People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

There are anecdotal evidences for anthropomorphic deities and such an evidence is sufficient enough for me to cling on to my position...

<snip>

How do you know it was purely based on faith and wish thinking alone, they might assert such extraordinary truths because they might have had such extraordinary profound revelations.

And yet you don't do this when it comes to people having "anecdotal evidences" of bigfoot, or the lochness monster, or martian aliens who put probes in peoples butts. They, too, claim to have had revelations, but the point you seem content to continue ignoring, immortal, is that revelation is not a valid approach to accepting extraordinary claims as true.

 

If I had a "revelation" that you were a disgusting human being that ate babies and made scarves out of puppy ears, would that mean it deserves any merit or seriousness... because it was a "revelation?" Do you think it would be valid of people to spend their lives believing that you do any of those things just because some folks had a "revelation" that you do? I strongly suspect not.

 

Likewise, people have "anecdotal evidences" and "revelations" of bigfoot, and nessy, and butt probing space aliens, too... but you don't accept those as valid. You are, however, carving out a very special exception for the concept of god(s). You seem to hold tightly to the hope that the idea is true, and will seek any crumbs and hints that help you to maintain that hope that god(s) exist(s). That's understandable, and I can appreciate what might drive you to do that, but just because I understand your thinking does not mean it is not broken.

 

Not if your so called empirical reality is a virtual reality and the objective reality that these people have access to is the real reality.

Sorry, but you're grasping at straws when you resort to arguments like this. That is a gargantuan sized "if" that you're relying on there, and it shows plainly how weak and tenuous your position truly is.

 

---

It is evident to me that people can know the thoughts of other people. Not magically, but because the thoughts I have, are of the same real things, had with real human equipment as the thoughts had by another human with similar equipment and the same world from which to draw evidence. Language is a vehical we use to express our thoughts, and compare meanings. You can, and do, know what I am thinking, what arguments I make, what I am driving at, and where I am driving off the road. How else would you be able to agree or disagree with my words?

You did not exchange ideas with the deer through words, did you? No. There was no "language as a vehicle to express thoughts and compare meanings." You were simply projecting your own thoughts on to the deer, TAR, but that cannot accurately be described as obtaining "knowledge" of what the deer was actually thinking. You have a speculation or a conjecture or a a belief about what that deer was thinking, but not knowledge.

 

On some level, on that "fellow mammal" level, is the level I claim knowledge of that deer's thoughts.

I really wish we could stop talking about the fracking deer you saw one night in your car years ago. It's really a totally separate topic from this thread (aka "off-topic"), and I am getting quite tired of the continued derailments like this. Please, by all means, feel free to open a thread elsewhere to discuss this. You can call it something like, "Can we ever accurately claim to KNOW the thoughts of a nonhuman animal, or can we only ever speculate and guess at what an animal like a deer may be thinking?" We could even get into the theory of mind and how old a human must be to develop this and whether or not squirrels have it... but that is not an on-topic conversation here, though, so let's please move forward BACK on topic.

 

I do not believe it to be bullshit.

That's probably because you're completely misusing the term "knowledge" in this case, but it really doesn't matter. The fact is that some theists claimed "knowledge" of god(s) or "knowledge" of what god(s) want. In much the same way that I've been pushing back against your claims, I pushed back against theirs. They do not have "knowledge" of any of those things. They have beliefs, or conjectures, or speculations, or ideas, or hypotheses, or preconceptions... but not "knowledge," and it's disheartening that it has become so hard to demonstrate to you all the obvious truth that you are conflating the word and engaging in a fallacious argument.

Edited May 20, 2012 by iNow

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I too am "investigating" the nature of dreams and revelations. They are, after all, "real" to those that have them. And the "evidence" those of us, who have "revelations", or "comprehend" the revelations had by others, use is that reality is what the revelations are of, and there is no place other, for them to come from.

 

We, you and me, however are approaching it from different directions. You believe it must be proof that God is supernatural. I believe it must be proof that God is real.

 

In your guess, the similarities between the "findings" of religious scholars and monks and the wise men of the mountains, that can "see it through their legs" is evidence that there is this "other reality", that we have only an inkling of, and that we can fully experience this "other reality" by studying the methods of the learned, as to how to become "not human", and experience this Godly, supernatural thing.

 

In my guess, all us humans already have access, full access, to reality. We already see it, through our eyes and through our legs, and through our telescopes and equations. BECAUSE we are human.

 

Not that consciousness can not be raised. Not that awareness of ones connection to "the greater reality" can not be had. But in my take, it is the "greater reality" I am finding my associations with. I am not looking for any connections to, or portholes through which to view some "other reality".

 

In my take, I must make an assumption, that if I see a pattern in reality that others do not see, and I cannot point to it, and show it to others, I must be "on my own". It must belong to that "supernatural" realm, which is not of the "greater reality", but in the realm of human ideals, and human imagination, and it need not fit actual reality. But never-the-less might have some partial analog in reality, and can be "investigated" on that level. That the "supernatural" is human in origin and can be found, as real, only by looking for its basis in reality, though the eyes and understanding of a "real" human. This take, unfortunately requires that I must always take a human view...that I can take no other kind of view than a human one. That I cannot contain something, that contains me. I cannot possibly "know" what God knows, not if God is considered to be reality itself.

 

In your take, taking God's perspective is a possibility, if you know how to do it right. Which oddly enough seems to be also the claim of some scientists. I would argue that no human should attempt to hold an impossible "you have to reject your human view, to see reality as it really is" type of view, as anything other than a "supernatural" one.

 

If any or all these takes are appropriate in any way, applying "brokeness" to another's view of reality, is probably broken in itself.

 

Regards, TAR2

[MonDie]

If a person witnessed talking garden gnomes two-thousand years ago, then I'd be impressed.

[immortal]

And yet you don't do this when it comes to people having "anecdotal evidences" of bigfoot, or the lochness monster, or martian aliens who put probes in peoples butts. They, too, claim to have had revelations, but the point you seem content to continue ignoring, immortal, is that revelation is not a valid approach to accepting extraordinary claims as true.

 

If I had a "revelation" that you were a disgusting human being that ate babies and made scarves out of puppy ears, would that mean it deserves any merit or seriousness... because it was a "revelation?" Do you think it would be valid of people to spend their lives believing that you do any of those things just because some folks had a "revelation" that you do? I strongly suspect not.

 

Likewise, people have "anecdotal evidences" and "revelations" of bigfoot, and nessy, and butt probing space aliens, too... but you don't accept those as valid. You are, however, carving out a very special exception for the concept of god(s). You seem to hold tightly to the hope that the idea is true, and will seek any crumbs and hints that help you to maintain that hope that god(s) exist(s). That's understandable, and I can appreciate what might drive you to do that, but just because I understand your thinking does not mean it is not broken.

 

 

I do follow documentaries of bigfoot, lochness monster and other commentaries about different views about aliens, its not that I have double standards when it comes to gods. You don't know what scholarly works that I have studied, some of them are not translated to its english version yet, it might be easy for you to dismiss it from your perspective but I have got my own reasons as to why I cannot dismiss it, my position is not that I accept it as valid, I have problems with dismissing it and go on doing my work as though they don't exist without investigating it.

[iNow]

And what about the tooth fairy, leprechauns, or unicorns? What about Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, or Ba'al? What about the countless other things you DO choose to reject as unfounded? You ARE, sir, displaying a deep hypocrisy and profound double standard, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

Further, the fact that you admit to accepting the half truths surrounding bigfoot and lochness monster only further reinforces my previous point that this type of thinking can bleed into other parts of our lives, and hence can result in harm both direct and indirect harms to the rest of us. When did facts stop mattering in conversations? Was it a Tuesday?

Edited May 20, 2012 by iNow

[immortal]

Further, the fact that you admit to accepting the half truths surrounding bigfoot and lochness monster only further reinforces my previous point that this type of thinking can bleed into other parts of our lives, and hence can result in harm both direct and indirect harms to the rest of us. When did facts stop mattering in conversations? Was it a Tuesday?

 

If scientists did what they do the best i.e do science and theologians and religious scholars did what they do the best i.e think about god then there can be no harm to anyone, the conflict arises when we try to force others to believe or to conclude that something exists or does not exist without providing any evidence for it, if someone wants to be a religious scholar let him be, let he express his views and his worldview, there is no need to call him broken when he has given the reasons for his belief as long as he thinks that his reasons are not sufficient enough to convince others. I think you should let the persons who differ with your opinions to breathe as long as they don't interfere with your life.

[iNow]

If scientists did what they do the best i.e do science and theologians and religious scholars did what they do the best i.e think about god then there can be no harm to anyone, the conflict arises when we try to force others to believe or to conclude that something exists or does not exist without providing any evidence for it

I've asked you already once, and will now ask you again. Please stop arguing against such obvious strawmen of my position. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Not me, not others. Can you please wrap your head around this and adjust your approach accordingly?

 

if someone wants to be a religious scholar let him be, let he express his views and his worldview, there is no need to call him broken when he has given the reasons for his belief as long as he thinks that his reasons are not sufficient enough to convince others. I think you should let the persons who differ with your opinions to breathe as long as they don't interfere with your life.

They do interfere with my life, and the lives of countless billions of others. You assertion is not grounded in reality. We've established both how and why multiple times in this exact thread. Just because you continue repeating an invalid assertion doesn't mean it suddenly and magically becomes valid. Instead of rebutting the support shared for this position, you are merely ignoring it. That is not approaching the discussion in good faith.

 

With that said, people are welcome to believe whatever stupid horseshit they want. However, I'm also welcome to challenge those beliefs as unfounded, childish nonsense that has no business being held in the mind of any rational, reasonable human being.

 

You keep asking me to grant special deference to religious beliefs... To allow them unearned respect... To hold back on my critiques and challenges because they are "religious" beliefs, or beliefs about god(s), or because theologians have studied books and scriptures for centuries, or because deluded people have claimed to have had revelations, as if that's adequate to accept the extraordinary claims of god(s) as somehow true... You keep asking me to treat them with a double standard... different than I would other silly beliefs held by people, some of which we've mentioned (belief in Thor, Apollo, Zeus, or the tooth fairy, leprechauns, the easter bunny...or ad infinitum), but you've yet to even attempt to address the same question I've been asking throughout this thread... Why should I?

 

Your beliefs, and the beliefs of theists in general, are not nor should not be immune from criticism, castigation, or contempt. Like all ideas, they can and should be prodded and poked for weaknesses, and discarded if those weaknesses are not addressed in an adequate way. The fact that you are unable to sufficiently address the challenges put to you does not mean that those challenges disappear, and nor does it mean that the challenges should cease.

Edited May 20, 2012 by iNow

[immortal]

This is New Atheism of the highest order, iNow. I have said many times in other threads that religious claims are not empirical claims and a discussion cannot even begin if I'm asked to back up with evidence for every single religious claim I make. You seem to disagree with the very basic premise of my position, that non-theists should not be intolerant towards religion and you want to do exactly the opposite of it. I doesn't want to say anything more than this.

[iNow]

I have said many times in other threads that religious claims are not empirical claims and a discussion cannot even begin if I'm asked to back up with evidence for every single religious claim I make.

Name for us one single other area in our shared existence where a failure to back up ones claims with adequate evidence is acceptable. There aren't any.

 

The only time this is requested is when the subject is religion or god(s). If you have no evidence for the accuracy of your assertions, and concede that it's not possible for you to offer any, is it not broken to continue accepting those claims as valid and true?

[tar]

Inow,

 

There is not just "one" place in my life, were I accept things as true, without evidence. There are many. I put thoughts in other people's heads, all the time. Sometimes I am way off base, sometimes I am in the ballpark.

 

And there are plenty of evidential things, which seem a bit wonderful. Like how does a tiny spider "know" how to build an intricate, beautiful, purposeful web? Maybe I don't believe that simple chance is a very good explanation, and I look for something deeper, and more intricate, that gives to the universe a certain intellect, that I as a human am only a piece and product of, not indeed the final "knower" and only holder of knowledge.

 

There is plenty of evidence that the universe is much bigger, much more intricate, much more longed lived, then I am, or than the entire human race, with all its scientists and priests and wiseman, and technology and knowledge, put together.

 

So you ask why one might give a pass, to someone that believes there is more to reality than is evident? The answer is rather simple and obvious to me. Because it is evident to any human that the universe contains more than they know, that they did not create themselves, or the ground they walk on, or the sky they live under, and that they will die, and the rest will still exist.

 

Silly to think you can know what you can not know. But many people imagine this is possible. Are they broken to do such?

 

Not sure it is possible to answer that question for someone else. It is a question you can only frame properly for yourself, about yourself. Or in the case of religion, build a commonly agreed upon, faith based answer. Or in the case of scientific method, build a commonly agreed upon, evidence based approach.

 

While I am in agreement with you, that particular nonsensical gods, are imaginary, and that people who believe their dreams are actual real things, in our commonly experienced reality, are broken, I am not ready to concede that people that believe in God are broken. Not in the case that their idea of God, is referring to the "ultimate knower", whose characteristics are ultimately unknowable, but who any human, can and does, place his/her self in the shoes of, from time to time, in one way or another.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

So you ask why one might give a pass, to someone that believes there is more to reality than is evident?

No, that's not what I am asking. I think practically all of us would concede that there is more to reality than is currently evident. That's not the question on the table, so really the rest of your post is moot.

 

It's one thing, TAR, to think there is more to reality than we currently know. It is quite another, TAR, to claim to have knowledge or to claim there is an extraordinary deity ... and to hold so tightly to this conclusion that it alters your behavior and your entire life ... and all in the absence of any adequate evidence to support that assertion.

 

You've essentially answered a question that nobody here was asking.

 

It is a question you can only frame properly for yourself, about yourself. Or in the case of religion, build a commonly agreed upon, faith based answer.

Again, you misuse the term. Anything faith based is not an "answer." It's a placeholder, or a conjecture, or perhaps even a guess... but it is not an answer, even when people content themselves with it and choose to stop seeking the actual answers. Goddidit is not an answer. It's a cop-out and it is settling for a non-answer.

 

While I am in agreement with you, that particular nonsensical gods, are imaginary, and that people who believe their dreams are actual real things, in our commonly experienced reality, are broken, I am not ready to concede that people that believe in God are broken.

Out of what? Some sense of being polite? Some sense of protecting the feelings of others because the truth is harsh? Why? You would not grant this same deference to someone who believed in anything OTHER than god(s). I'm not willing to allow the double standard. Why are you?

[immortal]

Name for us one single other area in our shared existence where a failure to back up ones claims with adequate evidence is acceptable. There aren't any.

 

The only time this is requested is when the subject is religion or god(s). If you have no evidence for the accuracy of your assertions, and concede that it's not possible for you to offer any, is it not broken to continue accepting those claims as valid and true?

 

In many of my posts I use circular reasoning, I assume the revealed truths are the real truths and go on explaining about the myths, such an assumption is not self-evident and hence my logic is inconsistent, its more important for me than for you to know whether God is just an imaginary object or a real existing entity so that I can ensure myself that my reasoning is consistent. Therefore I don't wait for god to fall from the sky instead I go about looking for revelations.

 

If you have any creation myths about the truth fairy, unicorns etc I would really like to read on how they created this world. When I was ignorant of religion even I used to wonder about the extraordinary claim of a God creating all the wonderful things in the cosmos but after I got curious about religion and understood things from their perspective it wasn't that extraordinary and that unlikely and therefore I doesn't want to show disrespect for someone believing that a truth fairy created the world before reading the literature about it, there might be a new way of thinking that makes them believe in such things.

 

If someone said moon is made of cheese I can verify about it and dismiss such a claim but if someone said your observed reality isn't real, how would you go about verifying it when they are asking you to abandon our universal logic, you can either stick to your critical thinking or either test whether their claims are indeed real. The latter choice requires you to give up critical thinking and surrender yourself to god, I don't know if such thinking works or not (i.e in providing us the truth) and therefore I don't know whether people who believe in god are broken.

 

Therefore I doesn't want to try and minimize such thinking by directly attacking FAITH and if someone causes harm to others in the name of faith then I'll let our judiciary system to punish them.

[tar]

Inow,

 

I just saw a few moments of an idiot on TV waiving a Bible, and claiming if it was followed, it would bestow upon the believers "divine prosperity".

 

This is the belief you are denouncing, and I am in TOTAL agreement, that people who believe this kind of nonsense are broken.

And the people that use people's "faith" for their own gain, in this outrageous manner, even more so.

 

They, who use "faith in God" in this manner are so stupid and evil and broken as to be beyond even my "benefit of the doubt", fence sitting notions of "what they might really be talking about."

 

And yes, I do not wish to face the harsh reality of my own death, nor fully accept the departure from existance, of those I love and care about. I have constructed an understanding, that allows me to know my own consciousness as 100% real. Made in and by reality itself, and therefore as immutable as matter and energy are. That though I fear the void on the "other side" of death, and will no doubt panic quite strongly upon its imminate arrival...those that survive me, will still be alive, still existant, and still real.

That there is "life after death", even if it is not to be my own. Not TAR2's, but still something, the same something that was real before my birth. And in this way, reality is mine, forever, as there is no way I can currently be, without fitting it, and no way it can rid itself of me, once I have become part of its being. Reality will remember me, because it has no way to forget what it has done. Whatever changes I have caused cannot be undone, whatever waves I have created, cannot cease. The photons from the match I lit and held to the stars, as a teenager, will not reach the other side of the Galaxy, for 100,000 years. There is no point at which the universe could consider me gone from it.

 

This is what I believe to be true, I believe it to be constructed with facts and evidence. It will not prevent my dying, it will not make me wealthy, but it affirms my belonging to reality, for keeps. And in this thought, I take some comfort, and would not consider broken, anyone who would have a similar thought.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

In many of my posts I use circular reasoning, I assume the revealed truths are the real truths and go on explaining about the myths, such an assumption is not self-evident and hence my logic is inconsistent, its more important for me than for you to know whether God is just an imaginary object or a real existing entity so that I can ensure myself that my reasoning is consistent. Therefore I don't wait for god to fall from the sky instead I go about looking for revelations.

 

Ass/u/me immortal, I always hated that bullshit way of showing how to assume is not a good way to accurately know what is going on around you or in other peoples heads but it's still relevant...

 

If you have any creation myths about the truth fairy, unicorns etc I would really like to read on how they created this world. When I was ignorant of religion even I used to wonder about the extraordinary claim of a God creating all the wonderful things in the cosmos but after I got curious about religion and understood things from their perspective it wasn't that extraordinary and that unlikely and therefore I doesn't want to show disrespect for someone believing that a truth fairy created the world before reading the literature about it, there might be a new way of thinking that makes them believe in such things.

 

Actually there are creation myths associated with various beings, faeries, elves, etc, and demi gods and even other less well specified beings. At one time nearly all had extensive writings to back them up in some way but other religions came along burned the writings and suppressed the old religions until all we remember now is the silliness of them and we forget how serious they were taken at one time.

 

If someone said moon is made of cheese I can verify about it and dismiss such a claim but if someone said your observed reality isn't real, how would you go about verifying it when they are asking you to abandon our universal logic, you can either stick to your critical thinking or either test whether their claims are indeed real. The latter choice requires you to give up critical thinking and surrender yourself to god, I don't know if such thinking works or not (i.e in providing us the truth) and therefore I don't know whether people who believe in god are broken.

 

We know that doesn't work immortal, it has been tried, most obviously was when exploration of the understanding of the natural world was tried the supernatural never worked. Even though at the beginning it was assumed that the supernatural defined reality but the closer we looked the less and less there was room for the supernatural until finally the concept of the supernatural had been driven into the tiny gaps that science hadn't managed to fill yet and those spaces keep getting smaller and more and more difficult to find but people never seem to tire of stuffing the concept of god into smaller and smaller spaces while continuing to conflate the power of god beyond any reasoning. The first concepts of god were quite small and fractured but we have combined all the old gods and other supernatural being into one uber galactic super being we cram into infinitesimally small places...

 

Therefore I doesn't want to try and minimize such thinking by directly attacking FAITH and if someone causes harm to others in the name of faith then I'll let our judiciary system to punish them.

 

What about those who are actively pushing to change laws to allow them to control and cause harm to other people and society at large? Do we just ignore them and allow them to control the rest of us through guilt, shame, and fear biblical law?

[iNow]

In many of my posts I use circular reasoning <snip> my logic is inconsistent <snip> instead I go about looking for revelations. <snip> The latter choice requires you to give up critical thinking and surrender yourself to god, I don't know if such thinking works or not...

So, is this basically a concession regarding the accuracy of my central proposition? It sure looks that way.

[Moontanman]

Inow,

 

I just saw a few moments of an idiot on TV waiving a Bible, and claiming if it was followed, it would bestow upon the believers "divine prosperity".

 

This is the belief you are denouncing, and I am in TOTAL agreement, that people who believe this kind of nonsense are broken.

And the people that use people's "faith" for their own gain, in this outrageous manner, even more so.

 

They, who use "faith in God" in this manner are so stupid and evil and broken as to be beyond even my "benefit of the doubt", fence sitting notions of "what they might really be talking about."

 

But where do you draw the line? While the example you give is ludicrous there are far more who do the very same thing but in a far more subtle manner who are rallying their "troops" to fight for control of our government, our culture, our lives.

 

And yes, I do not wish to face the harsh reality of my own death, nor fully accept the departure from existance, of those I love and care about. I have constructed an understanding, that allows me to know my own consciousness as 100% real. Made in and by reality itself, and therefore as immutable as matter and energy are. That though I fear the void on the "other side" of death, and will no doubt panic quite strongly upon its imminate arrival...those that survive me, will still be alive, still existant, and still real.

 

This i can understand but you do seem to have one fact wrong, I'd like to see some support for the bold above. I do understand the sirens call of religion and it's promise of life after death. hell if you want a really good life after death religion join the "Mormons" if you are male you get lots of perks, unlimited brides in this world... well only for the fundamentalists, but you get your own planet to make in your image and people it with as many of the kids all your wives can have.... lots of sex evidently....

 

That there is "life after death", even if it is not to be my own. Not TAR2's, but still something, the same something that was real before my birth. And in this way, reality is mine, forever, as there is no way I can currently be, without fitting it, and no way it can rid itself of me, once I have become part of its being. Reality will remember me, because it has no way to forget what it has done. Whatever changes I have caused cannot be undone, whatever waves I have created, cannot cease. The photons from the match I lit and held to the stars, as a teenager, will not reach the other side of the Galaxy, for 100,000 years. There is no point at which the universe could consider me gone from it.

 

I understand this as well, the effects we have on the universe will last for a long period of time, most will merge with the rest of the world and be muddied out beyond any possible recognition but they will still be there.

 

This is what I believe to be true, I believe it to be constructed with facts and evidence. It will not prevent my dying, it will not make me wealthy, but it affirms my belonging to reality, for keeps. And in this thought, I take some comfort, and would not consider broken, anyone who would have a similar thought.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If all who believe were reasonable humans with no need to control and change reality to suit them and their broken ideals and goals I could see why you would think this way TAR2

[iNow]

---

I just saw a few moments of an idiot on TV waiving a Bible, and claiming if it was followed, it would bestow upon the believers "divine prosperity".

 

This is the belief you are denouncing...

Sure, it's ONE of the things I'm describing as unfounded and broken, but it does not constitute the entire set or subject of this discussion. That group is just a subset of the overall group that accepts extraordinary conclusions as true and valid based on faith alone. In no other arena do people display such a double standard en masse, and in no other arena is it considered acceptable to hold confidently to such an extraordinary assertion in the face of such inadequate evidence, logic, or reason.

 

It's one thing, TAR, to hope for some sort of afterlife or deeper connection with the cosmos. It's quite another, TAR, to believe firmly and with conviction that there is any such thing, or that there is any god-like entity out there who gives two turds about us microscopic and insignificant life forms.

[immortal]

So, is this basically a concession regarding the accuracy of my central proposition? It sure looks that way.

 

 

In a religious forum where the scienific method is applied to evaluate religious statements there is obviously no scientific evidence for god and there is no need for god. According to me this is the death of all wisdom since if one can slightly step out of such scientific thinking and look honestly there is so much evidence for god in the form of revelations and that shows that for people who believe in god, faith indeed works, one cannot rationalize faith, one cannot justify the amount of commitment that is shown to god by entrusting yourself to a religious tradition and it is faith which gives them access to the numinous world of god. Therefore if god exists then faith should work, I don't know whether faith works or not and hence I don't know god exists or not. Now why I still cling on to my position is mainly because the literature of people who believe in god shows that faith works. My position is broken? I don't know, I may very well be wrong.

[Iggy]

In many of my posts I use circular reasoning <snip> my logic is inconsistent <snip> instead I go about looking for revelations. <snip> The latter choice requires you to give up critical thinking and surrender yourself to god, I don't know if such thinking works or not...

So, is this basically a concession regarding the accuracy of my central proposition? It sure looks that way.

If the thread title were "People who use circular reasoning, inconsistent logic -- who surrender critical thinking, and can't figure out if these are effective methods -- are broken" I suspect a few more people would affirm the notion.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Neither do I want to live under a Mullah. But there is a distinction I make between the baby and the bathwater, when it comes to religion. One of the insights I have had, is that one of our "jobs" on this planet is to "maintain" the valuable things that people before us have made effort to bring into this world. Moses' insight, that we should be responsible for our thoughts and actions in reference to the greater reality, that there is only one of, is one of those things. It can be done, without the need for a big powerful firery eyed daddy pulling all the strings. The idea is still sound. And I believe there to be an argument, that said idea, is not encoded into our genes entirely, but "learned" from Moses and Christ and Mohammed, and Buddah and Plato and Kant and Einstein and all the other great minds, that have "understood" something about the world, and about our relationship to it, and each other and shared their insights, with the rest of us.

 

So things have morphed a bit, from the original versions. Insights have been added along the way. Literal has morphed to figurative, figurative to literal, but the "ideas" are woven deeply into our societies and laws and ways of existing with each other.

 

Even when we concieve of the power and simplicity, consistency and universal nature and omnipotence of "physical laws"...it is not without an underlying resemblance to the ideas of Moses and the other founders of religions.

 

I also tend to think that there is something valuable about holding a shared, learned, agreed upon ideal. It ALLOWS you to KNOW what another person is thinking. Several months ago, something happen, I forget even what it was, but some rather amazing coincidence type of thing, and my wife (who knows well, I am an atheist, and she a theist) and I, looked at each other and both said smiling, in the same breath, "must have been God". There are just some occurences that don't lend themselves well to any scientific explanation, that seem to call in the use of that word as a place holder, that anyone, theist or atheist would "get" the meaning of, with no "evidence" required. It is almost the apparent lack of any "other" explanation that calls for it. That "unknown" that happens from time to time on a level quite a bit larger than "the space between Moontanman's quarks".

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 22, 2012 by tar

[MonDie]

TAR2

Just because you can't think of a scientific explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one or won't be one. You might lack vital information, whether than information is general natural principles or the specific events resulting in your experience. There might be someone else who could explain it scientifically, but they probably aren't busy explaining every so called spiritual experience.

Anyway, the argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Three posts discussing consciousness were split off into their own thread to avoid derailing this topic. The new thread can be found here.

[Gibsheet]

Religion was originally a way for people to justify things they could not explain. Now that most of these things have been scientifically explained, many people still believe in wonders of religion. There is nothing wrong with that - the great music that comes from the gospel, the companionship, the food, it's all good. A Buddahist Monk in Thailand once said to me after he gave me a small charm, "the people who have carried this for 200 years, their souls and heart will be with you". That's good enough for me.

[immortal]

Ass/u/me immortal, I always hated that bullshit way of showing how to assume is not a good way to accurately know what is going on around you or in other peoples heads but it's still relevant...

 

I have honestly admitted that I have no knowledge of Gods, someone else's revelation cannot give knowledge for me, its only useful for them. Belief in the Wisdom literature is not equal to having posterior knowledge about them. I have a prior knowledge about such literatures and argue based on such literature taking their notions of reality for granted and accepting such literatures. Now you and others can reject such literatures just as you reject any other religious scriptures, I am not requesting you to show respect for such literatures. The literature itself is what needs to be addressed and it deserves some valid explanations before rejecting it, saying that all of it is wish thinking and pure imagination is not going to do any good for anyone, you cannot convince anyone with your personal opinions. I am not asking you to start believing in such literatures, you can call people who believe in god whatever you want.

 

I embrace both scientific as well as religious speculation and I'm not in for minimizing any form of thinking as long as it doesn't harm anyone, by minimizing religious thinking you're blocking a possible road to reality and we will not have any problems if we define the boundary of religion from the real world and just because someone accepts god for a small aspect of his life doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be irresponsible to society and they can pretty much go on as though god doesn't exist when they are interacting with the society and keeping their religious speculation personal to themselves.

 

 

Wisdom literature is a genre of literature common in the Ancient Near East. This genre is characterized by sayings of wisdom intended to teach about divinity and about virtue. The key principle of wisdom literature is that while techniques of traditional story-telling are used, books also presume to offer insight and wisdom about nature and reality.

 

 

 

We know that doesn't work immortal, it has been tried, most obviously was when exploration of the understanding of the natural world was tried the supernatural never worked. Even though at the beginning it was assumed that the supernatural defined reality but the closer we looked the less and less there was room for the supernatural until finally the concept of the supernatural had been driven into the tiny gaps that science hadn't managed to fill yet and those spaces keep getting smaller and more and more difficult to find but people never seem to tire of stuffing the concept of god into smaller and smaller spaces while continuing to conflate the power of god beyond any reasoning. The first concepts of god were quite small and fractured but we have combined all the old gods and other supernatural being into one uber galactic super being we cram into infinitesimally small places...

 

I'm not coming from science and neither I want to elevate religion to the level of science. Any loopholes and refinements to scientific theories has nothing to do with this, this is not science. An idea doesn't always have to be intended to fill a scientific gap, it can be quite unparallel and deserve merit from a different worldview. I would be pretty happy if science could address such wisdom literatures and give natural explanations for it.

 

What about those who are actively pushing to change laws to allow them to control and cause harm to other people and society at large? Do we just ignore them and allow them to control the rest of us through guilt, shame, and fear biblical law?

 

 

Different scriptures advocate different laws, if religion should be taught in schools then teach all religions or don't teach religion at all, why only the Bible or only the Koran or only the Bhagvad Gita. The bad thing is that people who advocate such things are already into politics and use religious groups as a tool to win elections and are in support of such religious dogmas. We should make our society as secular as possible. I'm pretty religious and I have my own notion of religion but I don't have to enforce my beliefs on others and whatever I do, I do it for my own intellectual satisfaction.

 

Religion was originally a way for people to justify things they could not explain. Now that most of these things have been scientifically explained, many people still believe in wonders of religion. There is nothing wrong with that - the great music that comes from the gospel, the companionship, the food, it's all good. A Buddahist Monk in Thailand once said to me after he gave me a small charm, "the people who have carried this for 200 years, their souls and heart will be with you". That's good enough for me.

 

The success of the scientific method doesn't in any way invalidates religion, not all religions are concerned of explaining worldly phenomena, some religions are purely metaphysical and are in no way concerned of the workings of this world.

[tar]

TAR2

Just because you can't think of a scientific explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one or won't be one. You might lack vital information, whether than information is general natural principles or the specific events resulting in your experience. There might be someone else who could explain it scientifically, but they probably aren't busy explaining every so called spiritual experience.

Anyway, the argument that something cannot be explained naturally leads nowhere because one can only prove the absence of natural explanations for some event by discovering every natural concept there is to discover. So we can really only make progress by finding natural explanations, not by asserting the absence of them.

 

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

While I agree with your direction here, there is an implication I draw that you may not have drawn. If you lack vital information about a thing, and you are a scientist, believing in the scientific method, you have faith that the "natural" explanation exists, and can be found, can be understood, that there IS a real explanation. And this belief in an unknown natural explanation requires a belief in a greater reality, that nature consists of, that you are part of, and cogniscient of. AND this complete, huge beyond belief, old beyond comprehension, consistent, wonderful thing that you are exploring and learning about, and wondering about MUST be the same one Religious people are looking at. Because there is but one of these realities that all us humans share.

 

Regards, TAR2