People who believe in god are broken

[Appolinaria]

My laziness isn't an excuse to burst into threads asking questions. I will read all of the previously discussed things. It may take a while. Carry on.

[tar]

Villain,

 

There is an appropriate tension between rationality and tradition/faith as depicted near the end of the Wiki article on "Reason".

 

I only mention it, because its important to note that you are not the only one to have noticed that the world exists. Your traditions and faith may be very important to you. That does not give you rights to claim knowledge of the world that others do not have. You have to be able to share the knowledge, or it is not knowledge. Not objective knowledge.

 

Your acknowledgment, that you do not care a small dirty rodents behind, about Inow's position, makes me think you very likely feel the same about my position, or ANYBODY else's position...because most other positions do not include the "knowledge" of the greater reality, that you have arrived at.

 

One of Inow's main points in this thread, which I agree with to a large extent, is that when it comes to understanding nature, going by "faith" and tradition, has proven to be "not so good a way", as testing your beliefs against nature itself, and relying on other people to verify your findings. That logic and reason WIN over faith and tradition.

 

By admitting you don't care a hoot about Inow's position, you have proven to me that you have no interest in finding out anything at all about nature. About objective reality. About the world we share. You just want to pretend you know the truth, and the rest of the world is too blind to see it.

 

Well maybe you see it clearly. But if it is the truth you are looking at, then it has to be referring to the same world Inow is looking at, and I am looking at, and the rest of humanity is looking at. If you can show us all the evidence you have of a thing actually being the case. We are all ears. If its really there, you should have no trouble at all, pointing it out to us.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. I was going to speak for you, and interpret your position to Inow, because it contains some elements that I have been trying to argue, and point out, during this quite openminded and wide ranging discussion around the idea that "people who believe in God are broken", but alas it appears you might be a good case in point, so I will let you speak for yourself.

 

P.P.S But so as to not undermine any future arguments I may forward, I would like to mention that I did not just say that faith and tradition were not important, nor did I say that there was no truth in faith and tradition. I only was asserting that evidence and deductive reasoning have a better track record, when it comes to finding out facts and true things, and in determining what really is the case, than has been the track record of taking as literal fact, the myths of our forefathers.

Edited May 30, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

It was a nice post, TAR. No worries, and thanks.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Thank you. I think that is the first time, or at least one of the very few times I ever got 2 pluses on a post.

 

Law of averages I guess. If I post enough times, I will eventually accidently say something sensible.

 

I am like the room full of monkeys banging randomly on the typewriters.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

By the way. I don't think the monkeys would EVER type out the complete works of Shakespeare. And I believe there is not a proof that they indeed ever could. And if I am right, that there is no way to randomly generate the complete works of Shakespeare, that would be proof of sorts, that there MUST be something more than random chance at work in the universe. Not necessarily the God of Abraham, or Zeus, or Thor, or the life force of Star Wars, but "something" more than random chance... that would require the general idea of "God" to not be something only held by broken people.

 

Put it this way. Think of the entire works of Shakespeare as being a number. An exact number. That was in base 60 or base 80 or 100 or whatever number of different letters there are, lowercase and caps, plus punctuation marks, spaces, indents, title fonts, line spaces and such. And this base 100 number is scores of millions of digits long. That is a way too big a number to accidently arrive at. There are too many other numbers that could be represented by this scheme, that are all NOT the complete works of Shakespeare. Way more NOT the complete works of Shakespeare than there are molecules in the observable universe. You cannot accidently type this exact number.

Edited May 30, 2012 by tar

[John Cuthber]

 

Ok, so to recap a god could exist and evidence of a god could exist, but yet people who believe they have found evidence and believe that a god does exist are broken because you don't know of such evidence. Am I mistaken?

 

 

At least this is a valid issue.

Iff there were a God and someone had evidence of His existence then that individual would not be broken.

But the others who to believe in spite of the lack of support and the contradictions would still be so.

At best this modifies the assertion in the title to "At least very nearly all people who believe in God are broken and, as far as we can tell, all of them are."

Hardly a difference worth pointing out.

[Villain]

 

That's fine. It's sort of asshole-ish, but fine. My point was that you were arguing from an obvious misunderstanding, and I merely sought to clarify it for you. If you'd wish to remain ignorant and continue being wrong, that's your prerogative.

 

My point is that YOUR position or MY position or anyone else's position is irrelevant. I think you understood what I meant but Tar's post that follows made me feel like I should clarify.

 

 

At least this is a valid issue.

Iff there were a God and someone had evidence of His existence then that individual would not be broken.

But the others who to believe in spite of the lack of support and the contradictions would still be so.

At best this modifies the assertion in the title to "At least very nearly all people who believe in God are broken and, as far as we can tell, all of them are."

Hardly a difference worth pointing out.

 

 

Yes and since we are dealing with an entity that is either non-existent or pre-existent (let's say in relation to humans to avoid a further debate and since my point is going to centre on this), there are complications with evidence. No matter what sort of evidence is produced it still needs to be interpreted to be evidence of said god. If the sun for example was already the sun before we called it such then we would still have to make the choice that the characteristics described were describing the sun. The individual will therefore have to decide if the sun is the sun or if the sun is something other than the sun. My opinion is that there is evidence of God and that someone who were to look for God would find that it is substantial enough to believe in God. As I have pointed out a little earlier that my opinion is of little relevance to anyone else's in regards to evidence and if you or anyone else thinks that there is no relevant evidence then so be it. But considering that a god could exist and that there could be evidence of a god, it stands to reason that people who believe in god are not broken. You might have a case if people believed in something which absolutely could not exist.

[iNow]

The individual will therefore have to decide if the sun is the sun or if the sun is something other than the sun. My opinion is that there is evidence of God and that someone who were to look for God would find that it is substantial enough to believe in God.

What about all of those people who DO look for evidence and who DON'T find it substantial enough? I know your opinion is "seek and ye shall find," but many have sought and via a deep show of personal integrity and courage decided the search was a childish waste of time.

 

As I have pointed out a little earlier that my opinion is of little relevance to anyone else's in regards to evidence and if you or anyone else thinks that there is no relevant evidence then so be it.

I'm not sure whether or not there is relevant evidence. I'm merely saying that you and thousands of years of theists like you have consistently failed to produce any. I remain open to correction, but the inadequacy of your attempts is profound.

 

But considering that a god could exist and that there could be evidence of a god, it stands to reason that people who believe in god are not broken.

Unicorns could exist, and there could be evidence of unicorns. Following your own logic, people who believe in unicorns are not broken, either.

[Villain]

What about all of those people who DO look for evidence and who DON'T find it substantial enough? I know your opinion is "seek and ye shall find," but many have sought and via a deep show of personal integrity and courage decided the search was a childish waste of time.

 

I'm not sure whether or not there is relevant evidence. I'm merely saying that you and thousands of years of theists like you have consistently failed to produce any. I remain open to correction, but the inadequacy of your attempts is profound.

 

I cannot prove God to you, belief is not something that can actively be attached to someone else, it is a choice, that is my understanding of 'ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened.' This also ties up into the original sin or perhaps all and every sin from a biblical stand point. I don't want to break the forums rules about preaching and therefore will not elaborate further. I can't make judgement on why people do or don't believe, I have found reason to and so have others but there are many who have not. Ultimately I am not responsible for others choices and no one other than myself is responsible for mine. I don't think that I have used broken reasoning to come to my position, I can say that I have not used the scientific method as it would not be of much use in this regard.

 

Unicorns could exist, and there could be evidence of unicorns. Following your own logic, people who believe in unicorns are not broken, either.

 

In what way would I be able to conclude that they were broken people?

 

 

[iNow]

I cannot prove God to you, belief is not something that can actively be attached to someone else, it is a choice

I disagree. Is it a "choice" to believe in gravity or not? Is it a "choice" to believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy or the boogey monster? No, it's not a choice. The rational mind simply refuses to accept such nonsensical tripe as valid. The question is, why does reason become so dormant when it comes to the concept of god(s)? Why is it suddenly okay that you "cannot prove god?" It's not, and that's one of the points of this thread. That's what is meant when we say you are requesting special deference. That's what we're talking about when we say you're using broken logic and double standards.

 

 

that is my understanding of 'ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened.' This also ties up into the original sin or perhaps all and every sin from a biblical stand point. I don't want to break the forums rules about preaching and therefore will not elaborate further. I can't make judgement on why people do or don't believe, I have found reason to and so have others but there are many who have not.

Nobody is asking you to make a judgment on why people do or do not believe. The point is that you DO believe, and you've been asked to give an answer as to why... Something more substantial than, "Because I want to, so there... nanner nanner boo boo... it's called faith."

 

You cannot. You've said you already did in this thread, but everyone responded that they never saw it, and when you were presented with the reasonable request for a reminder as to where specifically you feel you provided your "adequate evidence" you refused... You evaded... you waffled and did little more than a bunch of hand waving.

 

Hand waving is not a strong argument. Evading simple and reasonable requests from others is not supportive of your position. Saying you don't care what others think makes you look both cowardly and foolish. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just telling you how it is. You've been asked more than once by more than one person to share your evidence. I suspect you are both unwilling AND unable, with an emphasis on the latter. Please... Prove me wrong. I would like nothing more.

 

 

I don't think that I have used broken reasoning to come to my position

I don't think you've used ANY reasoning, but that's probably beside the point.

[Villain]

 

Nobody is asking you to make a judgment on why people do or do not believe. The point is that you DO believe, and you've been asked to give an answer as to why... Something more substantial than, "Because I want to, so there... nanner nanner boo boo... it's called faith."

 

You cannot. You've said you already did in this thread, but everyone responded that they never saw it, and when you were presented with the reasonable request for a reminder as to where specifically you feel you provided your "adequate evidence" you refused... You evaded... you waffled and did little more than a bunch of hand waving.

 

Hand waving is not a strong argument. Evading simple and reasonable requests from others is not supportive of your position. Saying you don't care what others think makes you look both cowardly and foolish. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just telling you how it is. You've been asked more than once by more than one person to share your evidence. I suspect you are both unwilling AND unable, with an emphasis on the latter. Please... Prove me wrong. I would like nothing more.

 

 

The topic clearly reads 'People who believe in god are broken' and I have disagreed with it. I don't know why someone would ask me to give reasons why I believe in God as that would most certainly be off topic.

 

 

Perhaps you are referring to post #930 quoted below:

 

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

[John Cuthber]

My point is that YOUR position or MY position or anyone else's position is irrelevant. I think you understood what I meant but Tar's post that follows made me feel like I should clarify.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and since we are dealing with an entity that is either non-existent or pre-existent (let's say in relation to humans to avoid a further debate and since my point is going to centre on this), there are complications with evidence. No matter what sort of evidence is produced it still needs to be interpreted to be evidence of said god. If the sun for example was already the sun before we called it such then we would still have to make the choice that the characteristics described were describing the sun. The individual will therefore have to decide if the sun is the sun or if the sun is something other than the sun. My opinion is that there is evidence of God and that someone who were to look for God would find that it is substantial enough to believe in God. As I have pointed out a little earlier that my opinion is of little relevance to anyone else's in regards to evidence and if you or anyone else thinks that there is no relevant evidence then so be it. But considering that a god could exist and that there could be evidence of a god, it stands to reason that people who believe in god are not broken. You might have a case if people believed in something which absolutely could not exist.

There's a definite flaw in the logic here.

The sun exists. There is plenty of evidence for it. It has characteristics (such as a surface temperature).

There is, on the other hand, no evidence that God exists (evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal).

If I was to say that I believe that God exists because He spoke to me and told me to kill lots of people then that would make me "broken" rather than the messiah. This would be true even if I though it was a valid reason.

The brokenness would not then be my belief in God, but my belief that "hearing voices" is actually evidence.

 

Until there is actually some evidence for God, belief in Him isn't rational.

Saying "I believe He is real because I remembered to put my trousers on the right way round this morning" isn't evidence.

All the other so called "evidence" that I have seen is comparable to that.

 

 

You say "My opinion is that there is evidence of God"

OK, present that evidence so we can all judge it.

But I have a prediction here. It will be shown to be inadequate in some way or another.

[Villain]

There's a definite flaw in the logic here.

The sun exists. There is plenty of evidence for it. It has characteristics (such as a surface temperature).

There is, on the other hand, no evidence that God exists (evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal).

If I was to say that I believe that God exists because He spoke to me and told me to kill lots of people then that would make me "broken" rather than the messiah. This would be true even if I though it was a valid reason.

The brokenness would not then be my belief in God, but my belief that "hearing voices" is actually evidence.

 

Until there is actually some evidence for God, belief in Him isn't rational.

Saying "I believe He is real because I remembered to put my trousers on the right way round this morning" isn't evidence.

All the other so called "evidence" that I have seen is comparable to that.

 

 

You say "My opinion is that there is evidence of God"

OK, present that evidence so we can all judge it.

But I have a prediction here. It will be shown to be inadequate in some way or another.

 

Inadequate to who and by what criteria will you be judging the evidence?

[Moontanman]

Inadequate to who and by what criteria will you be judging the evidence?

 

 

Judging the evidence via empirical reality and being able to show others how to obtain the empirically real evidence would be the standard.

[immortal]

Until there is actually some evidence for God, belief in Him isn't rational.

 

Not necessarily.

 

 

Broad focuses completely on the credibility of the experience and any claims related to it. He states that it is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences, it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise (Broad 2008, 216–217).

 

http://dlicorish.hub...nce-An-Analysis

 

[John Cuthber]

Villain,

Or even the way I already said.

Did you not see this bit?

(evidence that would stand up in court or be published in a peer reviewed science journal)

[MonDie]

I mentioned mortality salience's relationship to religious belief before. I thought I should review the source I used and present the information here. I'm using the quote box since my paraphrasing is largely made up of direct quotes.

The authors explain that, to cope with threats to self-esteem, "we may compare ourselves with others less fortunate, derogate those who give us negative feedback, and so forth (e.g., Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995; Kernis et al., 1993; Wood, Giordano-Beech, & Ducharme, 1999)." Explained later, research has shown that thoughts about death can be a cause of the self serving bias, and this is consistent with the hypothesis that death presents a threat to the self-image. Some researchers "further propose that, because it's frightening to own up to the fact that we are mortal and will eventually die, we adopt spiritual and cultural views that provide additional meaning to our lives (and sometimes even suggest the possibility of a heavenly immortality)." The authors cite a study in which Christian students were separated into experimental and control groups. Participants were given almost identical questionnaires, but the members of the experimental group "were asked to write about what will happen to them as they die and how they feel about thinking about their own death. [...] Later, all [participants] provided their impressions of a previously unknown person presented as either Christian or Jewish. Consistent with the hypothesis, this person was evaluated more favorably when Christian than when Jewish [...] but only by those subjects made aware of their own mortality (Greenberg et al., 1990)." (Kenrick et al. 91-2)

 

Works Cited

Kenrick, Douglas T., Steven L. Neuberg, and Robert B. Cialdini. Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 2010. Print.

 

 

Additionally, here is a related Wikipedia link that others can check out.

http://en.wikipedia....nagement_Theory

Edited May 30, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Iggy]

You might have a case if people believed in something which absolutely could not exist.

Of the following two claims the first is the easier to prove,

 

1. People who believe in the Christian style God have faulty reasoning because the essential properties of that God are not logically consistent and therefore can't logically exist.
   
2. People who believe in a god (or gods) use faulty reasoning because we can't know if, and there is no evidence that, any god exists.
   

 

It has long been known that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. The problem of the three omni's I've heard it called.

 

But, this thread is about #2, not #1.

[John Cuthber]

Not necessarily.

I'm sure there's a formal name for that, but I first heard it expressed as the " a million lemmings can't be wrong" theory.

 

If it were true that belief by many people is equivalent to proof (or even good evidence) then there would never be changes in scientific belief in the way that happened with Copernicus or Einstein.

 

The fact remains that there is actual evidence otherwise. Plenty has been cited here in this thread.

The existence of evil, the contradictions in the bible, and so on all show that the "consensus" view is deeply flawed.

[doG]

Inadequate to who and by what criteria will you be judging the evidence?

 

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof....

 

Evidence in science

 

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.

 

'nuf said...

[tar]

The topic clearly reads 'People who believe in god are broken' and I have disagreed with it. I don't know why someone would ask me to give reasons why I believe in God as that would most certainly be off topic.

 

 

 

Villain,

 

Not completely off topic. One of the early acknowledgements in this thread, was that inorder to evaluate the OP we would have to define God in some sort of mutually understood way, along with defining belief and broken.

 

Many here have already disallowed "reality" as being usable as evidence of God. I have not disallowed it, in fact have noted to Inow that it is rather unfair to "disallow" the only kind of evidence that would be considered evidence. In my book, you are granted full access to all of reality, from which to draw your evidence. Stars, and Galaxies, all of time and space, the flowers in a mountain pasture, the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, the thoughts in our minds, the covenants we have with each other, our laws, our neurology, our DNA, our history, our ability to predict the future, our ability to converse with unseen others, the pluck of a guitar string...anything we know about, anything we dream about, anything we feel...anything we know.

 

I am open to your evidence. Just tell me. The others may or may not follow your logic. But if it is about true things, they will have no trouble understanding. They are humans too. Same basic brain structure, same basic senses, same basic chemicals at work, access to the same internet, to look up corraborating evidence, whether it be physical or metaphysical, literal or figurative.

 

Give at least a general idea of what this "truth" is that you see. I am fairly confident that the truth can stand up to any and all tests. That is sort of the nature of truth. It fits, exactly, with what is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 31, 2012 by tar

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thomas Kelly,

Once again I remind you that we don't allow people to go around posting advertisements for their own threads. Stay on topic when posting and make any links relevant to the discussion / your post and nothing else. I've removed your post (as well as the reply to it) as it serves absolutely no purpose to this thread and you've already covered it elsewhere.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

I have split off the posts regarding the existence of evil as proof (or not) of God existence (or not)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66793-existence-of-evil-and-contradictions-in-the-bible-as-evidence-or-not-of-god/

If you feel you wish to discuss a side topic - please open a new thread. And to re-iterate what HyperV said above - do not hijack existing threads to advertise other threads.

[Prometheus]

I will try to argue that people who believe in god(s) are not broken, by using means not yet used (at least as far as i can tell). This argument will take the existence of god(s) to be irrelevant, and so a definition of belief or god is not required.

 

A definition of broken, though, is required. If we take 'being normal' as being the ability to function in a given lifestyle, then to be broken is the inability to function in a given lifestyle. The given lifestyle here refers to whatever society brought you up.

 

For whatever reasons our species, and society, have evolved beliefs in gods. This is normal, and certainly does not hinder people who believe in god from functioning in any given society i can think of. An ability to function, here, is the crux.

[immortal]

I'm sure there's a formal name for that, but I first heard it expressed as the " a million lemmings can't be wrong" theory.

 

If it were true that belief by many people is equivalent to proof (or even good evidence) then there would never be changes in scientific belief in the way that happened with Copernicus or Einstein.

 

 

The problem or the criteria is not just to determine how many people believe in god, the criteria is to determine how much correlation exists between rational interpretations of different religious traditions through out human history. Whatever such results throw out, it will be an objective way of accepting or believing that those religious traditions were indeed in contact with some aspect of objective reality with an unbiased presupposition.

 

 

The fact remains that there is actual evidence otherwise. Plenty has been cited here in this thread.

The existence of evil, the contradictions in the bible, and so on all show that the "consensus" view is deeply flawed.

 

Such a consensus is incomplete and inconsistent, take all the religious traditions of the world not just the bible and evil is not the cause of suffering in this world, a morally perfect god doesn't have to strive to end evil what he has to strive for is to end suffering allowing necessary evil to fulfil his works.

[Phi for All]

A definition of broken, though, is required.

Earlier in the thread, "broken" was defined as a mental defect in the ability to reason rationally.