Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad · 10-06-2014 2:31pm

smacl wrote: »

Value, as in worth, is obviously very subjective in this context, and has nothing to do with something being right or wrong. Having religious faith for example may well provide value to the faithful, but that does not suggest that the faith has any foundation in reality.

For example, a scientologist might have faith in the existence of their inner Thetan, and gain spiritually as a result, but that doesn't imply that there is any truth behind the beliefs of Scientology. The same can be said for any religions and for all of them.

That was kinda my point, hence the rose tinted bit. However it dose show the need to qualify the context your talking about. When faith is used as science or vise versa things go wrong and badly wrong. Ideology on either side is exactly that; ideology.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 11-06-2014 9:57am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well that's an interesting point. Value, I suppose it depends on what value your looking for.

Hi Tommy,

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to value specifically in the context of assessing whether a statements is true or not.

Any other value that such a statement about reality might give someone, such as emotional support or comfort, is not connected to the point I was making.

Untrue beliefs can provide a host of support for people, though in general I find that these beliefs, particularly supernatural beliefs, loose their power to do this once the person realizes that they are false, or simply realizes that they can no longer support the claim that they are true. Often the support these beliefs provided is replaced with anger or disappointment. It would seem to me that very often the truth of the belief is central to the support it provides.

Penny

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2014 9:58am

newmug wrote: »

The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature.

Could you show your workings on this statement about probability please?

newmug wrote: »

The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible.

Could you show your workings on this statement about probability please?

Also you do realise the observer bias built into this too don't you?

newmug wrote: »

I can fully understand the athiests who don't believe, purely because it actually IS hard to believe something that you don't have proof of

It is not about "proof". "Proof" comes later. The idea there is a god is not just devoid of "proof". It is, so far, devoid of even a MODICUM of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning whatsoever.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-06-2014 9:58am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Just a question? Why dose it have to be ID or evolution?

"ID", or creationism as it was called before they rebranded, has no positive evidence for it at all. The entire approach of the proponents of creationism like the Discovery Institute has been to attack and undermine evolution.

It is therefore people like THEM that have perpetuated the "either/or" mentality. Their whole line of "thinking" is that if they can prove evolution wrong that their pet fantasy of creationism becomes true by default.

It, essentially, is just a variation on the "god of the gaps" approach. If science can not explain something "therefore goddunnit". So if they can falsify evolution then "god" is the answer.

That they have failed to falsify it in any way is just a bit of egg on their face that they choose to ignore while they talk.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And the opposite is equally true, that which is easy dismissed is not necessary false.

Not necessary, but it certainly does not lend any justice to subscribing to entirely unsubstantiated world views given the number of substantiated ones to choose from.

Could there be a god? Sure. But given the lack of even one tiny reason to think there actually is one, it seems to be a funny idea to subscribe to.

As another user pointed out the ratio of false ideas to true ones is going to be massive. As you said yourself not everyone has the same data set, especially given our data set has increased as time has moved on.

That some hypothesis find supporting evidence as the data set increases.... such as evolution for example.... while some stagnate and find not a shred of supporting data anywhere ever.... like the idea there is a god..... should be a wake up call to some.

Safehands · 11-06-2014 10:11am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Could you show your workings on this statement about probability please?
Also you do realise the observer bias built into this too don't you?
it is not about "proof". "Proof" comes later. The idea there is a god is not just devoid of "proof". It is, so far, devoid of even a MODICUM of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning whatsoever.

Gee Nozz, have you not read the Bible? Talking snakes, talking bushes, men living until they are 900 years of age and a loving God telling men to butcher their sons to prove their love for him.
What more proof do you need?

tommy2bad · 11-06-2014 10:51am

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Tommy,

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to value specifically in the context of assessing whether a statements is true or not.

Any other value that such a statement about reality might give someone, such as emotional support or comfort, is not connected to the point I was making.

Untrue beliefs can provide a host of support for people, though in general I find that these beliefs, particularly supernatural beliefs, loose their power to do this once the person realizes that they are false, or simply realizes that they can no longer support the claim that they are true. Of the support these beliefs provided is replaced with anger or disappointment. This would suggest to me that very often the truth of the belief is central to the support it provides.

Penny

Laughing at this because it again shows how ill equipped we are to discuss stuff like this without first clearly defining the terms and what they mean.
Value, truth, words like this are contextual, what's true isn't necessary equal to factual. When we use truth we are setting facts in a human context.
Science doesn't deal with truth, it deals with verifiable facts. Religion doesn't deal with facts, it deals with truth.
In a lot of ways religion has more in common with the arts than the sciences, because people have a difficulty distinguishing fact and truth.

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 11:02am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not about "proof". "Proof" comes later. The idea there is a god is not just devoid of "proof". It is, so far, devoid of even a MODICUM of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning whatsoever.

That's not a fair statement. Millennia of belief in a God or gods by the vast majority of the population is perfectly sufficient evidence to warrant a consideration of that evidence and to investigate the possibility of there being proof. Any rational scientist would accept that notwithstanding his or her opinion of the evidence. You're perfectly entitled to conclude that the evidence is flawed and that, perhaps, billions of people over thousands of years have been suffering from a mass delusion. But there's enough to warrant the question being asked and considered. You can't just dismiss thousands of years of belief just because you don't like it.

tommy2bad · 11-06-2014 11:10am

Mousewar wrote: »

That's not a fair statement. Millennia of belief in a God or gods by the vast majority of the population is perfectly sufficient evidence to warrant a consideration of that evidence and to investigate the possibility of there being proof. Any rational scientist would accept that notwithstanding his or her opinion of the evidence. You're perfectly entitled to conclude that the evidence is flawed and that, perhaps, billions of people over thousands of years have been suffering from a mass delusion. But there's enough to warrant the question being asked and considered. You can't just dismiss thousands of years of belief just because you don't like it.

Yeah but the only phenomenon to examine is the belief, theirs no other data, no actual stuff to examine other than that people believe in a thing called God.
And it's well examined both as a physiological phenomena and as theology.
No one on the faith side is claiming that people don't believe in God because they haven't examined the evidence, they don't even claim evidence. Religion is based on testimony. You accept it or reject it.

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 11:22am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah but the only phenomenon to examine is the belief, theirs no other data, no actual stuff to examine other than that people believe in a thing called God.
And it's well examined both as a physiological phenomena and as theology.
No one on the faith side is claiming that people don't believe in God because they haven't examined the evidence, they don't even claim evidence. Religion is based on testimony. You accept it or reject it.

Yeah, I'm merely making the point that it would be an error to dismiss thousands of years of belief by the vast majority of the population as irrelevant data. That, alone, is a very strong suggestion of something, even if it can be explained away by psychology or by science. In other words, there is a reason to believe in God over and above the Spaghetti Monster for instance.

And yes Religion is based on testimony but belief isn't necessarily so.

pauldla · 11-06-2014 11:29am

Mousewar wrote: »

Yeah, I'm merely making the point that it would be an error to dismiss thousands of years of belief by the vast majority of the population as irrelevant data. That, alone, is a very strong suggestion of something, even if it can be explained away by psychology or by science. In other words, there is a reason to believe in God over and above the Spaghetti Monster for instance.

And yes Religion is based on testimony but belief isn't necessarily so.

Examining the durability of religious belief might tell us a lot about psychology, but I’m not sure if it gives us any insight into proof of the existence of God. How could it?

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 11:35am

pauldla wrote: »

Examining the durability of religious belief might tell us a lot about psychology, but I’m not sure if it gives us any insight into proof of the existence of God. How could it?

I'm not saying it gives us proof, merely that it is ample justification to consider the question (which was in response to the post I first replied to).

tommy2bad · 11-06-2014 3:05pm

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not saying it gives us proof, merely that it is ample justification to consider the question (which was in response to the post I first replied to).

Oh no one is denying that, the problem is to examine the evidence for God to an extent that would answer the question is impossible. We can use deduction and assume that because we see a phenomena that it must have a cause.
Then the trouble starts again, is the cause the hypothesised God or is it some quirk of the mind?
I kinda like the mystical end of theology, it bypasses the assumption that evidence can be found and rests it case on the experience of faith. In the end that's what matters and the only test we can apply.

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 3:10pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh no one is denying that, the problem is to examine the evidence for God to an extent that would answer the question is impossible. We can use deduction and assume that because we see a phenomena that it must have a cause.
Then the trouble starts again, is the cause the hypothesised God or is it some quirk of the mind?
I kinda like the mystical end of theology, it bypasses the assumption that evidence can be found and rests it case on the experience of faith. In the end that's what matters and the only test we can apply.

Myself, I'm interested in the question as to whether the people of the past were operating under the same perception of the world that we are now. That is, our current perception of the world that makes belief in the transcendent difficult for many people may not have been the status quo in the past. Species evolve all the time, their ability to perceive different parts of the world evolves (or indeed dulls). It interests me because I'm not sure dismissing thousands of years of cast-iron belief in something as psychological projection or delusion is sufficient. In fact, I see it as rather insulting to our ancestors.

tommy2bad · 11-06-2014 3:19pm

Mousewar wrote: »

Myself, I'm interested in the question as to whether the people of the past were operating under the same perception of the world that we are now. That is, our current perception of the world that makes belief in the transcendent difficult for many people may not have been the status quo in the past. Species evolve all the time, their ability to perceive different parts of the world evolves (or indeed dulls). It interests me because I'm not sure dismissing thousands of years of cast-iron belief in something as psychological projection or delusion is sufficient. In fact, I see it as rather insulting to our ancestors.

Oh a very good point. I'm not dismissing anything as a delusion, obviously it served a purpose or it would have faded into oblivion.
People could not have the same perceptions as we have, we cant really grasp how the thought or what informed their thinking.
Much as we like to think people don't change, they do, or at least the society the live in changes.
Read the bible, it shows a faith that changed, morphed and adapted as circumstances changes. Morals change and develop, thinking changes.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 11-06-2014 3:23pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Laughing at this because it again shows how ill equipped we are to discuss stuff like this without first clearly defining the terms and what they mean.
Value, truth, words like this are contextual, what's true isn't necessary equal to factual. When we use truth we are setting facts in a human context.
Science doesn't deal with truth, it deals with verifiable facts. Religion doesn't deal with facts, it deals with truth.
In a lot of ways religion has more in common with the arts than the sciences, because people have a difficulty distinguishing fact and truth.

Well what is true is true, whether we know it is true or not. That is just what the word means.

You are of course correct that we can believe something is true that isn't, or we can find meaning from a belief even if we do not know it is true. But again that isn't central to the point I was making previous. Most things we believe are probably not true, how important that is will depend on the belief.

I would guess that the majority of religious followers would not continue to hold their various religious beliefs as important or valuable to them if they knew they were wrong. I don't think it is fair therefore to separate the truth of a belief from its importance to those who believe it. That might work for you, but I doubt it works for the majority of religious believers.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 11-06-2014 3:30pm

Mousewar wrote: »

That's not a fair statement. Millennia of belief in a God or gods by the vast majority of the population is perfectly sufficient evidence to warrant a consideration of that evidence and to investigate the possibility of there being proof. Any rational scientist would accept that notwithstanding his or her opinion of the evidence. You're perfectly entitled to conclude that the evidence is flawed and that, perhaps, billions of people over thousands of years have been suffering from a mass delusion. But there's enough to warrant the question being asked and considered. You can't just dismiss thousands of years of belief just because you don't like it.

Actually, as a rational scientist, that isn't correct.

The amount of people who believe something is true is considered irrelevant in science. It means nothing towards the truth or accuracy of a theory. You only have to look back through the history of science to understand why, some very incorrect views have been held by sizable majority of the population of the time, simply because they didn't understand the phenomena well enough and filled in the gaps with speculation.

This is known as argumentum ad populum in logic (appeal to the people).

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 4:11pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Actually, as a rational scientist, that isn't correct.

The amount of people who believe something is true is considered irrelevant in science. It means nothing towards the truth or accuracy of a theory. You only have to look back through the history of science to understand why, some very incorrect views have been held by sizable majority of the population of the time, simply because they didn't understand the phenomena well enough and filled in the gaps with speculation.

This is known as argumentum ad populum in logic (appeal to the people).

You've made a very good argument against a point I didn't make. You've dismissed argumentum ad populum in relation to scientific proofs which wasn't what I was saying.
Why have scientists disproven many widely-held beliefs? Often precisely because they were wildly held. That testimony was sufficient evidence to investigate the theory in the first place. Similar testimony makes the existence of God worth investigating which indeed has happened up to a position of inconclusion.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 11-06-2014 4:43pm

Mousewar wrote: »

You've made a very good argument against a point I didn't make. You've dismissed argumentum ad populum in relation to scientific proofs which wasn't what I was saying.
Why have scientists disproven many widely-held beliefs? Often precisely because they were wildly held. That testimony was sufficient evidence to investigate the theory in the first place. Similar testimony makes the existence of God worth investigating which indeed has happened up to a position of inconclusion.

Hi Mousewar,

This is a commonly held misconception about what science is attempting to do. Scientists do not investigate commonly held claims, nor are they trying to debunk anything. They investigate observed phenomena and seek to explain the processes behind the phenomena. How people previously explained these phenomena, or how widely held these previous explains were, is is not relevant to what science is attempting to achieve.

About.com wrote:

The first step in the scientific method is to observe a phenomenon that you'd like to explain.

Religion and other supernatural claims have always had a problem with lack of observed phenomena to study. The claims are remember not relevant. Science has attempted to explain the observed phenomena of humans practicing religion though, with some limited success.

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 4:47pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Mousewar,

This is a commonly held misconception about what science is attempting to do. Scientists do not investigate commonly held claims, nor are they trying to debunk anything. They investigate observed phenomena and seek to explain the processes behind the phenomena. How people previously explained these phenomena, or how widely held these previous explains were, is is not relevant to what science is attempting to achieve.

Religion and other supernatural claims have always had a problem with lack of observed phenomena to study. The claims are remember not relevant. Science has attempted to explain the observed phenomena of humans practicing religion though, with some limited success.

This is what Science may like to hang on a banner and display as their motto but many years of investigation into the existence of God proves you wrong unfortunately. The absolute belief, bordering on certainty, of billions of people over many thousands of years has justifiably asked a question that Science in one form or another has rightly attempted to answer.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 11-06-2014 5:21pm

Mousewar wrote: »

This is what Science may like to hang on a banner and display as their motto but many years of investigation into the existence of God proves you wrong unfortunately. The absolute belief, bordering on certainty, of billions of people over many thousands of years has justifiably asked a question that Science in one form or another has rightly attempted to answer.

Well yes, but that question is why do billions of people believe in the various supernatural claims of religions. That is an observed phenomena. You can study that. But it is different to studying the various supernatural beliefs of world religion, as often these claims have no phenomena we can actually study.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to study a supernatural phenomena. But I don't have one to study. Which is what I imagine nozzferrahhtoo meant when he/she said not a modicum of evidence or data. Saying someone else in the past had a phenomena doesn't help me in the present, or any other scientist.

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 7:20pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Well yes, but that question is why do billions of people believe in the various supernatural claims of religions. That is an observed phenomena. You can study that. But it is different to studying the various supernatural beliefs of world religion, as often these claims have no phenomena we can actually study.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to study a supernatural phenomena. But I don't have one to study. Which is what I imagine nozzferrahhtoo meant when he/she said not a modicum of evidence or data. Saying someone else in the past had a phenomena doesn't help me in the present, or any other scientist.

Thanks for the replies. We're talking about different things though unfortunately.

marienbad · 11-06-2014 7:23pm

Mousewar wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. We're talking about different things though unfortunately.

Are you saying then that science has studied the existence of God ?

Mousewar · 11-06-2014 7:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

Are you saying then that science has studied the existence of God ?

Not originally. My point was merely that testimony on such a scale as that which attests to the existence of God is evidence that can't be casually dismissed. And yes it has caused a number of scientists to consider the question.

J C · 11-06-2014 10:19pm

marienbad wrote: »

Are you saying then that science has studied the existence of God ?

Yes some scientists have.

marienbad · 12-06-2014 12:16am

Mousewar wrote: »

Not originally. My point was merely that testimony on such a scale as that which attests to the existence of God is evidence that can't be casually dismissed. And yes it has caused a number of scientists to consider the question.

Evidence of what exactly ?

pauldla · 12-06-2014 6:39am

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not saying it gives us proof, merely that it is ample justification to consider the question (which was in response to the post I first replied to).

Penny has already made my point for me, with more grace and clarity than I can pretend to, but let me point out that I said 'insight into the existence of God', not 'proof'.

No matter.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-06-2014 8:54pm

Mousewar wrote: »

That's not a fair statement.

Except yes. Yes it is. If an assertion is ENTIRELY devoid of substantiation then it is a VERY fair statement to point out it is devoid of substantiation. How is it not? By all means regail me with your reasoning on this.

Mousewar wrote: »

Millennia of belief in a God or gods by the vast majority of the population is perfectly sufficient evidence to warrant a consideration of that evidence

I recommend a philosophy 101 course some time when you can get around to it. Focus specifically on the fallacy list and closely on the "Appeal to majority" fallacy or "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy as it is oftne called. The number of people who believe X says _absolutely nothing whatsoever_ about whether X is actually true or not.

Mousewar wrote: »

and to investigate the possibility of there being proof.

Absolutely. Which is what I was recommending in my post too. Yet you said this was "unfair"? How is it unfair if you entirely agree with my positions?!?!?! Are you even TRYING to make sense?

I heartily recommend people look for arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support the assertion that a god exists. I am all for it. I have been doing it for over 18 years myself. I simply have failed to find _any at all whatsoever_ in that time. Have you?

Mousewar wrote: »

You're perfectly entitled to conclude that the evidence is flawed

I have not concluded it is flawed. I have concluded so far it is ABSENT.

Mousewar wrote: »

You can't just dismiss thousands of years of belief just because you don't like it.

I have never once in my entire life dismissed it because I do not "like it". You are simply misrepresenting and strawmainning.

No. I dismiss it because it appears to be not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any small way whatsoever.

So perhaps if you feel compelled to trot out another reply to me, you might do me the decency of replying to my actual position on the issue, and not one you have wholesale invented for me and shoved into my mouth. Thanks.

Brian Shanahan · 16-11-2014 12:50pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Look up nurses forums also, especially in hospices, a lot of this goes unreported. To see a man or woman become fearful in the final stages must be harrowing.

To quote Thomas Hobbes, "Hell is Truth seen too late"

In a hospice people are dying of conditions which cause great(often insuffersble) pain. They are also quite commonly also suffering from brain conditions like dementia or Alzheimer's which eat away at their brain's capacity to reason. Often peoplein this condition through overwhelming fear retreat to a childlike unreasoning state, and say and do things they never would if they were im their right minds.

Testomonies of hospice nurses about the beliefs and hallucinations of thedying is the opposite of evidence for god, because these testomonies leave out or minimize the explanatory factors for their occurence and posit a fantastical unevudenced and extremely complicated alternative.

Festus · 16-11-2014 10:26pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The video then stops at the 7 min mark to make threats and use psychological abuse on the viewer, calling the viewer worthless and non-righteous. The only evidence shown in support of these claims are quotes from a highly suspect translation of a collection of books with no known authors about two thousand years old or so.

have you tried researching this book for yourself?

Given the biased and derogatory language you use I suspect not and you are prepared to believe what others tell you about this book. No surprise there.
The quote “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.” quote has been attributed to GK Chesterton. Regardless of where it comes from it is apt and true, in my experience.

PopePalpatine · 16-11-2014 11:06pm

"He who does not believe in God will believe in anything"? I think you'll be hard pressed to find atheists who believe in angel healing, ghosts, or various other paranormal things, so it looks like Chesterton's sweeping generalisation is rubbish.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments