People who believe in god are broken

[iNow]

(P.S. That's not a real unicorn, its just a drawing.)

It's as real as any god is...

[tar]

Inow,

 

I meant it as comic relief, and was poking fun at both the theist that would believe their god WAS real when everybody else knew their particular characiture does not "actually" exist, but is more like a drawing they have made in their minds, AND poking fun at you for repeatedly suggesting that belief in God is therefore equivalent to belief in Unicorns, which would be the case only if objective reality did not actually exist, in the same way that unicorns don't actually exist. This is not the case. Objective reality DOES actually exist.

 

Which in reference to the thread OP would suggest to me that there is an important distinction to be made between belief in God, and belief in ones personal drawing of such.

 

God itself is impossible to argue against if it is to be taken as equivalent to objective reality. And belief in God in this case is completely NOT broken because its existence is evident in other people, the Earth, the Sun, the stars, the flowers, the DNA that builds a human mind, and in our consciousness and ability to personally internalize representations of all of it.

 

But arguing against any personal characterization of God is easy, because its just a drawing, it, this characterization, is NOT real, and falls way short of being a "one to one" representation of actual reality.

 

I personally believe that most theists are well aware of this distinction, and are believing much more in the actual thing they are attempting to draw, then in their drawing of it. But there are those, that believe in the drawing itself, MORE than in actual reality, and these people are both broken, in the ways you have amply described in this thread, AND strawmen that are easy to take down.

 

Belief in God, and belief in Unicorns is not equivalent.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

This strikes me as an unquestionably untenable position to hold. How any intelligent person would ever make such an argument completely baffles me.

 

 

Even with faith there is a responsibility from the person accepting the proposals of that faith system. There is no such thing as blind faith because the individual is still liable for the resulting actions of their faith. Soren Kiekergaard's Fear and Trembling is a good example of what the individual has to consider when acting in faith and the consequences there of. To think that someone can blindly follow any system would completely remove them from that system.

 

We can't know whether God exists or not, but we can examine and consider that which is presented to us from Him. I think that the only way that we can effectively evaluate religious text is by considering it without any preconceived morals and values (these are, after all, man made), and consider what the implications of the religious texts would be.

[iNow]

God itself is impossible to argue against if it is to be taken as equivalent to objective reality.

I don't take it as equivalent to objective reality, though. I take it as equivalent to a childish human belief, such as belief in santa or the tooth fairy.

 

Belief in God, and belief in Unicorns is not equivalent.

The only difference is the number of people who take it seriously and how many have an emotional commitment to those beliefs. The only difference is how society treats those beliefs and applies double standards, offering an undue deference to belief in god(s), but considering belief in unicorns childish or mentally unhealthy.

 

Those particular differences, however, are irrelevant to the the validity and veracity of the beliefs themselves. In terms of the beliefs themselves, they are both equivalent in terms of supporting evidence, logical arguments, and reasonable acceptance of them as true. Sure, one of those fairy tales may be more sophisticated or commonly held than the other, but it's still almost certainly a fairy tale all the same.

 

---

Even with faith there is a responsibility from the person accepting the proposals of that faith system. There is no such thing as blind faith because the individual is still liable for the resulting actions of their faith. Soren Kiekergaard's Fear and Trembling is a good example of what the individual has to consider when acting in faith and the consequences there of. To think that someone can blindly follow any system would completely remove them from that system.

Kierkegaard's argument that faith is equivalent to doubt here is really irrelevant to what I said. My argument was that it is untenable of you to think that god(s) are immune and somehow exempt from our application of reason, logic, and evidence.

[tar]

Inow,

 

But would you make a distinction between what a theist is taught about God in church, temple, mosque, and what a theist believes about God, based on his/her own understanding of reality?

 

If we are to only argue against the evidence for flying donkeys carrying angels, and visions wearing jewels, and various other images that seem to be only real to the visioner, then we are simply arguing against the unicorn, the drawing of God, the representation of God.

 

Theists must have more than that in mind, when they talk about God.

I know from Mohammed's words in the Koran, that Allah is to be taken as that one entity which is our creator. In my mind, that can only mean nature itself, the universe itself, the objective reality that I am in and of. There is no other thing I know of, that will fit the description.

 

It is interesting that Mohammed often warns against holding any false images of this entity. He was very constantly speaking against the Idol worshippers of his time, and warned against the error of believing that Allah had any associates. And he often mentioned he was but a messenger, and subject to Allah completely, as the rest of the world is. He did not, in my estimation, think that Allah was anything you could or should make a drawing of, because the drawing, or the statue, or image, would not come close to BEING Allah, and any such vain attempt would be insultingly erroneous.

 

There are a couple billion humans on this planet who "understand" what Mohammed was telling us about Allah. I am not one of them, I do not believe that this life is a way station, on the way to an "afterlife" where the Most Merciful will reward those who have followed his final messages given to Mohammed, and punish those who have fallen from the way. The whole setup is faulty in its logic and winds up with Mohammed usurping the power of Allah, and judging and killing and taking tithe in Allah's stead.

 

But I do not think that you or I are in a position to know what of a believer's beliefs are of true things, and on what level, literally or figuratively they may be true. They may actually be worshipping the same lord that you and I take for granted...after all, there is only one reality evident.

 

I am all for dismissing the c**p in the scriptures, as fictional nonsense, not literally true...but retaining the notions that come naturally to all of us. Whatever those notions might be, that are commonly understood.

 

I guess what I am saying, is that if you dismiss everything unreal and not evident that was ever said in any religious text about God, and there is something left standing, then THAT is what believers in God, are believing in, and they are not broken to believe in it, because it is true and existant. The other "broken stuff", they could discard, as easily as you or I could. But the real portion cannot be dismissed, by anyone and people tend to attach a lot of c**ppy baggage to the real portion, and don't know which parts are real, that they should retain, and which parts are c**p that they should toss, when asked to "face reality" by another mortal human. Cause after all, we all seem to have a sense that we are being held accountable for our lives.

 

Accountable to objective reality in someway or another. Whether we really are or not, does not seem to be the question. The question is more "by who or what ARE we being held accountable"?

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

I guess what I am saying, is that if you dismiss everything unreal and not evident that was ever said in any religious text about God, and there is something left standing, then THAT is what believers in God, are believing in, and they are not broken to believe in it, because it is true and existant.

Isn't this equivalent to saying it's not broken of people to think that Harry Potter is a real boy who performs real magic in the real world because somewhere in J.K. Rowling's books she mentions trains and trains actually exist in real life?

[Villain]

Kierkegaard's argument that faith is equivalent to doubt here is really irrelevant to what I said. My argument was that it is untenable of you to think that god(s) are immune and somehow exempt from our application of reason, logic, and evidence.

 

Although I mentioned the name Kiekegaard, your above conclusion has no relevance to my comment. I was trying to convey that even faith comes with responsibility and that no one can merely take on faith without choice. People need reason to accept faith as they will ultimately be at the hands of the consequences there of. Faith exists and therefore reason for such faith seems to exist, most likely it is in the form of evidence to those that believe.

[tar]

Isn't this equivalent to saying it's not broken of people to think that Harry Potter is a real boy who performs real magic in the real world because somewhere in J.K. Rowling's books she mentions trains and trains actually exist in real life?

 

Inow,

 

Well yes, it is the same. But people don't believe Harry Potter is a real boy that performs real magic.

But they still identify with him, for other reasons. That Harry Potter defeated Voldimort was not because of the magic. Voldimort had equal magic that cancelled out Harry's. Harry had love and faith. Voldimort had nothing.

 

The love and faith were the real things that defeated evil.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

I wouldn't say that is directly contradictory to Music's point.

When I said "I could just as easily cite material no less credible directly opposed to what you're saying" I meant that the second quote would contradict the first:

 

Pape's study, which found that most "religious" suicide terrorism was clearly motivated at least as much by politics, and almost never involved mental illness.

...suicide terrorists... Research increasingly shows that many are motivated far more by personal crises, mental-health problems, and suicidal desires than by ideology or commitment to the cause.

 

Dr. Adam Lankford

 

While the second quote contradicts the first I actually didn't mean to imply that the book Music mentioned is wrong or that the link I gave is unarguably correct -- just that it's easy to come up with a different conclusion with such an indecisive and subjective question.

 

The post-tramatic stress people(20%), and the people who had tried killing themselves before (13%) could be among the 40% with suicidal tendencies. Which still leaves a potential 60% of the interviewees without suicidal tendencies.

100% of suicide attackers want to kill themselves and plan to kill themselves, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to say that 60% of them don't have suicidal tendencies. The article talks about psychological symptoms "unrelated to terrorism", but I think it is just as mentally unhealthy to kill yourself for religious terrorism as it is to kill yourself for depression.

[iNow]

I guess what I am saying, is that if you dismiss everything unreal and not evident that was ever said in any religious text about God, and there is something left standing, then THAT is what believers in God, are believing in, and they are not broken to believe in it, because it is true and existant.

Isn't this equivalent to saying it's not broken of people to think that Harry Potter is a real boy who performs real magic in the real world because somewhere in J.K. Rowling's books she mentions trains and trains actually exist in real life?

Well yes, it is the same. But people don't believe Harry Potter is a real boy that performs real magic.

Irrelevant to my point.

 

---

Although I mentioned the name Kiekegaard, your above conclusion has no relevance to my comment. I was trying to convey that even faith comes with responsibility and that no one can merely take on faith without choice. People need reason to accept faith as they will ultimately be at the hands of the consequences there of. Faith exists and therefore reason for such faith seems to exist, most likely it is in the form of evidence to those that believe.

Sorry for the misrepresentation. I didn't do it intentionally. However, I still think your argument is nonsequitur and even a bit obtuse. You're sharing an argument from Kierkegaard, but I believe miscomprehending or misrepresenting it.

 

Kierkegaard stated that even when one believes based on faith alone, they still must consider the consequences of that faith as part of their decision making process. They must ultimately consider the downstream impact of that faith, much like a thief must consider the downstream consequences of being caught should they be found stealing.

 

This does nothing to support the contention implicit in your post that faith alone is good enough to believe in something so totally extraordinary as god(s), nor does it even begin to make faith a "form of evidence" in support of that belief.

[tar]

Iggy,

 

I found it strange myself, that in interviewing people that were caught, mid plan, about to effect a suicide bombing, that only 40% had suicidal tendencies. Guess the others didn't fit the psychological profile, and the researchers must have been not counting the planned suicide bombing as a "tendency".

 

Which left me thinking, especially with the hair gel fact thrown in that a lot of them were rather attached to themselves, and probably did not consider that the explosion would be the end of them. Not too surprising, I suppose, considering the emphasis on the "afterlife" in the Koran, and the idea that seems to be around, that dying for "the cause", is a ticket to heaven. If one is convinced that "this life" is just a test that you can pass or fail, with wonderful or dreadful consequences for yourself, and there is a way to get an automatic A, then "going for" the A, would not be crazy at all, but a rather sound decision.

 

To me and you, they are obviously wrong about the heaven thing. It makes no sense. They are giving up the only thing they have, (their life), on the false promise of a "better" one. It is, on its face, downright insanity...But then there are things I might die for. My family, my flag, a fellow soldier in a cause of MINE...which makes me re-evaluate a bit.

 

Is it crazier to believe that objective reality is subject to you, or that you are subject to objective reality?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 21, 2012 by tar

[Villain]

Kierkegaard stated that even when one believes based on faith alone, they still must consider the consequences of that faith as part of their decision making process. They must ultimately consider the downstream impact of that faith, much like a thief must consider the downstream consequences of being caught should they be found stealing.

 

This does nothing to support the contention implicit in your post that faith alone is good enough to believe in something so totally extraordinary as god(s), nor does it even begin to make faith a "form of evidence" in support of that belief.

 

Let's use the Abraham example (bare with me, I realise that you might consider it a purely fiction example but I think we can conclude that there are less extreme versions of such a case today still); He is willing to kill his son, his only true son, the one promised to him to carry the Israelite nation forward, the one that was conceived through a 'miracle' due to the age of conception etc (this son must have been his most valuable 'possession'). Now if we consider all of this, I cannot believe that anyone would do such a thing if it was based purely on a coin flip as to the existence of God. What would their motivation be?

 

Ultimately what I'm saying is unless billions are as you say 'broken' (acting without motivation, which is completely inhuman), there must be some sort of evidence for them to consider God. I don't think the 'pie in the sky' would be enough motivation for the average human to consider such a proposal.

 

 

 

[MonDie]

I am all for dismissing the c**p in the scriptures, as fictional nonsense, not literally true...but retaining the notions that come naturally to all of us. ² Whatever those notions might be, that are commonly understood. ¹

I guess what I am saying, is that if you dismiss everything unreal and not evident that was ever said in any religious text about God, and there is something left standing, then THAT is what believers in God, are believing in, and they are not broken to believe in it, because it is true and existant. ¹ The other "broken stuff", they could discard, as easily as you or I could. But the real portion cannot be dismissed, by anyone and people tend to attach a lot of c**ppy baggage to the real portion, and don't know which parts are real, that they should retain, and which parts are c**p that they should toss, when asked to "face reality" by another mortal human. Cause after all, we all seem to have a sense that we are being held accountable for our lives. ²

I.e. If religions have common beliefs that haven't been refuted, those beliefs must be true. Did I understand it as you did? ¹ I think this is an example of "begging the question."

The religions might have common beliefs because of cultural diffusion (basically, the spreading of ideas from one culture to another), or because religions with such beliefs lasted significantly longer than other religions, or because humans have built-in tendencies toward certain thoughts, ² or any combination thereof.

There is also the factor of chance. Post hoc analyses don't need to have explanations. Post hoc analysis involves looking for any random pattern and attributing that pattern to something other than chance. The problem is that somebody will inevitably find some sort of pattern if they are just looking for any pattern at all, and that pattern doesn't need to be due to anything more than chance. So, there is no reason to think that, if the different religions happened to have a different belief in common, people wouldn't be pointing to that belief instead. ¹

So, alternatively, and purely by chance, history might have caused you to be here now saying, "All the major religions say that dead relatives can visit you in your dreams, so it must be true!" This thread might have had a title along the lines of, "People who believe dead relatives visit them in their dreams are broken."

Edited June 21, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Prometheus]

I suppose we're quibbling a bit over semantics with this, but I will offer my response to your position all the same.

 

It may be more "normal," but not "healthy." I used the example above to illustrate this in a more cut-and-dry accessible way. If there was widespread belief that raping young boys would end world hunger, that would not make this a "healthy" belief. It would not make the belief any less broken. It would merely make the belief more common, and a trait found often within the norm of the population, but it would not make it healthy.

 

Since the context of our exchange has been mental health and brokenness of the belief itself, I continue to think that prevalence of the belief is not really relevant. If everyone thought that jumping off a bridge would lead to eternal paradise for their loved ones, that would not make the belief any more mentally healthy or unbroken.

 

If this point has any validity, and you can appreciate what I'm suggesting, that would make the follow-on question become, why should we treat belief in god(s) any differently than belief in the idea that raping young boys will end world hunger, or belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns? My stance is that we should not.

 

As far as mental health goes, normal is healthy. There is no reason humans should necessarily be rational creatures, even if it is our preference.

 

Maybe one day we will encounter aliens. As aliens their mind sets are entirely different from ours in ways difficult even to begin to comprehend. They believe that pink unicorn farts do as you advertised. Would you say such beings are mentally ill?

 

I would say they are not mentally ill, even if their belief is incorrect.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Prometheus

[iNow]

Let's use the Abraham example (bare with me, I realise that you might consider it a purely fiction example but I think we can conclude that there are less extreme versions of such a case today still); He is willing to kill his son, his only true son, the one promised to him to carry the Israelite nation forward, the one that was conceived through a 'miracle' due to the age of conception etc (this son must have been his most valuable 'possession'). Now if we consider all of this, I cannot believe that anyone would do such a thing if it was based purely on a coin flip as to the existence of God. What would their motivation be?

Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument. You can't convince others by saying, "Since I cannot personally come up with a reason they would do this without good reason, they must have had a good reason." That is a logical fallacy.

 

Also, for what it's worth, having studied the human mind myself, I know it's quite easy to suffer from delusions, to take mental shortcuts, and to have false memories and believe things for no good reason. I suspect there are false beliefs of my own that I have not yet found or rooted out. It's quite common, and happens a lot. Hell, just look at the birther campaign against Obama, or at those who argue that vaccinations cause autism despite the metric assload of evidence to the contrary. People quite often believe things despite there being no good reason, and there are a multitude of reasons that people like Abraham would do things like show a willingness to sacrifice his child even if god does not actually exist.

 

I am not here doubting the magnitude nor genuine nature of his faith, nor am I doubting the sincerity of his belief or the absolute nature with which he held it. What I am doubting and challenging is that the belief alone is somehow good enough to accept as valid the object of the belief... That faith alone is enough to justify the existence of a deity. It quite simply is not, and theists agree with me on this exact same logic for practically everything else every single day of their lives... unless that thing happens to be god. Then, they suddenly alter their approach, apply a double standard, and apply arbitrarily choose their criteria for validating truth claims differently.

 

In short, the human mind is far too fallible for opinion or belief to be treated as fact without really solid supplemental evidence, yet that's what most believers do. Their motivation is not relevant, nor is the sincerity of their belief, and nor is what you personally can or cannot believe about why someone like Abraham would do such a thing relevant in this discussion. You would agree with me if Abraham chose to sacrifice his son due to a belief in the easter bunny, but for some reason you expect me to treat the concept of god differently despite it having exactly the same amount of evidence in support of its existence.

 

 

Ultimately what I'm saying is unless billions are as you say 'broken' (acting without motivation, which is completely inhuman), there must be some sort of evidence for them to consider God. I don't think the 'pie in the sky' would be enough motivation for the average human to consider such a proposal.

As I've said before, your personal incredulity matters not. Also, the challenge with the "sort of evidence" believers use is they set the threshold for what constitutes valid evidence far too low given the extraordinary nature of the god claim. Just like thunder is not evidence of Thor, and waves in the ocean are not evidence of Poseidon, nor is the fact that we exist or nature is beautiful evidence of Yahweh.

 

---

Maybe one day we will encounter aliens. As aliens their mind sets are entirely different from ours in ways difficult even to begin to comprehend. They believe that pink unicorn farts do as you advertised. Would you say such beings are mentally ill?

 

I would say they are not mentally ill, even if their belief is incorrect.

I would say they are mentally ill if they think unicorns exist on the basis of no relevant or adequate evidence.

[music]

I would say they are mentally ill if they think unicorns exist on the basis of no relevant or adequate evidence.

 

The essence of the problem is here. "Normal" people don't apply this standard to their religious beliefs (nor probably to most of their other beliefs). I can agree to call them bad philosophers, but I can't call them mentally ill.

[tar]

I.e. If religions have common beliefs that haven't been refuted, those beliefs must be true. Did I understand it as you did? ¹ I think this is an example of "begging the question."

The religions might have common beliefs because of cultural diffusion (basically, the spreading of ideas from one culture to another), or because religions with such beliefs lasted significantly longer than other religions, or because humans have built-in tendencies toward certain thoughts, ² or any combination thereof.

There is also the factor of chance. Post hoc analyses don't need to have explanations. Post hoc analysis involves looking for any random pattern and attributing that pattern to something other than chance. The problem is that somebody will inevitably find some sort of pattern if they are just looking for any pattern at all, and that pattern doesn't need to be due to anything more than chance. So, there is no reason to think that, if the different religions happened to have a different belief in common, people wouldn't be pointing to that belief instead. ¹

So, alternatively, and purely by chance, history might have caused you to be here now saying, "All the major religions say that dead relatives can visit you in your dreams, so it must be true!" This thread might have had a title along the lines of, "People who believe dead relatives visit them in their dreams are broken."

 

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

Well not really, I was not talking about things depicted in religious scriptures, that have not been refuted. I was talking about things depicted, that YOU would not refute, because its evident to you as well. If YOU were to remove all the impossible things, and still retained a common thread, a common group of concepts, any common feelings and thoughts and meanings, that stood on their own, without the need for the particular false image, arrived at by a particular wise man. Like any myth, there is an element of truth, a valuable insight, a real and usable and workable meaning...regardless of the particular characterisations, and after dismissing the illogical stuff, to be found in most religions.

 

I have already admitted my atheism. You need not argue against Gods, in order to bring me to insights I have already had.

 

What you need to do is tell me why I can not feel obligated to objective reality, why this belief I have that I am both subject to it, and responsible for it, along with the other consciousnesses I know have existed, do exist and will exist, is a broken thing.

 

I do not subscribe to the "accident" logic you are promoting. If we had three feet we would wear trios of shoes, not pairs. What has that got to do with what we are talking about? We are discussing the belief in God, that most people on this planet have, in one way or the other. I am not trying to prove that therefore each person's idea of god is correct, and an entity of the exact description a person would give, actually exists. I am trying to find out what real thing it is, we are attempting to describe. The thing we have metaphors about. I am trying to argue that it is the thing we sense, the thing we know, the thing we believe in, and the metaphors do not do it justice.

 

We ARE humans on the planet Earth. We do do the things we do, and believe the things we believe, and if any of a billion people, would have done, or said, one little thing differently than they did, the history of the world would be different. But they did not do it differently than they did it. They did it the way they did. And they did it on purpose. No accident. No "if this" or "if that" is on the table. In a real sense, each of us is 100% universe material, and the universe has actually done what it has done up to now, and has not yet done, what it is going to do next. For real.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 22, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

I can agree to call them bad philosophers, but I can't call them mentally ill.

Perhaps broken, or maybe just childish and silly?

[MonDie]

I do not subscribe to the "accident" logic you are promoting. If we had three feet we would wear trios of shoes, not pairs. What has that got to do with what we are talking about? We are discussing the belief in God, that most people on this planet have, in one way or the other. I am not trying to prove that therefore each person's idea of god is correct, and an entity of the exact description a person would give, actually exists. I am trying to find out what real thing it is, we are attempting to describe. The thing we have metaphors about. I am trying to argue that it is the thing we sense, the thing we know, the thing we believe in, and the metaphors do not do it justice.

 

We ARE humans on the planet Earth. We do do the things we do, and believe the things we believe, and if any of a billion people, would have done, or said, one little thing differently than they did, the history of the world would be different. But they did not do it differently than they did it. They did it the way they did. And they did it on purpose. No accident. No "if this" or "if that" is on the table. In a real sense, each of us is 100% universe material, and the universe has actually done what it has done up to now, and has not yet done, what it is going to do next. For real.

 

Outcomes are a mix of reasons and chance. Some outcomes are more probable for certain reasons, and I listed examples of reasons in the first part of my previous post. When I gave an example of how history might have gone differently, I didn't assume that that alternative reality was just as likely as this one. Actually, things probably turned out this way because they were more likely to turn out this way for some reason(s), but that isn't necessarily the case. This is why people need to provide evidence for their reasons.

I am now going to switch from the word reasons to explanations, but it's still the same concept.

You provide an explanation for the way reality is now, but I haven't seen any evidence that puts that explanation above others. From what I understand, your explanation for the common belief in a god is that people have a tendency to think in such a way that they unsuccessfully try to describe some particular thing that isn't a god, and they inaccurately describe it as a god. However, if you don't provide evidence for this, it's an example of "begging the question."

Maybe you believe that what you think of when you think of god must be based on something real, but you cannot assume that the correct explanation is that everyone thinks like you do. However, if that is what you believe (that what you think of when you think of a god must be based on something real), I think I can relate to it.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[music]

Perhaps broken, or maybe just childish and silly?

 

Nope. Can't agree to any of that. Of course some theists are, but not all of them.

 

I can settle for, "They're apparently wrong to believe that supernatural agents exist." I don't need to add any slander.

Edited June 22, 2012 by music

[immortal]

The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish. I don't believe that a default position exists.

[Villain]

Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument. You can't convince others by saying, "Since I cannot personally come up with a reason they would do this without good reason, they must have had a good reason." That is a logical fallacy.

 

It is far more logical to think that someone has enough personal evidence to base their belief on and therefore be willing to perform such a task than to say that they are 'wishful thinking'. You are suggesting that they would change their entire behaviour pattern in order to perhaps achieve eternal life and what's more throw away everything of value in the immediate for a pie in the sky dream based on that wishful thinking. Are we really suppose to take you seriously?

 

 

Also, for what it's worth, having studied the human mind myself, I know it's quite easy to suffer from delusions, to take mental shortcuts, and to have false memories and believe things for no good reason. I suspect there are false beliefs of my own that I have not yet found or rooted out. It's quite common, and happens a lot.

 

After saying my personal incredulity is not a valid argument, you make your own personal argument above.

 

People quite often believe things despite there being no good reason, and there are a multitude of reasons that people like Abraham would do things like show a willingness to sacrifice his child even if god does not actually exist.

 

Perhaps you might entertain us by suggesting a few of the 'multitude of reasons' as to why a reasonable person would consider sacrificing their child? I say reasonable because from your own words these are people who practice reason in all other aspects of their lives.

 

I am not here doubting the magnitude nor genuine nature of his faith, nor am I doubting the sincerity of his belief or the absolute nature with which he held it. What I am doubting and challenging is that the belief alone is somehow good enough to accept as valid the object of the belief... That faith alone is enough to justify the existence of a deity. It quite simply is not, and theists agree with me on this exact same logic for practically everything else every single day of their lives... unless that thing happens to be god. Then, they suddenly alter their approach, apply a double standard, and apply arbitrarily choose their criteria for validating truth claims differently.

 

Do they and what makes you think they do?

 

In short, the human mind is far too fallible for opinion or belief to be treated as fact without really solid supplemental evidence, yet that's what most believers do. Their motivation is not relevant, nor is the sincerity of their belief, and nor is what you personally can or cannot believe about why someone like Abraham would do such a thing relevant in this discussion.

 

What would constitute solid supplemental evidence in the case of religion?

 

You would agree with me if Abraham chose to sacrifice his son due to a belief in the easter bunny, but for some reason you expect me to treat the concept of god differently despite it having exactly the same amount of evidence in support of its existence.

 

But yet no one who is sound of mind in all other aspects of their lives is willing to sacrifice their son for belief in the easter bunny, probably because there is no evidence of the easter bunny. Can you see the difference?

 

As I've said before, your personal incredulity matters not. Also, the challenge with the "sort of evidence" believers use is they set the threshold for what constitutes valid evidence far too low given the extraordinary nature of the god claim. Just like thunder is not evidence of Thor, and waves in the ocean are not evidence of Poseidon, nor is the fact that we exist or nature is beautiful evidence of Yahweh.

 

 

What you are doing here is applying 'rules' from one system and transferring them as universal rules for belief. There are no rules except the ones that we decide on and suggesting that anyone can be broken makes no sense.

 

[tar]

Outcomes are a mix of reasons and chance. Some outcomes are more probable for certain reasons, and I listed examples of reasons in the first part of my previous post. When I gave an example of how history might have gone differently, I didn't assume that that alternative reality was just as likely as this one. Actually, things probably turned out this way because they were more likely to turn out this way for some reason(s), but that isn't necessarily the case. This is why people need to provide evidence for their reasons.

I am now going to switch from the word reasons to explanations, but it's still the same concept.

You provide an explanation for the way reality is now, but I haven't seen any evidence that puts that explanation above others. From what I understand, your explanation for the common belief in a god is that people have a tendency to think in such a way that they unsuccessfully try to describe some particular thing that isn't a god, and they inaccurately describe it as a god. However, if you don't provide evidence for this, it's an example of "begging the question."

Maybe you believe that what you think of when you think of god must be based on something real, but you cannot assume that the correct explanation is that everyone thinks like you do. However, if that is what you believe (that what you think of when you think of a god must be based on something real), I think I can relate to it.

 

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

That is much more along the line of what I am saying. I would just add that people probably do not do things for "some particular reason", as much as they do things for "all the reasons" existing at the time.

 

And I would not discount the "finding of patterns" as being a "incorrect" way of noticing the world. On deep inspection, it appears to be what we do as humans. That they (the patterns) are representations of the actual thing, and not the thing itself, may therefore be true in some senses. But even the patterns themselves were "generated" by something other than the representation. And in this, existence of the "generator" is strongly implied in the pattern. If it is an analog pattern you are picking up, it may be an analogy of the actual thing, but if you hear a C note, there probably really was a guitar string plucked, that vibrated at that particular frequency (with appropriate over and under tones).

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 22, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

Villain - You've asked me numerous questions I've already answered repeatedly throughout the thread. I apologize if you couldn't/didn't keep up, but I don't feel the need to repeat myself and start the cycle over again from the beginning.

 

Also, you don't seem to know what an appeal to incredulity is. Here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

More specific to our exchange: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

[Prometheus]

I would say they are mentally ill if they think unicorns exist on the basis of no relevant or adequate evidence.

 

I think your definition of mental illness is far too broad, and beyond professionally accepted boundaries. (Mental health is one of those terms resistant to a simple definition, so there is room to manoeuvre.)

 

How about this scenario: tribe of hitherto unknown apes are discovered. They have a rudimentary language. It is discovered that they have developed a belief in the farting unicorn. Would you say these creatures have developed a high level of intelligence (compared to other animals), in that they are able to conceptualised something outside their experience, or are they just mentally ill?

 

 

Nope. Can't agree to any of that. Of course some theists are, but not all of them.

 

I can settle for, "They're apparently wrong to believe that supernatural agents exist." I don't need to add any slander.

 

There's a difference between saying something someone does, or believes, is childish and saying someone is childish. It would only be slander if the latter was stated.

 

 

The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish. I don't believe that a default position exists.

 

Yes, there is wisdom in the scriptures too. All too often it is buried in impotent mysticism, mass murders and subjugation. All the more reason to apply the sword of reason to these teachings, cutting the unnecessary distractions to leave only wisdom.