patrick.net

YesYNot says

Should I have a good reason? I don't think social proof is a good reason to believe in a particular God. But it is the only reason I can think for so many people to believe.

Sounds like sentence 2 and 3 answer question 1.

Now seriously do you really believe the feathered serpent *could* in fact exist?

Sentence 2 and 3 let you know that I don't have a good reason to know that those goods don't exist. It doesn't mean you think the same. That is why I asked.
Heraclitusstudent says

Now seriously do you really believe the feathered serpent *could* in fact exist?

It's possible. So is the story of Christ. Neither are at all compelling to me, and I would bet heavily against either. The shear number of religions make the likelihood of any one being correct vanishingly small. What are your beliefs anyway?

Heraclitusstudent says

YesYNot says

Should I have a good reason? I don't think social proof is a good reason to believe in a particular God. But it is the only reason I can think for so many people to believe.

Sounds like sentence 2 and 3 answer question 1.

Now seriously do you really believe the feathered serpent *could* in fact exist?

Agnostics are just closeted atheists who are too much of a pussy to rock the boat or say anything politically incorrect.

Of course YesYNot thinks the feathered serpent god is ridiculous and absolutely does not exist. He or she simply does not want to publicly admit that out of fear of being called racist. But the real racism is in believing that Jesus Chris turning water into wine, walking on water, being born of a virgin, and rising from the dead is any less ridiculous than the feathered serpent god or Thor or any of the gods of Hindu.

To truly respect all peoples, you must be willing to call anyone's ridiculous beliefs ridiculous and not just some peoples but not others.

Yes, Jesus Christ is as ridiculous as

and

and

YesYNot manage to hit submit before my last post, but his post pretty much confirms what I said.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

Now seriously do you really believe the feathered serpent *could* in fact exist?

It's possible.

No, it's not. You are just being politically correct.

YesYNot says

So is the story of Christ.

No, it's not. You are too afraid of offending people who are simply wrong.

YesYNot says

The shear number of religions make the likelihood of any one being correct vanishingly small.

Even if there were only one religion ever created, it would still be ridiculous.

The bottom line is that the popularity of a religion or the fervor of its faithful does not affect how plausible the myths of that religion are. The fantasy that Thor really did fight along side Ironman to protect Earth may be something you hold so dear that the idea of it being challenged greatly distresses you, but that just makes you crazy. It does not make your fantasy plausible.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

Now seriously do you really believe the feathered serpent *could* in fact exist?

It's possible.

So congratulation you are apparently an agnostic. By the same logic (it's possible, no way to prove it's false) you also believe the Loch ness monster could exists, ghosts could exist, elves could exist, etc, etc... By the same logic there is no way to know that tomorrow the sky will not become red instead of blue, or the laws of physics will not suddenly change in some other ways. There is just no way to know for sure.

I hope by now you realize this leads nowhere. You are just confused about the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is never absolute (except maybe in mathematic). Knowledge *always* needs to be checked and rechecked, again and again, in the same way a map needs to be corrected from time to time.

However just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean we don't know anything. Just the opposite. We know a lot of things. One of the things we know is the feathered snake is not real.

YesYNot says

What are your beliefs anyway?

Simple: I distinguish between the physical world - where God doesn't exist - and the internal landscape of soul - where God exists.
In that sense God IS and IS NOT at the same time.
When we are talking of religion, we are really talking of the constants of the human soul.

Heraclitusstudent says

and the internal landscape of soul - where God exists.

In that sense God IS and IS NOT at the same time.

When we are talking of religion, we are really talking of the constants of the human soul.

Nothing crazy about that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Around 3:40 into that video is a complete falsehood. There was no attempt to "distinguish we from they". Bush's actual post 9-11 speech was a level headed call for tolerance and inclusion. See this Washington Post article And Hamid al-Ghazali saying math is the work of the devil? Another Tyson fiction.

It is fun to watch Tyson's audience enthusiastically drink his Kool-Aid. These self proclaimed skeptics are actually credulous ass clowns.

Heraclitusstudent says

Simple: I distinguish between the physical world - where God doesn't exist - and the internal landscape of soul - where God exists.

This doesn't make any sense. You want to believe in some amorphous God and create an imaginary world to house it? What evidence do you have that your God or even a soul exists? Why is it at all more reasonable than a serpent with feathers?

We know that the sun will 'rise' each morning, because of overwhelming statistical evidence and our understanding of Newtonian physics. We also know that there is a very small chance of a huge energy event that could change the nature of sunrise and sunset dramatically.

By definition, we can't know of the existence or non existence of 'supernatural beings.' Religious people seem to get this when they use concepts like faith. They refuse to accept the notion that someone would lack faith in the existence of non existence of an unknowable being.

As science continues to provide answers, we have less of a need for religion to provide answers. With Astro physics and evolution, I would argue that there is no need for supernatural explanations for an origin story. So, while we can't disprove a fatherly figured God or a winged serpent God, we don't have much of a reason to believe in either.
The observation that there are so many different versions of God or Gods that different cultures have or had tells is two things. 1. Most of them are or were wrong. 2. People tend to go along with their neighbors.

YesYNot says

As science continues to provide answers, we have less of a need for religion to provide answers.

But maybe that's not the biggest purpose of religion or spirituality. Of course that's what the atheist that has no use for it thinks it's for.

Maybe for many it's about having something to direct gratitude toward other than "the universe." The universe is so much more than intelligence, consciousness or other aspects or our reality that are mostly beyond words that people associate with their spirituality.

If it were just about providing answers, then it wouldn't really work for the thinking person, who realizes somewhere between the ages of 12 and 16 that that the existence of God raises as many questions as it could answer.

In my opinion it's actually the opposite. If one is all about having all the answers, and they aren't an idiot, then belief in God in any form is probably not for them (and never was). Because any kind of mature or intelligent perspective on God does not claim to know what God is or how "he" works. To think that this being literally created everything is not going to be a satisfying answer.

marcus says

Maybe for many it's about having something to direct gratitude toward other than "the universe."

I don't think that one needs to believe in God to express gratitude. You can feel and express gratitude without creating a vessel to put it in.

To the extent that 'spirituality' involves introspection, finding purpose, feeling grateful, focusing on positive things, and inspiring positive change, I'm all for it. But, that does not require a supernatural being or force, and I don't usually refer to those things as spirituality. To me, those are just habits of happy successful people.

What I see Church providing for many is a ready made community, and people need community. It's not that there are not other ways of getting it, but people tend to lack community these days, IMO, and the Church provides some unifying theme and provides it.

YesYNot says

But, that does not require a supernatural being or force

Supernatural versus natural isn't really the point.

YesYNot says

can feel and express gratitude

Gratitude to whom or what ?

The ancient greeks had many different words for love. Obviously there's eros. But what about love for your Mother, or your dog, or humanity. Is there a kind of love that's far more general and abstract than any of these ? Toward what is this love projected ? Just life ?

Your feelings of love (many types) are a result of evolution. Generally, love is describes the desire to and the act of helping someone close to you that you care about. If there is a general love, I'm saying that dumping that on a God is probably misplaced and it would be better to direct that love to living creatures. As long as you aren't demanding of something in return, it will be accepted.
I believe that you can feel gratitude for things without having a particular person or thing to thanks. Sometimes you get lucky, and many people thank the Universe for that. I don't see the desire to turn the Universe into some sort of God. Most of the time, your gratitude can be directed toward somebody in your community who helped you or yourself. To me, that is the most productive way to express gratitude anyway.

YesYNot says

By definition, we can't know of the existence or non existence of 'supernatural beings.'

And, by definition plus laws of conservation, we absolutely know for certain without any doubt that no supernatural entity can communicate with or interact with any natural entity. A priori logic and the laws of conservation are all that are needed to prove this.

Another reason to not tolerate religion is that Senator Ted Cruz, who would be the Republican nominee for president if not for Trump, has openly stated that "god's laws" trump our nation's laws. This should make any rational person shit his pants. This man is in the senate and is the candidate of choice for the Republican establishment. Yet his views are identical to ISIS if you replace Islam with Christianity.

Religion is not harmless. Christianity is not harmless to the United States.

Religious candidates get auto votes from religious people. Less religious candidates, like GW hit the sweet spot getting lots of votes, but not completely turning off too many people. Cruz-fuck is over the line and would scare lots of people.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

Simple: I distinguish between the physical world - where God doesn't exist - and the internal landscape of soul - where God exists.

This doesn't make any sense. You want to believe in some amorphous God and create an imaginary world to house it? What evidence do you have that your God or even a soul exists? Why is it at all more reasonable than a serpent with feathers?

When I say "soul", I mean the human psyche: the seat of consciousness. Does it sound imaginary to you?
I would say not only it's existence is obvious in the Descartes sense "I think therefore I am" but this is in fact the ONLY thing that exists to us: Everything we experience: perceptions, sensations, feelings ultimately are only psychological inputs that we are aware of. There is really nothing else.

YesYNot says

We know that the sun will 'rise' each morning, because of overwhelming statistical evidence and our understanding of Newtonian physics. We also know that there is a very small chance of a huge energy event that could change the nature of sunrise and sunset dramatically.

By definition, we can't know of the existence or non existence of 'supernatural beings.'

You do realize that there is fairly overwhelming statistical evidence that there is no 'supernatural beings.', do you?

Nope you are confused about the nature of knowledge.

Based on your arguments so far, you might as well believe in the Sasquatch.

YesYNot says

As science continues to provide answers, we have less of a need for religion to provide answers.

That's silly. If the goal of religion were to explain things that are not already explained by science, then it is a lie and superstition, admitting ignorance would be the honest answer.

YesYNot says

I don't think that one needs to believe in God to express gratitude.

Exactly.

YesYNot says

Your feelings of love (many types) are a result of evolution.

Everything we are is a result of evolution. Love. The desire of the mind for explanations and meaning.
The way we experience the world.

Joseph Campbell said it:
“People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.”

"Every god, every mythology, every religion, is true in this sense: it is true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery."

"...that is to say, to find the inward thing that you basically are. All of these symbols in mythology refer to you."

Heraclitusstudent says

do you?

No.
Heraclitusstudent says

Nope you are confused about the nature of knowledge.

No.
Heraclitusstudent says

Based on your arguments so far, you might as well believe in the Sasquatch.

I don't.Heraclitusstudent says

Simple: I distinguish between the physical world - where God doesn't exist - and the internal landscape of soul - where God exists.

In that sense God IS and IS NOT at the same time.

If the soul is just another word for a part of us that evolved, it is part of the physical world. God existing and not existing at the same time is meaningless.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

do you?

No.

Apparently not. Instead of blind proclamations, how about giving us examples of instances in which supernatural beings were seen existing.

YesYNot says

Heraclitusstudent says

Nope you are confused about the nature of knowledge.

No.

Apparently you are.

YesYNot says

If the soul is just another word for a part of us that evolved, it is part of the physical world.

It is based on the physical world, it is not part of the physical world, unless you start claiming that love, pain or beauty are physical objects.

Heraclitusstudent says

love, pain or beauty are physical objects.

They are rooted in biology and physical things happen when you feel love. They are part of the physical world. There is no non-physical world.

Heraclitusstudent says

how about giving us examples of instances in which supernatural beings were seen existing.

The very point of concept of something being supernatural is that it doesn't follow the laws that other things follow. It's an abstract concept that is by definition impossible to prove or disprove. In my mind, it's also pointless to worry about, because it's unlikely to exist, as I mentioned in my first response to you.

YesYNot says

I fit the definition perfectly. I wrote a paper about it 20 years ago in an class on evolution, and put plenty of thought into it at the time. But knowing that the existence of God is not knowable doesn't mean that one has to put the odds at 50%. That's where the misunderstanding is.

Love the GUY he's fabulous!
Vote Donald Trump!

YesYNot says

The very point of concept of something being supernatural is that it doesn't follow the laws that other things follow. It's an abstract concept that is by definition impossible to prove or disprove.

Let me rephrase that: how often did you see a phenomena that doesn't obey known laws of physics?
The answer is never. Not once.

I would say based on the same logic that says "we know the sun will rise tomorrow" we can absolutely say "we know there is no phenomena not described by the laws of physics". Therefore we know there is no God.

YesYNot says

because it's unlikely to exist, as I mentioned in my first response to you.

You just refuse to admit that "knowing it is very unlikely to exist" is the same as "knowing it doesn't exist".
It IS the same, as proven by the example of the sun rising tomorrow.

YesYNot says

They are rooted in biology and physical things happen when you feel love. They are part of the physical world. There is no non-physical world.

What is biology? What are "physical things"? I don't know. Is there a physical world? Or is what we are perceiving just an illusion?
The entire physical world is just something we abstract and construct from psychological inputs we are aware of.

As such to say "they are part of the physical world" is meaningless. The reverse is true: It's not beauty or love that are part of the physical world. The entire physical world exists only as psychological inputs together with love and beauty.

See, when I say 'God exists only as a psychological entity', it may appear at first that it is a very materialistic and reducing vision of what God is. But the opposite is true: People who understand God as a being doing physical things are materialistic and reducing God to something materialistic. I'm not. I'm also not reducing God to emotions or a mental condition, because the psyche is not limited to the physical world (love, beauty, pain) it still leaves God a 'transcendent' being in a world that encompasses everything we experience.

God, as a concept, is just the story the left brain uses to rationalize what the right brain is trying to say.

Heraclitusstudent says

What is biology? What are "physical things"? I don't know. Is there a physical world?

Whatever. If you want to divide the world into physical and non physical (spiritual?), go ahead. I don't see the point, and can't disprove the existence just like I can not disprove God. They are both super natural. I don't see the point in dwelling on either.

Heraclitusstudent says

God, as a concept, is just the story the left brain uses to rationalize what the right brain is trying to say.

Okay. But in some traditions they use a the word "ineffable." Meaning they aren't trying to put an name or description or definition on it, other than beyond words or description or comprehension.

Heraclitusstudent says

You just refuse to admit that "knowing it is very unlikely to exist" is the same as "knowing it doesn't exist".

You're making your own mistake of defining God as a thing that can be known to exist or not. This is common, in fact I would say it is a fact that all atheists that make a big deal of knowing God does not exist are defining what the existence of God would mean in a number of ways.

IF a believer doesn't agree with any of those definitions, then that means the atheist and the believer (at least sometimes) aren't even talking about the same thing.

marcus says

You're making your own mistake of defining God as a thing that can be known to exist or not.

That's utter bullshit. It is the ultimate cop-out to state that "god" is defined as unknowable. Hell, you even capitalized god indicating that it is a proper noun, i.e. a name used for an individual person, place, or organization. Furthermore by using the singular, you are unequivocally stating that "god", by whatever you mean, is unique. By default, when talking about unspecified things, one uses the plural.

If it is "unknowable by definition" whether or not a god exists, then it is also unknowable by definition whether or not there are a multitude of gods. Clearly, you are not defending polytheism given your consistent use of monotheistic language.

Even more importantly, your "god that likes to hide" is not the god that anyone believes in. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Catholics, not Anglicans, not Lutheranisms, not Evangelicals, nobody. If your god hides his existence so thoroughly that no one can, even in principle, know whether or not he exists, then no one can, even in principle, know what the fuck that god thinks about any issue or moral question. You could not know whether or not that god thinks murder is ok. You could not know whether or not that god believes in marriage in any sense of the term. You could not know that such a god is nice. Knowing any of these things presumes knowing that a specific god with specific intentions exists. Nobody worships such a god. No holy text refers to such a god. No church prays to such a god. No cleric preaches the moral teachings of such a god. Such a god could not be a moral authority because such a god could not convey any message to humanity without betraying his secrecy.

Your entire argument is basically "let's favor plausible deniability over accurately representing what people believe". And that's bullshit. And this is not an academic question. American laws and policies are extremely manipulated by religion, laws including marriage equality rights, climate change, drug policies, and education. These are not trivial issues that we can accept being corrupted in order to not offend people with delusions of how the universe operates. The well being of all members of our society including future generations is greatly affected by our tolerance of vile Bronze and Iron Age religions.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

You just refuse to admit that "knowing it is very unlikely to exist" is the same as "knowing it doesn't exist".

You're making your own mistake of defining God as a thing that can be known to exist or not. This is common, in fact I would say it is a fact that all atheists that make a big deal of knowing God does not exist are defining what the existence of God would mean in a number of ways.

IF a believer doesn't agree with any of those definitions, then that means the atheist and the believer (at least sometimes) aren't even talking about the same thing.

I have to say, this really sounds like an argument for Theological noncognitivism. If so, then I agree.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

You just refuse to admit that "knowing it is very unlikely to exist" is the same as "knowing it doesn't exist".

You're making your own mistake of defining God as a thing that can be known to exist or not. This is common, in fact I would say it is a fact that all atheists that make a big deal of knowing God does not exist are defining what the existence of God would mean in a number of ways.

You just ignored everything I said from the start of this thread, and hunkered down into you head in-the-sand don't-bother-me-with-this I'll-believe-what-I-choose-anyway position.

I described exactly in which sense we know God doesn't exist AND in which sense God does exist and is beyond anything we can describe with words. You choose to keep your own confusion alive by refusing to follow the arguments I laid out above. We absolutely DO KNOW God doesn't exist in the physical world in the same sense we KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow.

marcus says

Heraclitusstudent says

God, as a concept, is just the story the left brain uses to rationalize what the right brain is trying to say.

Okay. But in some traditions they use a the word "ineffable." Meaning they aren't trying to put an name or description or definition on it, other than beyond words or description or comprehension.

That's exactly right. God is beyond words as a psychological entity expressed by the right brain. But then the left brain comes and builds a story: i.e. myths, religions, where God is made into a word, a concept, a physical entity that talks, wants this or that, and with it adds rules, dogmas blah blah. And once you start clinging to that concept you entirely lost the original meaning of what it was.

Which is why Carl Jung said:
Religion is a defense against the experience of God.

YesYNot says

Whatever. If you want to divide the world into physical and non physical (spiritual?), go ahead. I don't see the point

This has very practical consequences.
- On 1 side you have religion as superstition: the constant belief in something that is not there, that has never been there, will never be there, and will never change anything to the world around you. People on this side not only do something stupid, but they miss the point of religion.

- On the other side you have spiritual quest as an entirely practical pursuit, so "our life experiences on the purely physical plane have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive."

Dan8267 says

Your entire argument is basically "let's favor plausible deniability over accurately representing what people believe".

Wrong. My argument is that I have no interest in arguing it. My argument is that if I were an atheist, I would have no interest in arguing against the existence of god, I would simply not believe in God. I find the obsession with knowing one way or the other with certainty so far beyond anything I can relate to, that it's really hard for me to find your position on this other than laughable. You don't know what belief means to me (and I'm not even talking about my beliefs - I'm talking about the beliefs that millions of intelligent people have). You construct arguments based only on your projection of what those people believe. At least when you make generalized statements about all beliefs and all believers.

When it comes to this subject, you and I aren't even in agreement about what we are discussing and never will be. And yet you think this is an interesting or even logically correct argument ?

Dan8267 says

If it is "unknowable by definition" whether or not a god exists, then it is also unknowable by definition whether or not there are a multitude of gods. Clearly, you are not defending polytheism given your consistent use of monotheistic language.

Even more importantly, your "god that likes to hide" is not the god that anyone believes in. Not Muslims, not Jews, not Catholics, not Anglicans, not Lutheranisms, not Evangelicals, nobody. If your god hides his existence so thoroughly that no one can, even in principle, know whether or not he exists, then no one can, even in principle, know what the fuck that god thinks about any issue or moral question

I'm not arguing for any organized religion or for example what fundamentalists or Catholics take away from religion. I'm not a big fan of religions. But at the same time, I don't even know for a fact that man would have gotten where he has without religion.

And I certainly am not going to accept a blanket generalization that any and all kinds of belief in god are incorrect or wrong or to the detriment of the believer or others.

bdrasin says

I have to say, this really sounds like an argument for Theological noncognitivism. If so, then I agree.

Interesting.

Some theological noncognitivists assert that to be a strong atheist is to give credence to the concept of God because it assumes that there actually is something understandable to not believe in. This can be confusing because of the widespread claim of "belief in God" and the common use of the series of letters G-o-d as if it is already understood that it has some cognitively understandable meaning. From this view strong atheists have made the assumption that the concept of God actually contains an expressible or thinkable proposition. Granted, this depends on the specific definition of God being used,[3] but most theological noncognitivists do not believe that any of the definitions used by modern day theists are coherent.

I guess i would agree that the definitions used by theists are not coherant. But some shy away from definitions or stress the importantce of growing past silly childlike fairy tail definitions. But the strong atheist, who wants to condemn all belief, always attacks the well defined childish anthropomorphic perspective on god.

This is understandable, because the strong atheist has no experience with more sophisticated belief, and has an extremely strong emotional aversion to even contemplating what it might be like.

Why ?

Because of what Einstein said about the strong atheist.

"The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

marcus says

You don't know what belief means to me (and I'm not even talking about my beliefs - I'm talking about the beliefs that millions of intelligent people have). You construct arguments based only on your projection of what those people believe.

Dan correctly rejected superstitious beliefs in things that are constantly observed not there. I don't think he has to understand the exact nuance of millions of people beliefs to do that.

Your problem is you're not even arguing against what Dan specifically said. You are just rejecting the entire notion that there is something to discuss.
I'm not even sure why you even bother to post anything in these conditions.

Heraclitusstudent says

We absolutely DO KNOW God doesn't exist in the physical world in the same sense we KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow.

Why didn't you say, "we DO KNOW that god does not exist in this physical world, in the same same way that we KNOW that light is neither a wave nor a particle, but rather both or one or the other, depending on the circumstance and also importantly upon the observer."

I guess that's not quite as catchy.

(by the way, Dan or you are going to totally going to miss the point of this comment and insist on interpreting it as my thinking that god has something to do with quantum mechanics. That's not my point at all. My point is that you chose something ordinary like our knowledge of the spinning of our planet to represent our factual knowledge of our physical reality - when the truth is there is plenty of mystery in our physical reality and we don't really understand it very well at all.

No, I am not suggesting that god is an answer to what we don't understand. Only objecting to the implication that we understand what is or is not a part of our physical reality because we know the sun will come up tomorrow. What the fuck ? Is that what counts as logic these days ?)

Heraclitusstudent says

Your problem is you're not even arguing against what Dan specifically said.

That's my problem exactly as much as it's his problem that he's never arguing against what I said.

Although actually it's not symmetric, because I understand his point of view perfectly. He has no fucking idea what I'm talking about.