People who believe in god are broken

[Villain]

Close, but not quite. I am not even bothering with the question of meaning. That is peripheral to my arguments. It's not my job to replace something that is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

 

Overall, I am primarily demonstrating that the root of these feelings people hold via a belief in god(s) is almost certainly a fairy tale. I am suggesting that their quote unquote "meaning" is rooted in a childish myth. That's fine. People can find meaning in anything they want. I never attacked the meaning people find in their religion or belief in unfounded, unsupported, highly unlikely deities. My attack is on irrationality of the belief itself. My attack is on the way people exhibit double standards when it comes to the extraordinary claim of god(s). My attack is on how this type of thinking bleeds throughout society and impacts all of us in real, tangible, and lasting ways.

 

I don't discuss the "meaning," though. That's not my concern. As has been demonstrated in this very thread, meaning is wherever you find it and whatever you want it to be. That's powerful, and emancipating, and inspiring. I didn't bring up meaning. Apollinaria did. She hinted that if god doesn't exist, neither does meaning in her life. As most here have pointed out, that's a load of horseshit.

 

Either way... I am suggesting to believe in god(s) is no different than to believe that Harry Potter is a real boy who can do real magic, or that Clifford the Big Red Dog is actually a gigantic crimson colored canine living on Birdwell Island that you could go visit. Whether or not you find personal meaning in the idea of Clifford the Big Red Dog is moot. My arguments are focused on the suggestion that he actually exists and my position is to demonstrate the irrationality and lack of reason that is required to hold such a ridiculous belief.

 

Everyone knows what you are suggesting because you suggest it in every post that you make, like a stuck record. Constantly declaring that people cannot believe in religion because you don't, is not a very convincing argument btw. You are after all asking people to change the view that they already hold because they found it compelling enough to hold by saying that what they found compelling about it is not compelling to you. Then you ramble on about some or other double standard system that is being used, something along the lines of: God must perform circus tricks whenever we ask Him to otherwise He doesn't exist, Science says... and if God doesn't play by the rules of Science then He can't exist but I will say that God can exist because I don't want to sound like I'm disobeying the rules of Science because I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

 

[iNow]

Everyone knows what you are suggesting because you suggest it in every post that you make, like a stuck record. Constantly declaring that people cannot believe in religion because you don't, is not a very convincing argument btw.

Yes, I am consistent in my approach, but no, I do speak about other things and on other topics. You maybe just see my comments on the religious discussions? I continue asking the same questions because the responses thus far have evaded them or been shown inadequate.

 

Also, you CONTINUE to enjoy the strawmen. My argument is NOT that people "cannot believe in religion" because "I don't." You truly need to work on your own reading comprehension if that's what you've taken away from my posts.

 

You are after all asking people to change the view that they already hold because they found it compelling enough to hold by saying that what they found compelling about it is not compelling to you. Then you ramble on about some or other double standard system that is being used, something along the lines of: God must perform circus tricks whenever we ask Him to otherwise He doesn't exist, Science says... and if God doesn't play by the rules of Science then He can't exist but I will say that God can exist because I don't want to sound like I'm disobeying the rules of Science because I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

I perceive that you're misunderstanding my argument. Either that, or you're misrepresenting it intentionally. Either way, if you want me to clarify something, then ask me a question... but perhaps this is not the thread for it? This thread was about Appolinaria's apathy and difficulty finding meaning if god is fake... I think.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

please note that posts 1005-1008 where moved from 'The truth that I can't escape is that there is no deeper meaning' thread

[iNow]

thx imatfaal

[seriously disabled]

Everyone knows what you are suggesting because you suggest it in every post that you make, like a stuck record. Constantly declaring that people cannot believe in religion because you don't, is not a very convincing argument btw. You are after all asking people to change the view that they already hold

 

Actually I realized that it is the theists that are telling everyone what to believe and what to do, not the atheists.

 

For instance atheists don't threaten Christians that will have to suffer infinite pain in Hell if they believe in God but Christians do that to atheists.

Edited June 7, 2012 by seriously disabled

[tar]

Inow,

 

The thread got a little fractured. I was sort of driving at a point (by circuitous routes no doubt) and trying to follow peoples arguments and what points they were driving at. Trying to stay up on where everybody was, what points they had conceded or rejected and such. I have lost track.

 

Who has the ball? And what goal line is that team driving toward?

 

It seems that team "broken" has established that "truth" is a thing best determined with other peoples help, as in the "scientific method". And this would be considered the "best", unbroken way to address reality, as it has yielded much knowledge about reality, allowing humankind to deal with it and provide humans with many "advantages" over a rather "unfeeling" and "unhumanlike" universe.

Team "broken" has also established that within the human phyche there is the ability to converse with unseen others, but made the distinction, between the "reality" of imagining a friend or thread compatriot, or relative and that of imagining a conversation with a garden gnome, or a sky pixie (or God, if he is to be concieved of as a big powerful human who controls everything, and has a need for your belief and devotion, and oddly also has a list of particular rules for you to follow.)

 

Team "unbroken" has established that there is a body of "truth" that can be known about the universe while standing alone on a mountaintop, or sitting in a dark cave, or while high on mushrooms, that is real and valuable. That a person can have a revelation about his or her relationship to the greater reality which "binds" one to it and these insights are about actual reality, yielding "proper" ways to behave toward it, including among other things, the other people in it.

 

Team TAR2 has established that there must be a middle way, that takes the "spirit" of the universe as both a thing of human imagination, and a real thing that must exist, even if the only proof of it, is you.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Team "unbroken" has established that there is a body of "truth" that can be known about the universe while standing alone on a mountaintop, or sitting in a dark cave, or while high on mushrooms, that is real and valuable. That a person can have a revelation about his or her relationship to the greater reality which "binds" one to it and these insights are about actual reality, yielding "proper" ways to behave toward it, including among other things, the other people in it.

This may have been asserted, but it's hardly been established. I don't discount the numinous. I discount the conclusions about ethereal extraordinary entities.

[tar]

Inow,

 

OK, I used "established" in an unestablished way, when referring to the "beliefs" that religious people have that they "know" God. And I don't want you to think, that I am trying to prove that the images of God we hold, are of an actual, limited thing, as in the God of Abraham, that has specific likes and dislikes, and writes things in books, chooses certain people to cast in a fire, and certain people to play harps in the clouds. Gods, in this sense are not "real", can not be proven to exist, and have to either be understood to not really exist in nature, or to be "supernatural" in essence.

 

But there are at least two cards I have played that you have swept off the table, as "not trump" cards, which I do not believe you have "established" as "not trump" cards. You have taken a few tricks for your team, I believe, inappropriately.

 

One is that to an individual human, other humans represent a very real embodiment of nature.

 

The other is that to a collection of humans, an individual human represents a very real embodiment of nature.

 

 

If a "loonie" moonie were to walk up to you in an Airport in the late 60s and state to you that God was love and love was inside you, and all around you, and offer you a flower, you would keep walking to your plane. But is there an actual argument you have "against" their claim? Probably not. You already know what they are claiming is true...on certian levels in certain senses. Just not entirely workable "in reality".

 

For instance, people can claim that they "love" humanity, when they can't stand the asshole next door.

 

Or you, Inow, can claim that rationality, consistency, and strict adherence to belief only in what has been evidencially proven, is the way to truth that humanity must follow to "advance" to the correct state of being, while admitting that the majority of humans are unwilling, or incapable of doing such.

 

If one is to have faith in "other" humans as a proxy for "objective reality", one has to accept the findings of all as having potential meaning, or else one might be guilty of "cherry picking", and imagining that objective reality only has the attributes, assigned to it by experts, and not just any experts, but experts that follow the proper protocol, and not just that, but that also agree with the model of the universe, that you yourself, hold in your head.

 

It seems to me that I can not hand off "objective reality" to be "known" only by another. I must retain the intimate knowledge of it that I have of it, to compare and contrast, with the findings of other real beings. And it could not be said that the whole operation is not the universe finding a way to look at itself.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 7, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

So, can I get the cliff's notes version of that? My take is that you're conveying, "There are some vast awe inspiring things out there. It's good not to ignore all of them." Is that roughly accurate? If so, then we agree. One can avoid ignoring the numinous without drawing irrational, unreasonable, unfounded conclusions.

[doG]

One is that to an individual human, other humans represent a very real embodiment of nature.

 

The other is that to a collection of humans, an individual human represents a very real embodiment of nature.

And those are some kind of trump cards how?

 

If one is to have faith in "other" humans as a proxy for "objective reality", one has to accept the findings of all as having potential meaning, or else one might be guilty of "cherry picking", and imagining that objective reality only has the attributes, assigned to it by experts, and not just any experts, but experts that follow the proper protocol, and not just that, but that also agree with the model of the universe, that you yourself, hold in your head.

Faith? I don't think so. I'm from the southeast U.S. where 50% or more of the population are Christians. People that are not skeptics and simply believe what they have been told all of their life because of.........faith. To me they are no proxy for objective reality, they are evidence that faith itself is some kind of mental disorder. The very fact that these people believe in faith without question is evidence that they are broken. Many of them have come to rely on prayer to cure the ills they face in life and believe it is weakness in their faith when their prayers are not answered. Their ability to reason rationally is flawed.

 

I do want to clarify though, I am not talking about those that have given it thought on their own and come to their own conclusion that they choose to believe there is something more as the safe bet just in case there is something more out there. This group will concede that maybe there is something more and maybe not. They believe because they choose to do so after applying rational thought. OTOH, I am talking about the average southern bible belt christian that believes for no other reason except that it's what always been spoon fed to them without question or thought. They don't believe because they choose to, they believe because they've been told to, told to believe and told not to question it. Told to believe because of faith and faith alone. They are exactly the reason I cannot have faith in "other" humans as a proxy for "objective reality".

[tar]

Inow,

 

I didn't think that was all I was saying. I thought I was pointing out, that it makes "sense" to believe in objective reality, as I thing which you can in truth, "know", and have good reason to feel a part of. That we have the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of another, whether that other be person, place or thing, huge or tiny, past, present or future, real or imagined...suggesting that it may not be "broken" to do this, but indeed crucial to human thought and consciousness. And this, facility, if assumed to be in others, allows a collective "real" objective look at things, where one can put themselves in the shoes of the collective, and "pretend" to know, what the collective knows, and it is not a large step to then "pretend" to know, what the Earth might know and desire, and what the universe might know and desire. And these shifts in perspective, these takings of various veiwpoints, are not totally baseless, because its what humans can do, for one, and its therefore something living entities on Earth can do, and for two, we are something that the universe itself is able to create. By accident, or on purpose, it takes what came before, to exist, for any entity at all, with any charateritics to emerge from it. Automatic, built in knowledge that needs no formulae or measurements to arrive at. Automatic, built in knowledge of nature, being nature itself that we are, that we sense, that we remember and think about.

 

dOG,

 

Trump cards because one cannot both claim they are 100% nature AND outside of nature. The outside of nature thing, must be a supernatural claim, an unsupportable claim an extraordinary claim. Whether held by a scientist, or a bible belt Christian. When you take a God's eye view, it is either a false thing you do, or a true thing you do. I think the evidence is in favor of it being a true thing you do. And perhaps that means its a true thing the Bible Belt Christians are doing, as well.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

and although I hate to admit it, it might also mean that 100 thousand Muslims circling the stone in Mecca, might also be doing a true thing, regardless of the fact, that to me, they are self hypnotised, mindless slaves, reciting over and over in their minds the words of the Prophet, worshipping an untrue thing.

Edited June 8, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

There were many insightful comments in this interaction that were thread relevant, so I'm sharing it.

 

 

[tar]

Inow,

 

When it comes to "practical" knowledge, of what is "real" and what is "made up" with no basis in truth, there are many aspects of "god", as described by theists, that are not reasonable, not evident, and are likely to be "unreal" and unfindable, and unuseful, in a practical sense, when "looked for" by another human, listening to the description of God, pronounced by the theist.

 

But my argument, is that those aspects are NOT the aspects of God upon which the theist is basing their belief. That they are indeed "wrong" about these impossible aspects, but indeed "right" about their connection to and knowledge of "objective reality"...in all the true ways that we as humans are connected to, and DO have knowledge of the universe/GOD/reality.

 

As atheists, you and I, and others, are asking theists to inspect their beliefs and throw out the impossible stuff, and retain the reasonable true stuff. I have a theory, that they do not know how to do that, because they think we (atheists) have thrown out, or do not recognize the true stuff, that comes automatically and obviously to all on the planet. And this automatic true intuition is not something a theist can, or should be asked to discount.

 

Were the difficulty comes, I think, in these discussions, is in determining, on what basis exactly, does ones true intuition become false...just because someone else has drawn the line between fact and fancy differently than you have.

 

Using myself as an example, I have determined that certain things are true in a figurative sense, but not in a literal sense, but retain great value to believe in none-the-less, even if taken only in the figurative sense. That there is real reason to believe in God as a proxy for the "higher ideals" that we hold. Because the ideals themselves, are real and valuable. And there is real reason to believe in God as proxy for objective reality, because objective reality really does exist. We are all rather sure of this fact. We "know" this. And I don't like, myself, when someone suggests that I can not know THIS, when I most certainly can and do. Just as reliably as any human, that might proclaim they have a way to know it "better".

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 12, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

Your point?

[tar]

Your point?

 

That people that believe in God, may be believing in a true thing, basically, and just have attached, to various degrees, fanciful attributes that make the whole "belief" a false and broken thing, in your view, but that the fanciful attributes can be discounted, or pointed out, or debunked or explained in various positive ways...leaving still, enough meat on the bone, for a rational person, an unbroken person, to hold a belief in God, that is based mostly on the real, actual experience of a conscious, mortal human, alive amidst the enormity and detail of reality.

 

That people who believe in God, believe in similar things, as I believe in, and that it is not so odd or broken, for a human to expect that what they are capable of (such as consciousness, and finding meaning, and taking ownership and responsibility for life beyond their own life) might indeed be a characteristic of the universe of which they are a small representative example.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

...leaving still, enough meat on the bone, for a rational person, an unbroken person, to hold a belief in God, that is based mostly on the real, actual experience of a conscious, mortal human, alive amidst the enormity and detail of reality.

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as little more than hand-waving woo and an obscene amount of deepity. A bunch of vague words put forth in support of a vague point.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

[tar]

Inow,

 

Perhaps that's it. That is my point. Metaphor is all we have. When we use it together, its perfectly alright. When someone else uses it, they must be using woo.

 

I happen to think that woo is OK. Especially if two people have reason to allow the same woo. Makes it potentially real.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

I happen to think that woo is OK. Especially if two people have reason to allow the same woo. Makes it potentially real.

So, where and how does one draw the line, then? Your position would allow any damned stupid thing to be made equivalent to well-supported, reasonable, and logical positions rooted in reality.

 

Your approach seems to be an entirely impractical form of metaphysical solipsism that allows the existence of black skinned leprechauns who get erections when unicorns fart to be on the exact same level as the idea that we humans need water to survive.

 

Where and how do you define the threshold for what's total BS or nonsense and what is a shared fact worthy of our time, consideration, and acceptance? Your argument throughout this thread has been basically that no such line either exists or is needed, and that is IMO ludicrous on its face.

[Iggy]

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.

 

Anyone here believe in string theory? The Big Bang? Life on other planets? That we have been visited by aliens? That your spouse would never cheat on you? That man came out of Africa? That they know what the interior of the earth is made of?

 

What level of evidence is enough to make you believe in something? What did the scientific minds believe in 1000 years ago, or 500, or 50?

 

Something you believe in right now will turn out to be wrong. When it does you will realize you did not have sufficient evidence to believe, but that you were willing to believe anyway.

 

If theists are broken, then so is everyone else.

Wow You are right on

Was David Berkowitz broken for believing that a demon possessed dog ordered him to kill?

 

Berkowitz could have been mistaken, but everyone ends up being mistaken about something.

 

If Berkowitz is broken then so is everyone else.

 

I wouldn't characterize this thinking as "right on".

[tar]

So, where and how does one draw the line, then? Your position would allow any damned stupid thing to be made equivalent to well-supported, reasonable, and logical positions rooted in reality.

 

Your approach seems to be an entirely impractical form of metaphysical solipsism that allows the existence of black skinned leprechauns who get erections when unicorns fart to be on the exact same level as the idea that we humans need water to survive.

 

Where and how do you define the threshold for what's total BS or nonsense and what is a shared fact worthy of our time, consideration, and acceptance? Your argument throughout this thread has been basically that no such line either exists or is needed, and that is IMO ludicrous on its face.

 

Inow,

 

Well I see your point. And I have no wish to insinuate that things that are nonsense are sensible. Just looking for the "reasons" why nonsense is entertained, under the theory that there must be a reason.

 

Along with determining that God (the Abrahamic one) is nothing more than a sky pixie, you have similiarly dismissed ghosts and alien abductions as fantasies, with no basis in reality. That all these things are without any reason to accept as factual components of reality. Perhaps you have it pegged, and your threshold, and the threshold defined by the 10 points of Dawkin's organization is indeed the threshold I should hold myself to, and in so doing, "accept" reality and solidly join forces with those humans who are doing it "right". There is great draw to this tact, for me, it makes sense on just about every level I can think of. Except for the fact that I spoke to God when I was 13, felt the love of Christ in the air on several occasions in my youth, witnessed along with a dozen other people some "visitors"(lights) hovering over a power line for 10 or 15 minutes (refueling perhaps), when I was 18, had a community run in with a ghost around the same time, and had an epiphany on a mountaintop in Germany when I was 25 or so, where I "understood" "treeness" and what life on Earth was all about.

 

Whatever determination I make about what is NOT B.S. has to include an explanation of these later things in terms of facts that are worthy of our time, consideration and mutual acceptance.

 

I am expecting there to be a real explanation for everything I have experienced. Everything I have sensed. And the real explanations are the only ones I am expecting to find. They are the only ones that make any sense. They are the only ones that could actually be the case. Whether I look for answers in the human mind, or in human culture, or in a physics textbook, or in the night sky, I expect no magical impossible answer, I expect to find the truth, what ever really is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 14, 2012 by tar

[zapatos]

Was David Berkowitz broken for believing that a demon possessed dog ordered him to kill?

 

Berkowitz could have been mistaken, but everyone ends up being mistaken about something.

 

If Berkowitz is broken then so is everyone else.

 

I wouldn't characterize this thinking as "right on".

Who are you equating with the mentally ill? People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong, or people who have a belief in scientific theories that may turn out to be wrong?

[iNow]

I am expecting there to be a real explanation for everything I have experienced. Everything I have sensed. And the real explanations are the only ones I am expecting to find. They are the only ones that make any sense. They are the only ones that could actually be the case. Whether I look for answers in the human mind, or in human culture, or in a physics textbook, or in the night sky, I expect no magical impossible answer, I expect to find the truth, what ever really is the case.

And that's very fair. I truly do believe you would find immense pleasure in studying modern psychology, neuroscience, and social learning theories. The posts you make so consistently touch on those themes, and while the answers are still being improved, they really do a fine job at addressing the topics you so authentically discuss.

 

Maybe some of these will prove enticing, enlightening, and even enjoyable: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/12/22/best-psychology-and-philosophy-books-of-2011/

 

---

Who are you equating with the mentally ill? People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong, or people who have a belief in scientific theories that may turn out to be wrong?

Iggy is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I find your dichotomy quite false and tangential to the point. Here's my read of what's happening here:

 

You made the argument basically that belief in god is not broken just because it may be wrong, and you inherently placed it on the same footing as acceptance of the big bang or global warming which may also be wrong, but have tons of evidence and a confluence of research supporting them. This was a weak argument, and to show how this was a weak argument, Iggy simply did a Find/Replace... substituting the term "God" with the "dog's that David Berkowitz claimed told him to kill people. "

 

Your argument in this context would mean that Berkowitz may have been wrong about the dogs, but he wasn't "broken" for killing people as a result of what he heard them telling him. That's ultimately what you're saying, just about people who believe in god instead of people who believe dogs are telling them to kill people.

 

Most of us would concede that the latter of those two is broken... that David Berkowitz believing dogs are instructing him to kill others is broken... so the point becomes, in what relevant ways are people who believe in god any different than people who believe dogs are telling them to kill people?

 

Many of us suspect there really are no relevant differences at all, only that lots of people share the delusion and it's more accepted by society so gets a "special pass." Not functionally different. Not different in content, just in societal response and acceptance...

[immortal]

Most of us would concede that the latter of those two is broken... that David Berkowitz believing dogs are instructing him to kill others is broken... so the point becomes, in what relevant ways are people who believe in god any different than people who believe dogs are telling them to kill people?

 

 

Simple, majority of people who believe in God are not interested in killing others they are more interested in killing their enemies and in knowing the truth. Who are their enemies? Its pride, ignorance, lust and dishonesty.

[iNow]

I sense that you're missing the point.

Edited June 14, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

Your argument in this context would mean that Berkowitz may have been wrong about the dogs, but he wasn't "broken" for killing people as a result of what he heard them telling him. That's ultimately what you're saying, just about people who believe in god instead of people who believe dogs are telling them to kill people.

Not my argument. You are misrepresenting my argument then telling me it is wrong. That is a strawman. You cannot simply substitute words in my argument with words of your choosing and say that it is still my argument.

 

Most of us would concede that the latter of those two is broken... that David Berkowitz believing dogs are instructing him to kill others is broken... so the point becomes, in what relevant ways are people who believe in god any different than people who believe dogs are telling them to kill people?

Are you really suggesting that there is no relevant difference between my 10 year old niece and a person who believes dogs are telling him to kill people?

 

Many of us suspect there really are no relevant differences at all, only that lots of people share the delusion and it's more accepted by society so gets a "special pass." Not functionally different. Not different in content, just in societal response and acceptance...

Which I believe answers my question to Iggy. Assuming that you think that someone who believes dogs are telling him to kill people is mentally ill, then you are equating 'People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be wrong' with 'the mentally ill'.

 

You made the argument basically that belief in god is not broken just because it may be wrong, and you inherently placed it on the same footing as acceptance of the big bang or global warming which may also be wrong, but have tons of evidence and a confluence of research supporting them. This was a weak argument, and to show how this was a weak argument, Iggy simply did a Find/Replace... substituting the term "God" with the "dog's that David Berkowitz claimed told him to kill people. "

The weakness lies in the OP, and its fatal flaw is its lack of constraints. By making the OP overly broad you have opened it up to too many simple opportunities to reject it, including the argument I made.

 

As an example, if a theist has no knowledge of the tons of research and the confluence of research supporting a scientific theory, for that person it can be considered not to exist. It therefore would put belief of God and belief of that scientific theory on the same footing. You cannot fault someone for equating the likelihood of the Big Bang and the likelihood of God if he knows of the exact same amount of support for both (i.e. Nothing).

 

The OP implies ALL who believe in God are broken, yet the arguments put forth by you and others in this thread concentrate on those with at least a minimal level of knowledge/education/experience/rigorous thought/etc.

 

In my opinion you are claiming fault with a large group, then trying to prove it by exposing flaws in a subset of the group. This seems to me to be in violation of Rule 1c - "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."

Edited June 14, 2012 by zapatos