Does God exist?

[freeztar]

I reject your attempts to posit god (with zero evidence) as my default position, just as you would reject somebody else's attempts to suggest that 2 foot tall Kenders named Tasslehoff Burrfoot are in charge of the global petroleum infrastructure.

 

Raistlin is my god! :confused:

[REASON]

Yes, God exists.....

 

 

.....but only as an undefined concept.

[Buffy]

Why does my not getting along with my fellow man generate such hatred in you? :P

Tee hee! Its not hate dear, it just makes you look stooopid, because its so ineffective, and makes the rest of us--who have the same goal--look bad!

 

Seriously, liberal sceintofascists are supposed to be for peace not war, and by waging war instead of using moral suasion, you *extend* the period of human history in which we will have to tolerate mindless belief in meddling, interventionist, anthropocentric Gods being used by charlatans to control the masses. With all their blathering about Crusades and Jihad, aggressive, antagonistic spewing of hatred toward religion just *empowers* them!

 

Why would you want to do that? Is it testosterone poisoning? :)

 

Boy am I glad I can do this with you B, as opposed to some people who might take it personally... :confused:

 

Now Santa and the Pesach Bunny don't care if you don't believe in them or not; they'll bring you presents and chocolate anyway. But if you do believe in them, then you'd be amazed at how much nicer everyone is to everyone else. And that's a non-metaphysical effect fully explainable by human psychology, and quite frankly supported by The God Delusion!

 

Obviously, some people don't believe in Karma--it shouldn't be "rational" and is "unsupported by physical evidence"--but only so long as you take the extremely limited view that Karma is *only* a metaphysical effect with nothing to do with how others perceive you in the community and their memory of being told endlessly that they're idiots and should STFU. ;)

 

Now I'll "move on" because some people really, really, really don't like to hear this stuff....

 

Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War, :hihi:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Seriously, liberal sceintofascists are supposed to be for peace not war, and by waging war instead of using moral suasion, you *extend* the period of human history in which we will have to tolerate mindless belief in meddling, interventionist, anthropocentric Gods being used by charlatans to control the masses.

So, not only have you catagorically lumped me into this preconceived label, but you've then also tried to suggest that you dictate the sole modus operandi for that label.

 

What if I simply want to exterminate religion, and couldn't care less about peace?

 

That's not really the case, with me personally anyway. I want peace and the wholesale extermination of religion simultaneously, which causes me significant dissonance when interpreting my position internally.

 

You condescention is applied to me and Boerseun in that you see this as a male/female, testosterone/estrogen dichotomy. The dichotomy is between brights and dims, nothing else.

 

 

And that's a non-metaphysical effect fully explainable by human psychology, and quite frankly supported by The God Delusion!

After all, each bit of this is explainable by human psychology, yet sociopolitics plays quite a role as well.

 

 

Obviously, some people don't believe in Karma--it shouldn't be "rational" and is "unsupported by physical evidence"--but only so long as you take the extremely limited view that Karma is *only* a metaphysical effect with nothing to do with how others perceive you in the community and their memory of being told endlessly that they're idiots and should STFU. :confused:

STFU, indeed. Now you're arguing that those who argue against idiocy should worry about... yep... you guessed it... further unsupported idiocy.

 

Karma? Really? STFU, indeed.

 

 

Now I'll "move on" because some people really, really, really don't like to hear this stuff....

I am (presuming you are, in fact, talking about me when saying "some people") quite comfortable listening to your words, incorporating the more significant parts of them, and critically considering your point of view. However, you show such venom yourself when you say things in this way. Presuming that I (and others) simpl-y "don't like it" when you raise these points, and would prefer you not raise the. Come on...

 

That's not it at all.

 

I quite agree that you "get more flies with honey." But, you know what, honey? I'm all out of sweetness this week, and it's time for some vinegar.

 

That doesn't make my point less valid, less tenable, nor does it make your judgment of my point any more relevant.

 

I tell people "STFU" because their beliefs are ****ing stupid, and I've grown enormously tired of the self-reinforcing, societally protected ignorance it not only motivates, but implicitly rewards.

 

 

I accept that I could be nicer.

I challenge your assertions that I'm wrong because I'm aggressive in my approach.

[Buffy]

I accept that I could be nicer. I challenge your assertions that I'm wrong because I'm aggressive in my approach.

...and how's that workin' for ya? Converted anyone yet?

 

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results, :confused:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Come now, boyz 'n girlz - play nice!

 

The thread title, after all, is "Does God exist?", which implies any responder to state his personal opinion of the matter, and then to back it up.

 

The thread title is not "If you don't believe God exist, keep it to yourself to keep the peace."

[freeztar]

*freezy grabs some popcorn and takes a seat on the couch...

 

"Did I miss anything, God?", freezy asks. "No", replies God, "just the previews". :) :lol:

[Galapagos]

...and how's that workin' for ya? Converted anyone yet?

 

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results,

Buffy

 

We can look at the results, or at least a very small fraction of them, in the Convert's Corner at Richard Dawkins' website:

 

RichardDawkins.net

 

There are hundreds of testimonials written by fans grateful to have their outlook changed by "The God Delusion" and Dawkins' other works. And I say a fraction, because there are certainly more people who've felt the same and haven't written Dawkins to thank him, and I happen to be one of them.

 

Sam Harris also claims to get thousands of emails from many people who have had their minds changed by his books and debates, but it doesn't seem to be up on his website anywhere.

[InfiniteNow]

As usual, Galapogos raises a very intelligent point.

 

The concept of critical thought is not going to turn people away. We should not be forced to pussyfoot around people who are insecure and sensitive about their beliefs. There are literally countless people whose lives have been changed because somebody told them the truth bluntly and sincerely.

 

The single source quoted in the post above in the Convert's Corner of the the RD.net site is simply one of many which demonstrate just how very effective simple authenticity and sincerity can be when engaged in a battle such as this.

 

My intention is not to offend people. My intention is to wake people up.

 

If you cannot see the difference, then perhaps you are one of the individuals who would prefer to remain asleep.

[nutronjon]

Why aren't you asking me to accept purple unicorns?

Why aren't you suggesting that my disbelief in leprechauns is unscientific?

 

The god concept is the only one that gets special treatment, where it's not generally accepted when people simply refute it. This is where my challenge is directed.

 

God is no different than a purple unicorn, and I will treat it as such, regardless of your definition.

 

That which is unprovable by definition has no place in the mind of a critical thinker, and has no place in our 21st century society.

 

I reject your attempts to posit god (with zero evidence) as my default position, just as you would reject somebody else's attempts to suggest that 2 foot tall Kenders named Tasslehoff Burrfoot are in charge of the global petroleum infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

Well I guess if you reject the concept of reason and universal laws such as gravity, E = mc2, monad, dyad, triad, etc., then there is no reasoning with you.

[nutronjon]

By your own admission you don't know anything about the gods. How could you possibly know what reason they are bound by. Your assumption here is no less knee-jerk than INow's.

 

Hum :mad:, is the following reasoning or knee jerk reaction? It goes with an understanding of monad, dyad, triad, etc. so I really think there is a lot of reasoning with this point of view.

 

Cicero: Philosophy, Metaphysics of Cicero's 'Nature of the Gods'. Quotes Pictures Biography Cicero

 

Cicero realised the unity and interconnection of the universe, as he writes; God and the world of Nature must be one, and all the life of the world must be contained within the being of God. (Cicero)

The idea that 'All is One' is the foundation of philosophy and comes from the ancient Eastern and Greek Philosophers (~ 5th Century B.C.). Along with these ancient philosophers, Cicero also believed the universe was eternal. .. it is improbable that the material substance which is the origin of all things was created by divine Providence. It has and has always had a force and nature of its own. (Cicero)

 

Western Physics (with its particles and forces in 'Space Time' ) has never correctly understood the wisdom of ancient philosophy (All is One and Interconnected / Dynamic Unity of Reality). It is also important to understand that the ancient philosophers did not actually know how the universe was a dynamic unity, what matter was, how the One Thing caused and connected the many things.

Recent discoveries on the properties of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (Wolff, Haselhurst) confirm that we can understand Reality, 'the true nature of the gods' and the interconnection of all things from a logical / scientific foundation. (As Cicero, Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein ask for, a rational explanation of religious faith.) We hope you enjoy the following biography and quotations of Cicero.....Cicero quotes:

 

 

 

From which it follows that as all the elements of the universe are sustained by heat, so the whole universe is itself preserved through all the ages by a similar power: the more so, because it must be understood that this hot and fiery principle is so infused throughout the whole of nature that it provides the life-force and is the source of all that comes to be, and from it is born and nourished every living creature and every plant whose roots are in the earth.

That which we call Nature is therefore the power which permeates and preserves the whole universe, and this power is not devoid of sense and reason. Every being which is not homogeneous and simple but complex and composite must have in it some organising principle. In man this organising principle is reason and in animals it is a power akin to reason, and from this arises all purpose and desire. (Cicero)

 

So we see that the parts of the world (for there is nothing in the world which is not a part of the universe as a whole) have sense and reason. So these must be present to a higher and greater degree in that part which provides the organising principle of the whole world. So the universe must be a rational being and the Nature which permeates and embraces all things must be endowed with reason in its highest form. And so God and the world of Nature must be one, and all the life of the world must be contained within the being of God. (Cicero)

[nutronjon]

quotes are Modest's

 

 

 

Once again you are describing a God of which you say it is impossible to know anything about.

 

We can know as much about the God of Abraham as we know of know of unicorns, and I am saying this not the concept of God of which I speak.

 

The only two ways to break out of the argument is for everyone to agree that:

1. God exists
   
2. God doesn't exist
   

 

This polar thinking is not very helpful and is not the only option we have. I think the biggest problem with western logic is this insistance on this polar thinking. I think the explanation of dyad, triad and tetrad arguments are worthy of our understanding.

 

An argument is a difference of opinion. The next thing you literally propose as a solution to this difference of opinion is for INow to accept your opinion. :mad:

 

What is your problem with accepting an unknown?

 

There it is, this is your solution. Mind-blowing in its clarity and simplicity.

 

The problem:

• There is no evidence of a god.
  
  

Your solution:

• Everyone should share your opinion that there is a God and your description of that God.
  
  

 

Honestly nutronjon, If you examine your argument that there is no way to know something so we should all accept its existence - is there any situation where such an argument would be accepted at all?

 

-modest

 

An argument is invalid when it does not follow the rules for argumentation. To believe an argument is no more than a difference opinion, is missing information about argumentation. The ignorance of argumentation is glaring in these forums, and too frequently is expressed in personal attacks, rather than worthy arguments of the points under consideration.

 

I do not describe God. I will go back to Cicero's explanation. If you paraphrase what he said, we might have a reasonable discussion of the concept. Note, whatever we say of God is abstract and under question, it is not tangible and for certian. It is not tangible and absolute truth. It is a point of view that is useful. It is abstract.

[InfiniteNow]

Well I guess if you reject the concept of reason and universal laws such as gravity, E = mc2, monad, dyad, triad, etc., then there is no reasoning with you.

 

Please elaborate, as you appear to have a significant misinterpretation of my position. I don't reject those "universal laws," I reject attempts to attribute them to some ethereal and nontestable nonsense which is "beyond" or "super" natural.

 

 

And please also, stop talking about my gonads. :mad:

 

 

 

 

What is your problem with accepting an unknown?

 

The problem is when it is "unknown" by definition... not due to some need for more time and/or resources to find it.

[modest]

It goes with an understanding of monad, dyad, triad, etc. so I really think there is a lot of reasoning with this point of view.

 

The problem, nutronjon, with this kind of mysticism... Well, let me quote you from another thread first...

 

Why attack Deepak Chopra? What is his wrong?

 

Now, the problem is that these mystics and this mysticism don't produce science - they only "use" the science that others can create using the scientific method. Chopra "uses" quantum mechanics and other mystics whom you quote use science as a grab-bag of concepts to shape into whatever it is they're selling. But, when it comes to discovering the science and doing the science - where are they?

 

As you are a fan of mysticism let me put this in a language you'll take to better:

等着兔子跑过来撞死在树桩上。

These mystics are "waiting for the rabbit to hit the stump."

 

Other scientists (real scientists) are out hunting the rabbit or farming the field. They are capable of discovering the useful things that mystics then claim as their own. But, when it comes to killing the rabbit, all the mystic is able to do is wait by the stump.

 

That's my problem with pseudoscience. I understand if it isn't a problem you share. To each his own. But, It shouldn't escape notice that no one expects Deepak Chopra to advance the field of QM.

 

If the tree is so prosperous - where the hell is the fruit?

 

-modest

[freeztar]

I inadvertently ran across this article and it seems very pertinent to the topic. It's a Time magazine article entitled "Darwin's God". I haven't finished reading it yet, but so far it is quite good. It could potentially add some interesting discussion to this thread.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

 

Atran, who is 55, is an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, with joint appointments at the University of Michigan and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His research interests include cognitive science and evolutionary biology, and sometimes he presents students with a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.” Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver’s license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

 

If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of?

 

Atran first conducted the magic-box demonstration in the 1980s, when he was at Cambridge University studying the nature of religious belief. He had received a doctorate in anthropology from Columbia University and, in the course of his fieldwork, saw evidence of religion everywhere he looked — at archaeological digs in Israel, among the Mayans in Guatemala, in artifact drawers at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?

 

The magic-box demonstration helped set Atran on a career studying why humans might have evolved to be religious, something few people were doing back in the ’80s. Today, the effort has gained momentum, as scientists search for an evolutionary explanation for why belief in God exists — not whether God exists, which is a matter for philosophers and theologians, but why the belief does.

[InfiniteNow]

Starts about 2 minutes in. Worth the watch.

 

There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain: Materialist Explanations for the Mind and Religious Belief

 

 

 

There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain - PZ Myers - Part 1 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8809660521227813170

 

 

There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain - PZ Myers - Part 2 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1800447793352878072

[Galapagos]

Watching the evo/bio explanations for religious behavior emerge is quite strange, and it always has me wondering how the religious are going to reconcile presupposition as this information becomes more well known.

Religion a figment of human imagination - being-human - 28 April 2008 - New Scientist

 

Religion a figment of human imagination

Andy Coghlan

 

Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

 

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

 

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

 

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

 

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

 

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

 

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.