and adjust accordingly. That's a hallmark of a rational mind.

9. The only one of the Ten Commandments that I thought was actually pretty good.

10. Have fun.

Again, how is this scientifically biased? The only thing it does is set up a playing field where people can't attack each other or use fallacious reasoning. I've already demonstrated why it's not an honest endeavor to subscribe to the argument of Non-overlapping magisteria, and showing a person that something they think has a good or better explanation through naturalistic understanding is not somehow a bias. And these rules also apply to me; if someone can demonstrate that there's a clearer way of looking at the world and points out that my position is fallacious, then I'm perfectly willing to "convert", if you will.

Furthermore, I meant that in terms of admitting wrongness of a certain claim or misunderstanding. I didn't mean it in terms of admitting that one's entire religion is somehow wrong just because one of their assertions is shown to be so. If their entire religion somehow rested on the truth value OF that particular assertion, that would be a different matter, but people usually have quite a few aspects to their varied beliefs.

All the list does, frankly, is make it clear that people shouldn't argue false things or commit obvious fallacies of logic. If this is somehow supremely biased against the illogical, then that's unfortunate for people who can't abide by confines of rational discourse. They should, perhaps, not come into the thread in such a case.

And it's also just a guideline of mine... I obviously can't regulate what people say in here; I'm just asking them to be intellectually honest. Whether or not someone actually complies is entirely up to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see them more as guidelines than anything else. While naturally they cannot be enforced*, they are a really good idea to follow. I don't understand the scientific bias or position on them. If you just put forth some claim and expect it to not withstand scrutiny in this thread, maybe you should stay away.

*Except the part about personal attacks, obviously. Don't do it.

-----------

Anyway, question to those who are agnostic in regards to deities, more specifically on the basis of that they cannot be proven or disproven. Cats cannot be proven or disproven either, right? Would you call yourself agnostic in regards to cats?

If yes, while an intriguing concept in its own right, it also means agnosticism is wholly meaningless in that it can be applied to anything and everything.

If no, why do deities get special consideration?

Nice new name, Henny.

First of all, thank you for your response as well. I'm glad that not everyone thinks I'm setting up unfair rules of discourse! Also, I keep being reminded of this:

Second, regarding agnostics: I am not one, except in the most basic sense that I'm necessarily agnostic about all of the universe (0.000001% agnostic, but agnostic nonetheless). It's simply a position that something cannot be fully known. In that sense, I don't see it as being a meaningless position, just because it could be applied to everything. Reason tells one that when someone has extremely good evidence for the existence of something (cats), it's more probably existent than something for which there is no evidence at all (deities), but that does not mean that you cannot be agnostic regarding both. It's more of a "sliding scale of purposeful unknowing" than it is a hardline, well-defined position.

Sliding scale of agnosticism, applied to a deity:

1. Gnostic theism- I know there is a God.

2. Strong agnostic theism- I don't know if there is a God, but I think it probably exists and I will believe in it.

3. Weak agnostic theism- I don't know if there is a God, but I think it has a better chance of existing than not existing, and I will believe in it.

4. Middle-line agnosticism- I don't know if there is a God or not. It might exist or might not. The probability is 50/50.

5. Weak agnostic atheism- I don't know if there is a God, and it seems more likely that it doesn't exist, and I won't believe in it.

6. Strong agnostic atheism- I don't know if there is a God, but it's almost certainly not the case. I won't believe in it.

7. Gnostic atheism- I know there is no God.

I find 1 and 7 to both be indefensible. Even if one can logically conclude that there are not certain TYPES of deities, they can't conclude that it's impossible to have ANY type of one, especially if it's a deistic or a pantheistic God.

4 is wishy-washy. There's enough understanding of the claim to go one way or the other. A skeptic will usually sit around the 6-6.5 range, giving any claim only the most basic necessarily truth consideration before asking for evidence to believe it. If evidence is presented, they can move toward gnostic "whatever". In the case of cats, there's a lot of evidence to believe that cats exist. There's not enough to conclude with absolute certainty that they do, but it's some 99.999999% probable that they do exist. A person should therefore never say that there HAVE to be cats, but they can say that reason compels them to think that there are. They can simultaneously be a 1.1 agnostic regarding cats and a 6.9 agnostic regarding Gods, and still be called "agnostic" for both.

Although I do believe that your last sentence is quite good, and it should be considered by moderate agnostics. My best response to this is that one can be agnostic and still believe in something; they just have to think that the thing they're believing in is inherently unknowable. I don't think this is a good intellectual position to take, but it happens nonetheless.

I think that the only reason gods get special consideration because they are unfalsifiable, extraordinary claims with extraordinary implications, and thus cannot be rationally believed OR rationally discounted. We're all probably agnostics regarding intangible flying unicorns, but the existence of invisible, untouchable unicorns would not fundamentally change everything about our lives and how we live them. The existence of a god or gods probably would (unless it was a deistic God, in which case it hasn't been around for quite some time). Because the question of a deity's existence is something so universal within all human culture, I think it also gets some special consideration just because of how important it is to people and how many people actually do believe it. We're all agnostic aunicornists, but there aren't very many gnostic unicornists in the world. There ARE a lot of gnostic theists (particularly monotheists, at this point in human history), and so they get a larger deal of attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't cats be proven or disproven?

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Does sound like his style.

Isn't that essentially just Descartes' Demon?

Haven't heard about that one before, but sounds pretty similar. What about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and away we go!!!

...next, please...

Oh, come off it, Sally. Don't you have a sense of humor?

"Next please" in the US is a joking reference to asking people to come forward.

An unnecessary invitation, since there's been a rush of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't cats be proven or disproven?

Loki, the Norse god of trickery, could be duping you into thinking there is evidence for cats.

Does sound like his style.

Isn't that essentially just Descartes' Demon?

Cats exist in a constant state of either existing or non-existing.

Also something about buttered toast being strapped to their backs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you assume that all religionists believe that a creator would focus on only one planet?

I'm not. I'm talking specifically in regards to the evangelical Christian standpoint, of which the original poster belongs to. Obviously that statement wouldn't apply to, like, Hindus or something.

The Torah's Genesis stories (there are two of them) don't really specify that there is only one planet; they simply describe the creation and population of one specific planet. You don't need to go to non-monotheistic religions to conceive more than one world.

Hell is all through the Bible, even in the OT. Or rather, the modern conflation of Gehenna and Hades is all through the Bible. It's not some Church invention like purgatory or indulgences. It wasn't really physically defined until Dante came around, of course, but Hell is certainly part of biblical theology.

Hell, as we know it, is really a Christian concept (Dante was, of course, Catholic). Gehenna does not mean a destination after death; there was an actual physical location called Gehinnom which symbolized a non-physical state, but it had nothing to do with the Christian hell.

God (the monotheistic God, anyway)

One of the troubles with most religion threads on AVEN (and perhaps anywhere else, but I don't frequent other sites) is that the discourse immediately turns to Christianity's concept of a God. If anyone wants to talk about multiple gods, or different god concepts, they have to derail the thread. Then atheists chime in, so you have a dualism with people fighting over the basic concept of a supernatural being and no supernatural being. That's not debating or discussing religion; it's just a fight between opposing views.

Actually, Sally, I'm only 22. Half of my life puts my deconversion from theism at around the age of 11-12, when I was old enough and curious enough to pick up the book that my pastor kept reading to us every week. I was a deist for some time after that, unwittingly masquerading as a very liberal Christian (because I didn't yet know what deism was), and by the time I started studying logic, I learned more of the argument from ignorance, which is, among conversations with atheist friends, what finally pulled me from that deistic assertion.

Which kind of illustrates what I said above: you were living within fundamentalist deism when you were a child, and now you've seen the (logical) light. It's the typical perspective of a convert (I don't mean typical as being patronizing, but I know a number of converts and there are common threads in their attitudes toward religion). It really doesn't matter to what you have converted; there's still the attitude that those who reside in/move into the territory you've abandoned, for whatever reason, are deluding themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torah's Genesis stories (there are two of them) don't really specify that there is only one planet; they simply describe the creation and population of one specific planet. You don't need to go to non-monotheistic religions to conceive more than one world.

I gotta get to work here, so I'll make this post "brief". Maybe.

Yes, I know there are two Genesis stories (which is hilarious, btw). And they don't absolutely specify that there is only one planet. But again, this stretches credulity past its breaking point when one considers that there are not only other worlds, but that there are hundreds of trillions of other worlds, especially when the deity in the story makes it seem like Earth is a special place.

Hell, as we know it, is really a Christian concept (Dante was, of course, Catholic). Gehenna does not mean a destination after death; there was an actual physical location called Gehinnom which symbolized a non-physical state, but it had nothing to do with the Christian hell.

Emphatically disagreed. I'm strapped for time and therefore will save any in-depth argumentation for later, but while "Hell" isn't as purportedly severe in Judaism, it's still there (with a variety of different definitions, admittedly). And even if Hell is only a place where someone stays for only five years without any real torture, that's still an unreasonable punishment for the comparative "sins" it's punishing. Even if I removed the entire statement about Hell, my run-on sentence retains its value. A deity without a Hell is still a deity that should have good reason for all those other things.

Nevertheless, I must once again point out that I was talking to an evangelical Christian, not an orthodox Jew. If it was the latter, then my statement would have been different.

One of the troubles with most religion threads on AVEN (and perhaps anywhere else, but I don't frequent other sites) is that the discourse immediately turns to Christianity's concept of a God. If anyone wants to talk about multiple gods, or different god concepts, they have to derail the thread. Then atheists chime in, so you have a dualism with people fighting over the basic concept of a supernatural being and no supernatural being. That's not debating or discussing religion; it's just a fight between opposing views.

I can definitely agree with you here. Monotheistic religions have a monopoly on much of the non-Indian world, but that doesn't mean that they're the only ones. But I only talk about Christianity's concept of a God because there are many Christians here. I'm just as ready to talk about Indian polytheism (perhaps not as well-read on the subject, but definitely well-read enough to hold a conversation), and I'm ready to talk about Buddhism or Shinto or neopaganism or the like. I'm discussing whatever comes up in the conversation; if someone wants me to start talking about Greek polytheism, I'm perfectly fine with that. If they want me to discuss New Age crystal magic, I'm ready to discuss that, too.

Which kind of illustrates what I said above: you were living within fundamentalist deism when you were a child, and now you've seen the (logical) light. It's the typical perspective of a convert (I don't mean typical as being patronizing, but I know a number of converts and there are common threads in their attitudes toward religion). It really doesn't matter to what you have converted; there's still the attitude that those who reside in/move into the territory you've abandoned, for whatever reason, are deluding themselves.

It wasn't fundamentalism, actually (and deism is not the same thing as theism; I'm unaware of "fundamentalist deism"). It was Presbyterianism. If I had been stuck in a fundamentalist environment, I'd probably be a lot more caustic than I am now.

But I must stress that if someone can properly demonstrate their belief, then I won't have any reason to call it a delusion, because, well, they've demonstrated it. I'll make it perfectly clear that I think every single supernatural belief on this planet is a delusion because I have yet to be presented with any remotely good reason to think otherwise, but that does not mean that I can't change my mind. Perhaps someone in this thread may fundamentally alter my entire worldview; I neither fear or reject the possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torah's Genesis stories (there are two of them) don't really specify that there is only one planet; they simply describe the creation and population of one specific planet. You don't need to go to non-monotheistic religions to conceive more than one world.

Yes, I know there are two Genesis stories (which is hilarious, btw).

It is indeed. We Reform Jews are amused each year when we read Genesis. But we regard the Torah as written by humans, not God, and since it's a Jewish document and Jews (even back then) have a tendency to argue, those two documents are enshrined in the very-Jewish Torah.

And they don't absolutely specify that there is only one planet. But again, this stretches credulity past its breaking point when one considers that there are not only other worlds, but that there are hundreds of trillions of other worlds, especially when the deity in the story makes it seem like Earth is a special place.
Maybe as a Reform Jew, or maybe simply as me, it doesn't stretch credulity at all for me, or for other Reform Jews I know.
but while "Hell" isn't as purportedly severe in Judaism, it's still there (with a variety of different definitions, admittedly).

Not only purportedly, it's simply a different animal from hell in Christianity: it's not hell. Maybe you have to trust someone of a particular religion to know what they're talking about there. I'm not an authority on the Christian hell; that's your territory as someone who experienced Christianity. I do know Judaism.

But I must stress that if someone can properly demonstrate their belief, then I won't have any reason to call it a delusion

You don't demonstrate belief, you state it. Belief can't be proven; God can't be proven. You may continue calling all religious beliefs delusionary with compunction; that doesn't mean that those beliefs don't exist within the people who hold them. That's the only thing that's relevant. So maybe I'm saying that a debate is useless.

I'm reminded of the "debates" that were held in the Middle Ages, when Catholic religious authorities forced rabbis to debate them, with the result that you can guess (who held the power?). That's certainly not a perfect analogy between atheists debating religionists, because in this situation the religionists (in my case, the Jew; in others, other faiths) aren't going to be punished/killed by the atheists after the debate, and you as an atheist aren't forcing us to debate. But it's still useless, because you cannot expunge our belif by logic, and we are not (or at least I am not) interested in trying to convert you to deism or theism (your choice).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Sally, I'm only 22. Half of my life puts my deconversion from theism at around the age of 11-12, when I was old enough and curious enough to pick up the book that my pastor kept reading to us every week. I was a deist for some time after that, unwittingly masquerading as a very liberal Christian (because I didn't yet know what deism was), and by the time I started studying logic, I learned more of the argument from ignorance, which is, among conversations with atheist friends, what finally pulled me from that deistic assertion.

Which kind of illustrates what I said above: you were living within fundamentalist deism when you were a child, and now you've seen the (logical) light. It's the typical perspective of a convert (I don't mean typical as being patronizing, but I know a number of converts and there are common threads in their attitudes toward religion). It really doesn't matter to what you have converted; there's still the attitude that those who reside in/move into the territory you've abandoned, for whatever reason, are deluding themselves.

Actually i don't see BadKarma's perspective as being a convert. I hold many same opinions as he, and my family is and has always been culturally christian agnostics. And even when i was religious i was in no way fundamentalist (When i deconverted and told about ti to people they usually said they had thought i was already an atheist).

And yes, people believing in religions are deluding themselves. Just as crazy people believing they're Napoleon are delusional. That's just a matter of fact (And yes, i know, absolute truths exist only in mathematics).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, people believing in religions are deluding themselves. Just as crazy people believing they're Napoleon are delusional. That's just a matter of fact (And yes, i know, absolute truths exist only in mathematics).

People don't believe in religions. Religions are simply the collections of beliefs that people hold.

On what evidence do you base your statement of "fact"? Why are religionists deluding themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, people believing in religions are deluding themselves. Just as crazy people believing they're Napoleon are delusional. That's just a matter of fact (And yes, i know, absolute truths exist only in mathematics).

People don't believe in religions. Religions are simply the collections of beliefs that people hold.

True, my mistake.

On what evidence do you base your statement of "fact"? Why are religionists deluding themselves?

delusion (plural delusions)

—A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

belief (plural beliefs)

—Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.

So not all beliefs are delusions but all delusions are beliefs. Many (I'd say all but then someone would propably answer with information about some obscure religion that this doesn't apply to) religions make testable claims of reality (Eg. history, miracles, etc...), many of which (Eg. miracles and many claims different religions make about history) are demonstrably false, and, therefore, delusions.

EDIT: Please note that this doesn't mean that i'm against religions in general. I think people are free to believe whatever they want, as long as they themselves recognise that they're (very propably) delusional.

EDIT2: And the source of the definitions is Wiktionary. Sorry about the lack of a better source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain (truly, I'm not) whether any religious belief can be tested. There's no test for the existence or non-existence of God, especially since there are innumerable concepts of what God consists of. There's no test for whether miracles happened or not, because those events are in the past (thousands or years or even weeks) and if someone feels that an occurrence of nature is a miracle, how can you prove that isn't the case?

I believe that God inspired a certain group of humans to produce a series of behavioral laws which have shown subsequent human beings how best to live on the earth in community together. How can you disprove that? I don't believe that God takes particular interest in every single moment of every single life; we've got the instruction book (the Torah for Jews) and we've got brains, so we should do the best we can. Others believe in a personal God. How can you prove any of that?

We're dealing with beliefs, which an emotional constructs, not factual constructs. Delusions, to me, indicate a disordered state of mind -- they're most often connected with schizophrenia. Some untreated schizophrenia manifests in religious delusions that result in disturbing behavior. Religious belief doesn't always do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Long day at work... Glad to come back and argue on the internet!

It is indeed. We Reform Jews are amused each year when we read Genesis. But we regard the Torah as written by humans, not God, and since it's a Jewish document and Jews (even back then) have a tendency to argue, those two documents are enshrined in the very-Jewish Torah.

Admitting it is human-written is always a good thing. If there's something I can appreciate about most of the Jews I talk to, it's that few of them try to pull that "infallible word of the Lord" crap.

Maybe as a Reform Jew, or maybe simply as me, it doesn't stretch credulity at all for me, or for other Reform Jews I know.

It probably should. Being in a universe like this is certainly an improbable feat (of course, the laws of this particular universe are such that we--that is, intelligent conversational beings--were figuratively "compelled" to exist at some point). But being in that universe and supposing that it was made by a deity who, well, acted like I said earlier should raise some flags. I will list out my points of contention later, if you wish, but I allow you to ask for that instead of having me just ramble about it.

Not only purportedly, it's simply a different animal from hell in Christianity: it's not hell. Maybe you have to trust someone of a particular religion to know what they're talking about there. I'm not an authority on the Christian hell; that's your territory as someone who experienced Christianity. I do know Judaism.

I've been reading the wrong Judaism. ;) Of course, I will certainly cede this particular part of the argument to you. You do, in fact, likely know the intricacies of your religion better than I, as my perception of any biblical reference to anything "hellish" is already polluted by confirmation bias.

You don't demonstrate belief, you state it. Belief can't be proven; God can't be proven. You may continue calling all religious beliefs delusionary with compunction; that doesn't mean that those beliefs don't exist within the people who hold them. That's the only thing that's relevant. So maybe I'm saying that a debate is useless.

I'm reminded of the "debates" that were held in the Middle Ages, when Catholic religious authorities forced rabbis to debate them, with the result that you can guess (who held the power?). That's certainly not a perfect analogy between atheists debating religionists, because in this situation the religionists (in my case, the Jew; in others, other faiths) aren't going to be punished/killed by the atheists after the debate, and you as an atheist aren't forcing us to debate. But it's still useless, because you cannot expunge our belif by logic, and we are not (or at least I am not) interested in trying to convert you to deism or theism (your choice).

I'll answer the second paragraph first. I do appreciate that you can realize the distinct differences between such an analogy; otherwise we may have had a bit of a scuffle there. That being said, I CAN expunge some peoples' beliefs with logic (I've done it before quite a few times). Whether or not I can convince you is one thing, but something I notice with your argumentation is that you assume other people approach faith like you do. In fact, you approach the idea much like my mother; she fully admits to me that her beliefs are illogical, but that she wants them anyway, and because they are so benign in nature, I do not have much issue with that. Arguments like this, I find, actually give the most benefit to people on the fence. The arguers are likely quite entrenched in their mindsets, but there are bystanders who may read any particular post from any of us and have their worldview changed (in any particular matter, not just to my "material naturalist" side).

Now for the first paragraph.

A. there ARE types of beliefs that can be demonstrated. Religious ones are not such beliefs in my experience, but I hold out the possibility that I may yet be given a demonstration.

B. God could also be easily proven, if it just showed up in a manner that couldn't be written off as subjective hysteria. It just needs to manifest in front of a physicist somewhere so that they can determine that it's made out of an entirely as-of-yet-unknown material.

C. Delusional, not delusionary. Just saying.

D. I'd like to think that there are people who care whether their beliefs are true, not whether their beliefs are sincere. I do not doubt in the slightest that a person who believes in something supernatural doesn't hold it earnestly, but there are most certainly people who think it's more relevant if what they think is compatible with what actually is. You may not be one of these people, and I accept that. But your approach to supernatural belief is not a universal one.

And yes, people believing in religions are deluding themselves. Just as crazy people believing they're Napoleon are delusional. That's just a matter of fact (And yes, i know, absolute truths exist only in mathematics).

Minor contention here, Human. People with religious beliefs MIGHT be deluding themselves. If the possibility of God exists, the possibility that it's a God which only manifests subjectively also exists. This is a God that cannot be accepted by rationalists, but it's still a potential form of God. It is my personal assertion that all people with supernatural/religious beliefs should be treated as delusional until one of them gives good reason otherwise, but that doesn't actually mean they are.

On what evidence do you base your statement of "fact"? Why are religionists deluding themselves?

Human already answered this, but I feel like giving my spin on things.

Delusion (taken from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary):

1. A conception or image created by the imagination and having no objective reality.

2. A false idea or belief.

Since there seems to be no objective evidence whatsoever for any sort of supernatural beliefs, and since supernatural beliefs are (to be frank and potentially insulting) appeals to magic, Occam's Razor comes into view. Is it more likely that any particular situation was influenced by or caused by magical agents, or is it more likely that a person who thinks that is deluding themselves?

Again, it is possible that any one supernatural belief (or in some weird universe where dichotonomies don't exist, every supernatural belief) is actually true, and that people who believe it are therefore not erroneous and/or not imagining things. But the onus is on a claimant to demonstrate their claim. If presented with the legitimate dichotomy that either magic exists and a person is able to notice it, or magic DOESN'T exist and that person is deluded, an observer should take the null stance and assume magic doesn't exist (and therefore all magic believers are deluded) until shown otherwise.

I'm not certain (truly, I'm not) whether any religious belief can be tested. There's no test for the existence or non-existence of God, especially since there are innumerable concepts of what God consists of. There's no test for whether miracles happened or not, because those events are in the past (thousands or years or even weeks) and if someone feels that an occurrence of nature is a miracle, how can you prove that isn't the case?

There are definitely ways to determine if something that exists is most likely God. The demonstration that such a being would have to make would need to be extraordinary, but if it's God, it could do just such a thing. And then it could, as I said earlier, subject itself to scientific study and allow those scientists to conclude that there is no known naturalistic explanation for its demonstration, nor is it made of any known material in the universe. This could not conclusively prove that the thing sitting there is God, but it would certainly be pretty convincing.

As for miracles, a miracle is commonly defined as a suspension of the natural order. All one would need to demonstrate is that something in nature is, in fact, in nature for it to no longer be defined as miraculous. And note that occurrences which are highly improbable are not miraculous. They may not happen often (maybe even just once in the entire history of the universe), but if there's reason to believe that that single occurrence was, in fact, part of nature, then it was simply really improbable.

That is, abiogenesis is not a miracle. It is something that's only happened once on Earth, and it happened long ago, and it might not have happened anywhere else, but conditions within nature exist for it to be explained scientifically, and modern testing has clearly demonstrated that it can (not necessarily that it does, but that it can) have a perfectly non-supernatural explanation. A talking elephant IS a miracle. Elephants do not have the necessarily biological implements to form any sort of human speech, so even if they're smart enough to understand words, they can't possibly ever speak those words. If an elephant starts speaking in a known language, then the natural order has been suspended.

Note here that abiogenesis is what caused organic, replicating matter to arise from non-replicating matter and form all life on Earth, and it is therefore FAR more impressive than a simple talking elephant. I did this on purpose to show that a miracle doesn't necessarily need to be something really amazing. It just needs to be something for which there's no possible natural explanation, even if it's infinitely more mundane than a rare, yet still naturalistic, phenomenon.

I believe that God inspired a certain group of humans to produce a series of behavioral laws which have shown subsequent human beings how best to live on the earth in community together. How can you disprove that? I don't believe that God takes particular interest in every single moment of every single life; we've got the instruction book (the Torah for Jews) and we've got brains, so we should do the best we can. Others believe in a personal God. How can you prove any of that?

THAT is proving a negative. But it's something that can sorta be done. One must simply demonstrate that those behavioral laws are not the best ones, nor are they the basis for modern laws, and that other law systems made entirely by humans are better than the Mitzvot.

My first statement regards the Code of Hammurabi, which came before the Old Testament from the hands of an obviously non-Jewish leader, and the law code is much more in line with modern secularism than the Mitzvot is. It is the first known code to include the presumption of innocence in court, all individual decrees have variable punishments, and it includes aspects of governmental regulation instead of assuming a Might Makes Right philosophy.

My second regards how secularism functions. Most sane people can clearly see that moral absolutism is unacceptable, but if the alternatives to that are moral relativism and amorality, then how does one go about making a "moral society"? The answer is discussion--cost and effect comparisons for each aspect of social behavior--that seeks to understand how best to let humans live together. The most progressive and egalitarian societies currently on the planet exist in Europe (primarily in Scandinavia), where a majority of citizens are non-theists. Religious beliefs are entirely separated from political discourse and kept out of moral discussions, and those places are objectively more awesome than anyone else on the planet can hope to be. If God had inspired that group of humans, it would have inspired them in a way that promoted human rights, conversation, skepticism, and tolerance. As one can clearly see by reading the Jewish Law, that didn't really work. I'm not saying that the Mitzvot is just terrible in every possible way, because it's not. But it's not very good, either, when compared to modern law systems that ARE very good.

The rest of that statement will find little argumentation from me. If your God is a non-interventionist, then it's a God I can at least somewhat respect, even if I still don't think it exists. The sort of God that steps away and lets people do their own thing is the closest to a "benevolent creator" as I can personally imagine; theodicy still exists, and I've yet to figure out a rationalization that makes any sort of theistic deity omnibenevolent, but the laissez-faire interpretation of it is at least an interpretation that doesn't lead to "divine declaration" and subsequent genocides.

We're dealing with beliefs, which an emotional constructs, not factual constructs. Delusions, to me, indicate a disordered state of mind -- they're most often connected with schizophrenia. Some untreated schizophrenia manifests in religious delusions that result in disturbing behavior. Religious belief doesn't always do so.

I'd argue that it does. I realize this is likely going to sound offensive, and I don't really have a way to cushion it any more than I currently am...

People who believe in the supernatural DO have a disordered state of mind. They have minds, as you just said yourself, that run on emotions and unfounded beliefs while rejecting facts and logic. They think, universally (and by that, I mean anyone who thinks ANYTHING supernatural, not just monotheists), that some sort of magic is influencing the world, except it can't be tested or objectively observed or proven, but it can really be felt by the believer. They all commit one logical fallacy or another, occasionally ignore known science to perpetuate their beliefs, and when presented with reasoning for not jumping to supernatural conclusions, they say that faith/personal belief trumps reason. If that's not a definition of a disordered mind, I literally do not know what is.

I'm not saying that anyone who adheres to the supernatural is insane, and they may NOT be deluded because that magic of theirs might actually exist somehow. But to any outside observer, such behavior is indistinguishable from delusion.

Now, I want to say something else here. This thread does not need to be about disproving religions/supernatural claims (or proving them). We can discuss the aspects of any particular claim instead, do comparative analyses, and the like. I'm sure that it will probably fall back into that proof/disproof rut, but we aren't obligated to be stuck in it. Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...