People who believe in god are broken

[Moontanman]

I honestly wonder if this belief in faith or need for faith is some how related to OCD. I am atheist but I carry around good luck charms, intellectually i know they are just objects but they make me feel comfortable. I have to carry out a few actions more than once to satisfy that part of me, it's not as bad as it used to be, my youngest son has bouts of it from time to time as well. I can see how parts of religion could be related, the constant feeling that otherwise nonsensical actions have a huge influence on your life, the rituals, repeating prayers over and over. My gut tells me there is a connection.... my gut is so big it has to be the Sheldon Cooper of guts...

Edited December 5, 2012 by Moontanman

[iNow]

Another way of looking at this:

 

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

OCD. I suppose so. I am picturing 100,000 folks circling the stone in Mecca, murmuring the verses of the Koran that they have committed to memory, and have recited over and over, twice a day, for the greater part of their lives.

 

But it seems we all like to do things the same way over and over. I was setting up the tree with my wife, and we know the next step and who is going to do it. I fresh cut the base out on the front steps, my wife and I carry it in, I at the base, she at the top, I go low, she goes high, and then she holds it as I Ioosen all four screws, she holds it straight and I tighten them again. Then after its up, my eldest daughter cuts the plastic constraining netting off...same every year, same spot in the livingroom, same garbage bag over the board we set it on...then I put the lights on, the next day, and then my wife and daughters apply the ornaments over the next several days, and I put the star on top (I just lighted it today, but the other stuff will occur.)

 

OCD. I suppose so. I would guess that every other reader here can think of a dozen rituals they have, doing the same thing with the same people, daily, weekly, yearly. Interesting. Perhaps you really are on to something. There is something comforting about such repetition. Knowing what to expect, and your role, and knowing that others know, without having to say a thing, or be told.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Inow,

 

Well looks like if the universe has a purpose, we are not the primary concern...but, on the other hand, I would say that life on Earth is a purposeful venture...whether or not we have the universe's OK. And if there is any purpose at all that you can describe, anywhere on this planet, then at least that means that purpose is present in the universe, whether or not it be the only example of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Just occurred to me, that the Earth its self does the same thing every year. We probably take after it.

Edited December 5, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

I don't know and I don't care how it's different to a moved goalpost.

The point I made was that you accuse him of dishonesty and, as far as I can see, you have not put forward any evidence for that ad hom.

what evidence do you have that he is putting forward anything other then his earnestly held beliefs?

 

You accused me of mind-reading him and as I have shown you I didn't do that.

 

This thread isn't about Inow and I like to generalize things and criticize only for the positions which people hold on to. Lets look at the scale of theism/atheism.

 

 

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:^[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

 

I agree with Dawkins that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and that it needs to be tested and falsified like any other hypothesis. I doesn't want to believe, I want to know.

 

For Carl Jung, James Hillman, Devudu and others -

 

 

“Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life.”

-James Hillman

For Dawkins and others -

Gods are figments of human imagination.

Both the camps cannot be right, either one has to be right and the other one has to be wrong and I think there is bigotry on both sides. Its wrong to preach to someone that its unlikely that a god exists and in the same way its wrong to preach to someone that its very likely that a particular god exists. I always wanted to know what is the purpose of a religious forum on a science site but any ways I want a clear cut scientific investigation on the God hypothesis and not just someone's public opinion, this isn't politics, this is reality. Having investigated the kernel of truth of religion I like to have a more liberal view than showing such extreme intolerance towards religion.

[Villain]

 

Both the camps cannot be right, either one has to be right and the other one has to be wrong and I think there is bigotry on both sides. Its wrong to preach to someone that its unlikely that a god exists and in the same way its wrong to preach to someone that its very likely that a particular god exists. I always wanted to know what is the purpose of a religious forum on a science site but any ways I want a clear cut scientific investigation on the God hypothesis and not just someone's public opinion, this isn't politics, this is reality. Having investigated the kernel of truth of religion I like to have a more liberal view than showing such extreme intolerance towards religion.

 

 

I suggest a philosophical forum if you're interested in religious discussion, there are too many people with petty agendas for that here.

[iNow]

 

I suggest a philosophical forum if you're interested in religious discussion, there are too many people with petty agendas for that here.

 

A petty agenda like trying to ensure the things we accept as truths have a basis in reality and exist anywhere outside of human imagination?

[tar]

Wondering about that Dawkins scale. It seems to be bias toward considering God as a male anthropomorphic one...as in "is HE out there or not?". Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. A supposed God such as this, is most certainly a projection of ourselves upon the universe, and it seems quite obvious that such a being would not have a way to have become such, or any reason to have such a form...but this is the strawman aspect of Dawkins' take on the matter. He sets up the God which he knows can not be the case, inorder to be sure, as a "7", that it does not exist.

 

But this is not the Godhead that believers in God are referring to. I would guess, anyway. It seems more, to me, that what we are, as conscious humans, is a reflection of what the universe is, and what the universe does. We are of it, in it and from it. We are not strangers to it, or impartial observers. We cannot be anything else, but universe material, universe stuff, universe occurences. What we are capable of, the universe is capable of...because here we are, doing the thing...according to, and fitting with, the universe and the reality that it is.

 

If this suggests to some, that the power and being of the universe is inside us, that we and it are one in a basic sense, I find it completely reasonable that this "belief" be held. That we are separate from "it" and have a unique focus of here and now, regulated by our individual bodies, hearts and minds, as the "perspective" from which we view the universe...that is also a reasonable and evident thing to imagine. But in comes the question of how to moderate between the two... the eternal, immense and the me.

 

I do not think that the universe is a figment of my imagination. It really is, what it is, including me, in it. Its a powerful, wonderful, completely great thing, in and of itself, with or without me...but since it DOES have me included, it is not unreasonable to conclude that me and it have some large number of aspects in common. Enough to conclude that believers in God are talking about, are believing in, something real and existing. And it is not the strawman that Dawkins sets up, to easily knock down. It is something much more than that.

 

Regards, TAR2

[MonDie]

In the questions, that are to determine the religiousity of a responder, there still remains, or maybe still remains, a level of responsibility to the "others" that hold the same belief. That is, one needs to respond to such questions, as if other people are going to judge your character

 

I wanted to respond to this portion. In his presentation, Batson emphasized that these scales of religiosity might not measure what they were designed to measure. What you were saying is totally relevant in this regard.

Batson suggests that fanatics would score very high on the intrinsic religiosity scale, so the scale might actually be measuring religious fanaticism (or something along those lines).

Batson also mentions that, at the time of the research suggesting that intrinsics (who were low in extrinsic religiosity -explained later) were less prejudiced, there were preachers preaching about how it's wrong to be bigoted against certain groups. Thus people who were involved in the religious community would know what an unprejudiced person would say. Batson thinks this is why the "intrinsics" scored lower on these blunt measures of prejudice.

This makes one wonder. If those intrinsics were conditioned to display an unprejudiced attitude, were they also conditioned to display devotion to their religions (just as you had suggested)? IMO, it's not implied that they don't actually believe. Perhaps it's merely the case that their religious beliefs are conditioned socially. Anyway, when you consider the studies conducted by Gervais and Norenzayan, which show that intrinsic religiosity is lessened by analytical thought, an interesting picture begins to form.

 

Above, I said "intrinsics (who were low in extrinsic religiosity)" were found to be less prejudiced in the initial surveys. I said that because I noticed a previously overlooked point. Batson points out that, in the initial studies, the extrinsic and intrinsic scales were scored negatively, they were scored as if they were opposite ends of a spectrum. The problem, as Batson puts it, is that the intrinsic and extrinsic scales don't correlate at all, they aren't opposite ends. So, in those initial studies, the "intrinsics" were actually people who scored high in intrinsic religiosity and low in extrinsic religiosity. Although the point isn't made very clearly, Batson seems to say that, when this methodological flaw is corrected, the intrinsic scale hadn't correlated with prejudice at all.

Note that this paragraph I just typed was about the initial studies, which used very blunt tools to measure prejudice.

 

I'm linking to his presentation again since so much of this post came from that presentation. http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/science-and-religious-conflict-conference-does-religion-lead-to-tolerance-or-intolerance/dan-batson-with-commentator-steve-clarke

Edited December 13, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

Wondering about that Dawkins scale. It seems to be bias toward considering God as a male anthropomorphic one...as in "is HE out there or not?". Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. A supposed God such as this, is most certainly a projection of ourselves upon the universe, and it seems quite obvious that such a being would not have a way to have become such, or any reason to have such a form...but this is the strawman aspect of Dawkins' take on the matter. He sets up the God which he knows can not be the case, inorder to be sure, as a "7", that it does not exist.

 

But this is not the Godhead that believers in God are referring to. I would guess, anyway. It seems more, to me, that what we are, as conscious humans, is a reflection of what the universe is, and what the universe does. We are of it, in it and from it. We are not strangers to it, or impartial observers. We cannot be anything else, but universe material, universe stuff, universe occurences. What we are capable of, the universe is capable of...because here we are, doing the thing...according to, and fitting with, the universe and the reality that it is.

 

If this suggests to some, that the power and being of the universe is inside us, that we and it are one in a basic sense, I find it completely reasonable that this "belief" be held. That we are separate from "it" and have a unique focus of here and now, regulated by our individual bodies, hearts and minds, as the "perspective" from which we view the universe...that is also a reasonable and evident thing to imagine. But in comes the question of how to moderate between the two... the eternal, immense and the me.

 

I do not think that the universe is a figment of my imagination. It really is, what it is, including me, in it. Its a powerful, wonderful, completely great thing, in and of itself, with or without me...but since it DOES have me included, it is not unreasonable to conclude that me and it have some large number of aspects in common. Enough to conclude that believers in God are talking about, are believing in, something real and existing. And it is not the strawman that Dawkins sets up, to easily knock down. It is something much more than that.

 

Regards, TAR2

If you look you will see that I usually write God with a capital letter (I sometimes forget).

That's just a linguistic convention. It does not, for example, mean that I think that God exists.

Similarly I refer to Him as "Him".

It's just another convention- it saves the time of writing Him/ Her/ It every time. (And it certainly doesn't originate from the atheists anyway so it can't sensibly be some "plot" by Dawkins.

You might notice that nowhere in Dawkins' scale is there any mention of reproductive biology. So this bit of your text "Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. " seems preposterous.

It doesn't matter that you think it's unlikely that God has a willy.

 

I think someone should also remind you that, from half the populations point of view,if they wanted to describe God as being "a projection of ourselves upon the universe," they would call God "She".

 

What you seem to have done there is set up your own strawman in an attempt to move the discussion to the pointless realm of linguistic versus natural gender.

 

Until there is any evidence that God exists it's pretty pointless to speculate on whether the correct pronoun is He, She or It.

 

The strawman certainly isn't Dawkin's creation. If you look you will find the authorship much closer to home.

 

 

 

You accused me of mind-reading him and as I have shown you I didn't do that.

 

This thread isn't about Inow and I like to generalize things and criticize only for the positions which people hold on to. Lets look at the scale of theism/atheism.

 

 

 

I agree with Dawkins that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and that it needs to be tested and falsified like any other hypothesis. I doesn't want to believe, I want to know.

 

For Carl Jung, James Hillman, Devudu and others -

 

 

“Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life.”

-James Hillman

For Dawkins and others -

Gods are figments of human imagination.

Both the camps cannot be right, either one has to be right and the other one has to be wrong and I think there is bigotry on both sides. Its wrong to preach to someone that its unlikely that a god exists and in the same way its wrong to preach to someone that its very likely that a particular god exists. I always wanted to know what is the purpose of a religious forum on a science site but any ways I want a clear cut scientific investigation on the God hypothesis and not just someone's public opinion, this isn't politics, this is reality. Having investigated the kernel of truth of religion I like to have a more liberal view than showing such extreme intolerance towards religion.

 

OK, as you say, the thread isn't about Inow.

so why did you accuse him of dishonesty?

 

the only way you could legitimately have done that was to read his mind.

You say you didn't do that so, how do you know what he really thinks and how do you know that what he thinks is different from what he says?

[immortal]

OK, as you say, the thread isn't about Inow.

so why did you accuse him of dishonesty?

 

As I have said many times its simply because of the vitriolic position that he holds on religion. His conclusion is what is dishonest because religion should not be dismissed so easily unless otherwise there is positive evidence to account for the commonality of religious experiences and a religious claim should not be dismissed unless it is falsified and also it should not be accepted very easily either. I want to put forward God as a scientific hypothesis, if it is falsified then yes its right to dismiss the notion of god, if it is testified then we all should accept his existence whether you want to revere him or not is left to you. If it cannot be falsified put it in the pool of metaphysical ideas. Its so simple and why bother calling or labelling a group broken, is it that important than the truth?

 

 

the only way you could legitimately have done that was to read his mind.

You say you didn't do that so, how do you know what he really thinks and how do you know that what he thinks is different from what he says?

 

If I happen to remember I quoted his words to show you that I know some of his thoughts from my past experiences with him.

Edited December 13, 2012 by immortal

[John Cuthber]

I know what you quoted.

The point remains that you accused him of dishonesty

Specifically you said

" claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part."

and, thus far, you have offered nothing to support that assertion.

Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him (or me) a liar.

The fact that he is forthright in expressing his opinion doesn't mean he is lying.

 

Are you going to accept that you have accused him without any evidence or are you going to show that he said one thing while believing another?

Edited December 13, 2012 by John Cuthber

[immortal]

I know what you quoted.

The point remains that you accused him of dishonesty

Specifically you said

" claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part."

and, thus far, you have offered nothing to support that assertion.

 

The fact that he is forthright in expressing his opinion doesn't mean he is lying.

 

Are you going to accept that you have accused him without any evidence or are you going to show that he said one thing while believing another?

 

 

I am someone who strive for intellectual honesty and if we both(I and INow) have investigated all of religion and arrived at different conclusions then we both have to give reasonable reasons as to why we have arrived at that conclusion and I think I have done just that and you simply think I have not supported my assertion. A God hypothesis is a competent hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos and there are ample evidences to suggest that such a hypothesis cannot be dismissed so easily and based on this I do accuse him for his dishonest conclusion and his conclusion is quite evident in the position that he has taken in this thread.

 

Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him (or me) a liar.

 

Actually it does, it does make your or my statements a lie depending on what the empirical evidence is actually saying. That's what my problem is.

[iNow]

You seem to be using a completely different definition of "lie" or "dishonest" than the rest of us.

[Moontanman]

 

 

I am someone who strive for intellectual honesty and if we both(I and INow) have investigated all of religion and arrived at different conclusions then we both have to give reasonable reasons as to why we have arrived at that conclusion and I think I have done just that and you simply think I have not supported my assertion.

 

Please show where you have supported your assertion with anything empirical and testable...

 

 

 

 

 

A God hypothesis is a competent hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos and there are ample evidences to suggest that such a hypothesis cannot be dismissed so easily and based on this I do accuse him for his dishonest conclusion and his conclusion is quite evident in the position that he has taken in this thread.

 

A god hypothesis should, as should any hypothesis, be required to show some support with something other than faith or belief, your position so far has simply been to make claims unsupported by anything but beliefs, faith and occasionally opinions. I see no honesty in your "god exists" Hypothesis at all so far...

 

You seem to think that because no one can prove you wrong you must be right... no, the default position is not what you cannot prove wrong must be right. In fact it is exactly the opposite, your position is the untenable one...

 

 

 

 

Actually it does, it does make your or my statements a lie depending on what the empirical evidence is actually saying. That's what my problem is.

 

 

Lack of empirical evidence to support your stance should have given you some pause before you stated that last claim...

[MonDie]

I want to put forward God as a scientific hypothesis, if it is falsified then yes its right to dismiss the notion of god,

 

Not quite. It would be right to dismiss your notion of god.

 

Every hypothesis should be judged on its own merits, alternative explanations should be activiely sought, and any unnecessary metaphysical rubbish should be removed from the concept. Science 101.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

Please show where you have supported your assertion with anything empirical and testable...

 

 

That's what I am criticizing about his conclusion from the post #1205 to #1225 of this thread. That the conclusion should have been more open rather than intolerance towards religion.

 

 

A god hypothesis should, as should any hypothesis, be required to show some support with something other than faith or belief, your position so far has simply been to make claims unsupported by anything but beliefs, faith and occasionally opinions. I see no honesty in your "god exists" Hypothesis at all so far...

 

 

The empirical evidence to support a god hypothesis is evidence like these throughout the history of mankind.

 

"St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her."

 

If that doesn't sound like empirical then what is empirical evidence, so why don't we investigate such things and study them rather than showing confirmation bias.

 

You seem to think that because no one can prove you wrong you must be right... no, the default position is not what you cannot prove wrong must be right. In fact it is exactly the opposite, your position is the untenable one...

 

 

There are different positions Gnostic theists, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Based on the current evidence the default position seems to be to have no position at all. If there was such an universal default position then I wonder why some atheists change their minds and become theists and why some theists change their mind and become atheists, tell me what's going on. Are each one interpreting the evidence differently, a confirmation bias?

 

INow's accusation on some people that they some how show double standards and apply weak screening mechanisms especially when it comes to the topic of god doesn't apply to the whole of theistic community, all religions are not faith based belief systems, some religions force one to test the claims of its own religion before asking one to accept it. The very fact that they have investigated the all of religion while atheists just like to pretend that they have and arrived at a different conclusion that a god hypothesis is not something which should be dismissed as childish shows that they are as much interested in knowing what the truth is and are applying the same screening mechanisms which they apply in their normal life.

 

As I said if it is so important in labelling some group as broken rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt and knowing what the truth is then I am definitely not in for such a thing, perhaps there is something broken in them.

 

 

Lack of empirical evidence to support your stance should have given you some pause before you stated that last claim...

 

I have better evidences to investigate rather than trying to prove someone as a liar or labelling someone as broken.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I am someone who strive for intellectual honesty and if we both(I and INow) have investigated all of religion and arrived at different conclusions then we both have to give reasonable reasons as to why we have arrived at that conclusion and I think I have done just that and you simply think I have not supported my assertion. A God hypothesis is a competent hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos and there are ample evidences to suggest that such a hypothesis cannot be dismissed so easily and based on this I do accuse him for his dishonest conclusion and his conclusion is quite evident in the position that he has taken in this thread.

 

 

 

Actually it does, it does make your or my statements a lie depending on what the empirical evidence is actually saying. That's what my problem is.

Nonsense.

 

Even if you had shown that he was wrong( and you have not) then at most you would have shown that he was mistaken, not dishonest.

 

Do you not know the difference?

[immortal]

Nonsense.

 

Even if you had shown that he was wrong( and you have not) then at most you would have shown that he was mistaken, not dishonest.

 

Do you not know the difference?

 

You both use false analogies and equate God with unicorns, Puff the magic dragons etc and overgeneralise the different forms of theists that exist and put all of them in the same boat. I don't know you guys deliberately do it or you're just mistaken because I don't know what's going on in your minds and aren't those two examples enough to qualify you both as being dishonest.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Immortal

 

These accusations of dishonesty must stop.

 

If you believe other members are making false parallels and wrongly characterising the subject matter then it is your right to call them on this and correct them through argument and evidence. You are not allowed to accuse them of dishonesty - especially as the posters accused in this thread have long and consistent posting histories that are fully consistent with their position and thus seem to refute your claims of dishonesty.

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - either report this post or PM a member of staff.

 

[Moontanman]

 

That's what I am criticizing about his conclusion from the post #1205 to #1225 of this thread. That the conclusion should have been more open rather than intolerance towards religion.

 

Why should it have been more open? How is religion any more deserving of tolerance than any other belief?

 

The empirical evidence to support a god hypothesis is evidence like these throughout the history of mankind.

 

"St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her."

 

If that doesn't sound like empirical then what is empirical evidence, so why don't we investigate such things and study them rather than showing confirmation bias.

 

It's hearsay, nothing more... It's no better than the Jesus is coming soon scam i saw when i was a a kid...

 

There are different positions Gnostic theists, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Based on the current evidence the default position seems to be to have no position at all. If there was such an universal default position then I wonder why some atheists change their minds and become theists and why some theists change their mind and become atheists, tell me what's going on. Are each one interpreting the evidence differently, a confirmation bias?

 

In the absence of positive evidence the default position is the null position, you can change your mind about what you do or do not believe but in the lack of positive evidence the default position in science is always the null position...

 

 

INow's accusation on some people that they some how show double standards and apply weak screening mechanisms especially when it comes to the topic of god doesn't apply to the whole of theistic community, all religions are not faith based belief systems, some religions force one to test the claims of its own religion before asking one to accept it.

 

Name a religion that insists on empirical evidence?

 

 

 

The very fact that they have investigated the all of religion while atheists just like to pretend that they have and arrived at a different conclusion that a god hypothesis is not something which should be dismissed as childish shows that they are as much interested in knowing what the truth is and are applying the same screening mechanisms which they apply in their normal life.

 

It shows they are applying the screening mechanisms they use for reality, religion does not make the cut. How can giving something as lacking in evidence as religion a pass be a reasonable course of action? the bolded print is insulting, is your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you so strong you cannot keep from insulting them?

 

 

 

 

As I said if it is so important in labelling some group as broken rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt and knowing what the truth is then I am definitely not in for such a thing, perhaps there is something broken in them.

 

What do you mean by benefit of the doubt? Give them a pass on proof just because you believe? many people fervently believe in many things that are simply not supported by the evidence. I wonder if you would be more open to a belief in elves or fairies? Many people people truly believe in them, some claim to have seen them and talked to them, do we give them the benefit of the doubt as well?

 

 

 

 

 

I have better evidences to investigate rather than trying to prove someone as a liar or labelling someone as broken.

 

 

Then why aren't you here doing just that?

 

BTW, isn't more likely that the humanity wide similarities in deities more likely because we share the same brain and tend to experience similar fugue states?

 

 

You both use false analogies and equate God with unicorns, Puff the magic dragons etc and overgeneralise the different forms of theists that exist and put all of them in the same boat. I don't know you guys deliberately do it or you're just mistaken because I don't know what's going on in your minds and aren't those two examples enough to qualify you both as being dishonest.

 

 

Quite the contrary they are completely honest, puff the magic dragon might be a little condescending since it is known to be fictional but unicorns were at one time seriously believed to be real. The point immortal is that religion and the concept of deities has no more physical evidence than unicorns, dragons, elves, fairies, or trolls.

[immortal]

Why should it have been more open? How is religion any more deserving of tolerance than any other belief?

 

As I have said many times the wisdom inherent in religion are not so ordinary either so that it deserves intolerance and be dismissed as fictions of a feeble mind.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_religious_experience

 

Outline logical structure

 

Its logical structure is essentially as follows:

 

1. There are compelling reasons for considering at religious experiences to point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends any material manifestations.

 

2. According to Materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends its material manifestations.

 

3. According to Classical Theism in general, and to many theistic faiths, God endows Humans with the ability to have spiritual experiences and to perceive, albeit imperfectly, such spiritual realities. There are innumerable references in both the Old testament, from Adam talking with God in Genesis onwards, and in the New Testament of which the Transfiguration and St Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians about spiritual gifts and "seeing through a glass darkly" (i.e. through a poor mirror, imperfectly) may stand as two examples and these spiritual realities exist in a way that transcends any material manifestations.

 

4. Therefore, to the extent that premise (1) is accepted, Theism is more plausible than Materialism.

Points 2, 3 and 4 are relatively un-controversial, and the argument is formally valid, so discussion focuses on the premise (1).

 

Suggested reasons for accepting the premise

 

The principal arguments for the premise are: Very substantial numbers of "ordinary" people report having had such experiences, though this isn't to say that religious believers aren't ordinary.[1] Such experiences are reported in almost all known cultures.

 

These experiences often have very significant effects on people's lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments.

 

These experiences often seem very real to the people involved, and are quite often reported as being shared by a number of people.[2] Although mass delusions are not inconceivable, one needs compelling reasons for invoking this as an explanation.

 

Swinburne suggests that, as two basic principles of rationality, we ought to believe that things are as they seem unless and until we have evidence that they are mistaken (principle of credulity), and that those who do not have an experience of a certain type ought to believe others who say that they do in the absence of evidence of deceit or delusion (principle of testimony) and thus, although if you have a strong reason to disbelieve in the existence of God you will discount these experiences, in other cases such evidence should count towards the existence of God

 

 

 

It's hearsay, nothing more... It's no better than the Jesus is coming soon scam i saw when i was a a kid...

 

 

That's not a vision, a hallucination or an epiphany. That's a serious empirical phenomena which deserves further investigation and might show that humans are truly made in the image of god if they have such powers inherent in them to shatter the whole room.

 

I have watched the documentary of the Dover's controversy of evolution vs creationism and the main problem for creationists in accepting evolution by natural selection seems to be it says humans evolved from other primates and a creationist even went on to say that that it was a slap to his face because religion says humans are truly made in the image of god. Its wrong to not to understand evolution by natural selection and also it is wrong to not to understand what is our relationship with god via wisdom literatures and other ways of knowing and present and historical accounts like such of St. Teresa of Avila are compelling reasons to investigate them seriously and be open to alternative world-views. You don't have to lose your heads for that.

 

In the absence of positive evidence the default position is the null position, you can change your mind about what you do or do not believe but in the lack of positive evidence the default position in science is always the null position...

 

What you mean to say is we must assume that God does not exist in the absence of evidence. I understand your statement. But as you can see much of the debate is whether these indirect evidences actually do point towards the existence of god or not.

 

Name a religion that insists on empirical evidence?

 

 

Do not accept any of my words on faith,

Believing them just because I said them.

Be like an analyst buying gold, who cuts, burns,

And critically examines his product for authenticity.

Only accept what passes the test

By proving useful and beneficial in your life.

The Buddha (Jnanasara-samuccaya)

 

It shows they are applying the screening mechanisms they use for reality, religion does not make the cut. How can giving something as lacking in evidence as religion a pass be a reasonable course of action? the bolded print is insulting, is your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you so strong you cannot keep from insulting them?

 

 

Do you know what's insulting? Its insulting to equate works of late antiquity which religious scholars dedicate their entire life trying to understand each syllable to works of Harry Potter. That's what insulting is not the truth claim which I made.

 

What do you mean by benefit of the doubt? Give them a pass on proof just because you believe? many people fervently believe in many things that are simply not supported by the evidence. I wonder if you would be more open to a belief in elves or fairies? Many people people truly believe in them, some claim to have seen them and talked to them, do we give them the benefit of the doubt as well?

 

 

Investigate them or critically examine them. The main point which I am arguing here is I doesn't want opinions or statements which has a confirmation bias, I need explanations which can account for these phenomena and the reason why I hold on to this position is simply because I believe such a thorough investigation has not yet happened.

 

I know INow will disagree with me on this here, because he has already decided that we should no longer entertain such beliefs in our society and that religion has been given enough time to prove itself and has been given many such free passes in the past and that's where the main problem lies to me here. Perhaps we should discuss on this more rather than going off topic.

 

 

Then why aren't you here doing just that?

 

 

You mean I cannot participate in this thread and question the conclusion as a member of sfn?

 

BTW, isn't more likely that the humanity wide similarities in deities more likely because we share the same brain and tend to experience similar fugue states?

 

Isn't it more likely that they all were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to?

 

Quite the contrary they are completely honest, puff the magic dragon might be a little condescending since it is known to be fictional but unicorns were at one time seriously believed to be real. The point immortal is that religion and the concept of deities has no more physical evidence than unicorns, dragons, elves, fairies, or trolls.

 

No, they are not. I didn't accused them of dishonesty just because I disagree with them because their frequent analogies and statements do fall in the category of false analogies and overgeneralization which are termed as common forms of intellectual dishonesty.

 

Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally).

[John Cuthber]

 

You both use false analogies and equate God with unicorns, Puff the magic dragons etc and overgeneralise the different forms of theists that exist and put all of them in the same boat. I don't know you guys deliberately do it or you're just mistaken because I don't know what's going on in your minds and aren't those two examples enough to qualify you both as being dishonest.

So what?

What you said was

" claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part."

 

If he believes that people who believe in God are broken (and I have every reason to think he does) then it's not dishonest, even if it's wrong.

Incidentally, until you can show the difference between unicorns and God it's perfectly reasonable to equate belief in the two.

[imatfaal]

...

/ snipped

 

Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally).

 

 

Ah come on! A quote regarding plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty and you don't even give the source you took it from!

 

It is available here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty and possibly in other places.

[John Cuthber]

 

1 As I have said many times the wisdom inherent in religion are not so ordinary either so that it deserves intolerance and be dismissed as fictions of a feeble mind.

 

 

2 You mean I cannot participate in this thread and question the conclusion as a member of sfn?

 

 

3 Isn't it more likely that they all were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to?

 

 

4 No, they are not. I didn't accused them of dishonesty just because I disagree with them because their frequent analogies and statements do fall in the category of false analogies and overgeneralization which are termed as common forms of intellectual dishonesty.

 

1 prove it.

2 that's not what anyone said is it? Why are you setting up a strawman pretending they did?

Anyway, there's no problem with you saying "I think you are wrong" (though evidence would help)

There is a problem with saying "you are lying"

3 No, not really. If there were an alternate reality that we might access and which it was useful to access then evolution would have made sure we were all bloody good at it.

Since we can't, it follows that such a "reality" doesn't exist.

4 it's a matter of perfectly clear record why you accused him. The analogies used are not false (or, at least, nobody has yet falsified them)

Over-generalisation is an issue best resolved by simply pointing out its failings- not by making accusations of dishonesty.

[Moontanman]

Immortal, which do you find more compelling.... That a god some place out side of reality, a being that has no measurable effect on reality but still communicates with people in all sorts of obtuse ways that make little or no sense and have no useful information in those communications, this god exists and has supernatural powers... or

 

Human beings all share a similar brain, so similar that not only do they share similar hallucinations when under the influence of similar drugs but also that similar illusions generally work for everyone the same way and result in the same sensory mistakes. Meditation has been shown to be capable of causing hallucinations in people, very similar hallucinations.... Doesn't this make more sense than an immaterial god outside of reality that cannot be detected in any way other than by the human mind in a fugue type state?

 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

Edited December 14, 2012 by Moontanman