patrick.net

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.

marcus says

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.

It would be exactly as catchy: The laws of quantum mechanics are well known and very precise. Wave functions change in a deterministic fashion. Everything we know about the physical world shows that it is incredibly tangible, consistent and obeys to precise quantitative patterns.

But you are trying to say there is something in it so fuzzy that it cannot be known. No there isn't. Sorry. That's wishful thinking.
And further, the truth is that you are confusing 2 levels of reality, and with that you are misleading yourself as to what to expect and what not to expect from religion.

marcus says

My argument is that I have no interest in arguing it.

And yet you are. And you have been for quite some time.

marcus says

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.

Because of Christianity, over half the House and over half the Senate refuse to enact climate change policy. After all,

And that is why we sane people must do whatever we can to fight the virus of faith. It's not an academic issue when lives and the well-being of billions are on the line.

If theists just practiced their voodoo in the privacy of their house and never interfered with government policy, then I wouldn't give a damn about their beliefs. But when their beliefs endanger our entire species by preventing climate change policy, yes, it freaking matters.

Our republic only works if the population is rational and educated. Mass delusion is highly dangerous.

marcus says

Because of what Einstein said about the strong atheist.

Appeal to Authority, misapplying that authority, and taking quotes out of context all in one. First, Einstein was an expert on physics, not theology. Second, scientist accept Einstein's work because of the experimental evidence, not because of his reputation.

marcus says

because I understand his point of view perfectly.

I doubt it, but prove me wrong. Explain my point of view. Go ahead...

marcus says

He has no fucking idea what I'm talking about.

If so, that's on you for being deliberately evasive.

I state flat out what my position is and why.

marcus says

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

He has no fucking idea because you are totally unable so far to express an argument in a meaningful way.

Look at your quantum mechanics argument: first you hurry to add that you are not in fact trying to see God in the undermined parts of quantum physics, then you hurry to add that you are not trying to see God as an answer to what we don't understand. So what remains of your argument? That there are unknown things in the world? .... Give us a break. Everything we see works consistently with laws we know, but you want to start from the premise we don't know EVERYTHING and from there jump to the belief that there is an all powerful being in the universe that non of us as ever observed, that never affected anything physical we observed, and that never will. You need to take a step back and consider how unreasonable this entire story is.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what remains of your argument? That there are unknown things in the world?

I'm only arguing that your argument is stupid.

marcus says

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.

You're in an argument with some imaginary straw man, so you you project on to me this kind of nonsense on to me ?

Heraclitusstudent says

with that you are misleading yourself as to what to expect and what not to expect from religion.

I'm not expecting anything from religion.

Heraclitusstudent says

Look at your quantum mechanics argument

I didn't make a quantum mechanics argument. I was just responding to your stupidity. And I knew you would not and can not understand my point. Even if I explicitly say, "THIS IS NOT WHAT I"M SAYING," you idiots just can't resist.

Heraclitusstudent says

But you are trying to say there is something in it so fuzzy that it cannot be known. No there isn't. Sorry. That's wishful thinking.

I'm not saying that at all. But there is much that we don't know.

Maybe instead of trying to have the argument that you want to have with some imaginary marcus, you should consider what I have actually argued.

marcus says

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

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."

Dan8267 says

Because of Christianity, over half the House and over half the Senate refuse to enact climate change policy.

Really. Becasue of Christianity ? That's a stretch. The closest I can come to agreeing with that is that some corporate puppets successfully fight climate change legislation by getting elected by appealing to Christianists. But if it wasn't that, it would be guns, or race, or some other divide and conquer bullshit.

You know I have very close to as low an opinion of ignorant fundamentalists as you do. I only argue against the arrogant generalizations about all forms of belief in god (for a lack of a better description.

Did you see this ?

marcus says

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.

Heraclitusstudent says

The laws of quantum mechanics are well known and very precise. Wave functions change in a deterministic fashion. Everything we know about the physical world shows that it is incredibly tangible, consistent and obeys to precise quantitative patterns.

I disagree with this. "incredibly tangible" really ? "Consistent," consistent with what ? Itself. DO we know what gravity really is ? Is our understanding of gravity consistent with quantum mechanics ?

But this is all beside the point or any point that I'm making in this thread. I'm not going to argue this (physics) any further, because you confuse my insistence on the existence of mystery as being tied to some argument I'm making about god. It's not.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

He has no fucking idea what I'm talking about.

If so, that's on you for being deliberately evasive.

No, it's becasue what you want to argue against is a child like view of God. But we've been through it too many times and you wonder off to other aspects of why belief is harmful and so on.

It's simple really. I'm not exactly a theological noncognitivist, but I do think by defining god, in what you rail against, you've already veered away from arguing with me.

Because I'm defending spiritual belief(s) as something I'm not going judge. I'm not going to collapse something as personal and often complex as that down to some shallow and childlike version. I'm defending belief as (often) far more sophisticated than what you generalize it as. Even among some priests (if they tell you what they really believe) . Therefore the conversation with you is never an interesting argument. The closest you come to being on the same page as me, is to say that the kind of belief I'm talking about is too vague or wishy washy to count as real belief. And yet if you would like, I'll find you a famous and intellectual Rabbi who refers to "God" as the ineffable, and who intentionally avoids the word because what he believes in is something that is not describable. And this sort of non-definition is in fact at the center of many adult's spiritual beliefs. They aren't looking for god to be the answer to life's mysteries. They aren't looking for an afterlife. They aren't looking for some anthropomorphic personal god that they ask favors of. That's just silly. And yet some form of belief works for them. Some of these kinds of people even participate in religion, such as Unitarian, Unity, Budhism (some sects), Judaism (some), Bahai, and I'm sure many others, and sometimes gathering and meditating together with others or practicing community time as an important part of their part of their beliefs.

But also I'm not going to rail against people with more simplistic childlike versions of belief because here, I'll use Einsteins description:

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."

Although on the extreme end, the with fundamentalists I have a problem. But this is where we see the negative aspects of the growth of atheism. The smart religious Presbyterians or whatever are dropping out of religion in the past century, leaving a much higher percentage of nutjobs in religion today.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

Because of Christianity, over half the House and over half the Senate refuse to enact climate change policy.

Really. Becasue of Christianity ? That's a stretch.

No, it's not. Sure greed is another reason, but Christianity is a major obstacle to environmental management and many other problems. Did you read that senator's quote?

The science of climate change is undeniable, but science means nothing to the religious. Ted Cruz, the only person challenging Trump in the Republican primaries, is a religious nut who cannot see anything about religion because that's his world view. Watch him claim that climate change science is a religion.

www.youtube.com/embed/BymuYDFoCT8

And this asshole could be president. It's unlikely, but it's possible that he could become president either this election or next. And if a religious person like Senator Cruz or Senator Inhofe becomes president, climate change mitigation policies will not be implemented. That's a very serious problem.

Need I remind you that Christianity in America also baselessly attacked the teaching of evolution solely because of religious reasons? Religion and science are mutually exclusive. They are antithetical. One is based on evidence and the other is based on faith, the belief regardless of counter-evidence. Faith and reasoning are also mutually exclusive. One cannot subscribe to both rational thought and superstition.

marcus says

Because I'm defending spiritual belief(s) as something I'm not going judge.

What fucking bullshit. You would judge any politically unacceptable spiritual belief, of which there are many in the world. Hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that a woman who has been raped should be killed. It's called honor killing. That's a spiritual belief held by many devote Muslims in the Middle East. Do tell me that you are not going to judge that belief.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are unequivocally pro-slavery -- please challenge me on that so I can start quoting the fucking Bible like crazy. Are you not going to judge those spiritual beliefs?

Tens of millions of Christians in America believe that a soul is imbued into an egg at the moment of fertilization making the fertilized egg a child of their god and thus justifying anything to stop abortions including
- legal trickery like writing laws designed to shut down abortion clinics for arbitrary reasons
- literally requiring a girl or woman to submit to rape -- yes, the legal definition of rape -- in order to get an abortion
- shamming girls and women who seek abortions
- bombing abortion clinics and killing the doctors who perform abortions

There is no rational discussion of abortion that can be had with a person stupid and delusional enough to believe in a mystical soul imbuing a fertilized egg. That belief makes it impossible to reason with the person.

But you are not going to judge the belief that "god is calling us to bomb abortion clinics"?

Are you also not going to judge the belief that "homosexuality is an abomination"?

Quite frankly, if you are not repulsed by the above spiritual beliefs, then you are judging them positively. So get off your high horse. You don't have the moral high ground here.

Any belief can be vile. Adding superstition to a belief or calling it "spiritual" does not condone a vile belief.

marcus says

But also I'm not going to rail against people with more simplistic childlike versions of belief because here,

Hypocritical bullshit.

There is nothing childish about anything I've posted on this thread. You are using the word childish to disparage and dismiss your opponent's arguments without addressing the content of those arguments, and that is very childish. And adult doesn't respond to an intellectual challenge with a "you're a poopy-head, so your words don't count". No, an adult responds to a challenge of his philosophy by rationally and honestly defending his position, or if he cannot, by honestly abandoning his position.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Because I'm defending spiritual belief(s) as something I'm not going judge.

What fucking bullshit.

Again with the interpreting to fit the argument you want to make.

What I mean and what was clear from almost the entire bold paragraph is that I am not going to make generalized judgements.

Why not read at least the whole paragraph think about what my intended point was and then respond, rather than getting all excited about some phrase that you can use as a jumping off point to say what you want to say that's totally unrelated to my point.

This is the response I get to a thoughtful attempt to respond to your saying I'm being deliberately evasive.

Dan8267 says

But you are not going to judge the belief that "god is calling us to bomb abortion clinics"?

Okay. Thank you Dan.

Richard Dawkins recently had an epiphany after writing books and spending years as a hero to the 'strong atheist' circle jerk crowd.

“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.

Sure, he is referring to radical Islam. But the same logic applies to the better Christian faiths versus the more fundamentalist and radical ones. These days in many parts of the U.S. if you're inclined to be in a religion, some BS fundamentalist church is your only option. This is sad.

Of the following two, which is more possible, and which is more likely to lead to mankind eventually flourishing ?

1) The end of all religion and all spiritual beliefs as we know them.

or

2) The growth of better religions and spiritual practices replacing many or most of the more ignorant or fundamentalist religions and practices, of course while still having a significant percentage of atheists, agnostics, ignostics, etc.

marcus says

But this is all beside the point or any point that I'm making in this thread. I'm not going to argue this (physics) any further, because you confuse my insistence on the existence of mystery as being tied to some argument I'm making about god. It's not.

The mystery is the universe itself. Why is it there? What is its nature?
But there is no mystery in how the things we see and that affect us work. We have described it precisely and its description is complete enough that it doesn't leave any room for something else. Not that the description is perfect, but it is precise and covers everything we see and measure.

Of course there is room for imagining things we don't see and don't affect us in any way. Other planes of existence, or whatever. As long as it doesn't affect us and is not measurable in any way. But it would be very stupid to spend time worshiping something that doesn't affect us, wouldn't it?

So this is simple: we are not going to speculate about what can exist. All we want you to admit is this: in all things that affect us at a physical level, there is no room for imagining anything else than what is described by the laws of physics.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

But also I'm not going to rail against people with more simplistic childlike versions of belief because here,

Hypocritical bullshit.

I wasn't using the word childish in reference to you. Maybe give me the benefit of the doubt, at least until you've made some minimal attempt to understand what I'm saying.

Heraclitusstudent says

The mystery is the universe itself. Why is it there?

Agreed.

Heraclitusstudent says

in all things that affect us at a physical level, there is no room for imagining anything else than what is described by the laws of physics.

Admit ?

I never said that I thought there was a "being" manipulating our physical reality. If it makes you happy I will say that I do not believe in the existence of anything of that kind.

But your statement went a little further. Let me ask you a question. Is my consciousness, or your consciousness or even all consciousness that we might be aware of
(that is the consciousness of all humans and other sentient or semi sentient life forms(such as dogs)), is that part of our physical reality ? It seems like an important question since most people believe it is generated by our brains, which are clearly part of our physical reality.

Keep in mind, it's just a question. I'm not one that gets uncomfortable when I don't have the answer to questions. I have no need to reduce conscious experience to nothing more than biology, chemistry and psychology. Who knows, maybe you understand that they have no clue what consciousness is. Even if and when we succeed in creating a different form of consciousness in AI programs, it may be conscious and yet very different from ours. Who knows, maybe eventually better.

Maybe such an AI consciousness that far transcends human intelligence evolved elsewhere (after initially being created by creatures with a lowly intelligence such as ours) long ago and eventually improved on itself for millions of years before creating this program that we call the universe.

marcus says

I never said that I thought there was a "being" manipulating our physical reality. If it makes you happy I will say that I do not believe in the existence of anything of that kind.

Then you don't believe in God as an entity that affects the physical world. (1)

marcus says

Is my consciousness, or your consciousness [...] is that part of our physical reality ? It seems like an important question since most people believe it is generated by our brains, which are clearly part of our physical reality.

Yes our brains are part of the physical world. And yes consciousness is created by the physical action of our brains. This is proven in many ways, starting by how consciousness is affected by chemistry, by electricity, or by brain damage. And unless you believe (1) (something magical affects the physical world), which you say you don't, you have to believe that consciousness is the result of a physical mechanism.

All this is moot. Whether consciousness is a layer above physics really doesn't matters here. As I explained above, physical reality is a layer above consciousness. i.e. the real world exist for us only at a psychological level that we are conscious of. And the experience of consciousness itself, just like sensations like pain, cannot be equated to anything physical. You can observe pain in the brain. It's an electrochemical signal. This is not the same as feeling pain. If you believe that religion pertains to consciousness and the conscious experience of the world, there is really no need to persuade anyone that there is something there that doesn't follow the rules of physics. There doesn't need to be.

marcus says

What I mean and what was clear from almost the entire bold paragraph is that I am not going to make generalized judgements.

Another cop out. What, you won't judge rape to be bad in general?

In reality all judgements run a continuous spectrum from extremely specific to general.

I have no problem stating that in general laws built on bloodlust are bad. For identical reasons, I have no problem stating that in general laws built on lies and fairy tales are bad.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

But you are not going to judge the belief that "god is calling us to bomb abortion clinics"?

Okay. Thank you Dan.

Lives are more important than political correctness.

marcus says

Maybe give me the benefit of the doubt, at least until you've made some minimal attempt to understand what I'm saying.

I've made more than a minimal attempt and as far as I can tell, I understand you perfectly. Now if you disagree, explicitly state your thesis in a clear, unambiguous, and precise manner. If you try to give yourself wiggle room by being vague or constantly changing your position, then any misunderstanding is your fault.

I'll even give you an example of a thesis that is well written. This is my thesis.

Belief in fictional supernatural forces causes bad decision making, as all decisions based on false premises are apt to be bad, including bad governmental policy making.

Feel free to attack my thesis. I can defend it without any bullshit.