You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

antiskeptic

JayZeus wrote: »

Exactly. So exposure to absolute nonsense during your formative years at home, in school and in the society in which one is raised leads one to a state of belief in god.

Belief in a god, any god, essentially results from the systematic indoctrination of the individual by one or more who have repeated what was at one time a straightforward lie. A inability to see that these now compounded, interwoven lies cannot equate to truth is The crux of the matter.

Some are soothed by their own promise of salvation if only they’re open to the possibility a lie being a truth. It puzzles me how apparently intelligent people can decide such entirely self serving beliefs can have any defence, even when they attempt to spread the love by involving me as a would-be beneficiary of their lies.

When you figure out the puzzle get back to me.

Until then your circle (well, not exactly yours since it is a trope uber tropes) isn't quite squared.

Suffice to say that if very smart educated people are capable of self delusion then smarts and education isn't a protection against self delusion.

Which means smarts and education isn't the thing which renders atheism a sound position.

They might be the deluded ones.

magicbastarder

Fourier wrote: »

Just to say Fermat probably didn't have a proof for his theorem. The theorem is not provable with mathematics that existed in his day. His son published a margin note without his permission. Most likely he thought he had a proof.

i've often wondered about this; is there an approach which (before you actually start to work it out) might lead one to think 'this could be the way to do it'; an approach which used techniques known of in his day?

sydthebeat

So.. Essentially.... God is like a game of yahtzee??

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

NB: believe is a stative verb. People don't decide to believe (action involved). To believe is to be in a state of belief. It is something or someone else that puts us in that state. E.g. exposure to evidence.

Unless of course there's a proselytising Christian involved, who for some bizarre reason known only to themselves, is out to save your soul. In this case the verb Believe! is largely used in its imperative form. Said Christian might do better to journey away this place of wanton heathens into a more pastoral setting and endeavour to educate the local swine. As Robert Heinlein commented back in the day

Bob.H wrote:

"...[A] fool cannot be protected from his folly. If you attempt to do so, you will not only arouse his animosity but also you will be attempting to deprive him of whatever benefit he is capable of deriving from experience. Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

smacl

sydthebeat wrote: »

So.. Essentially.... God is like a game of yahtzee??

Nah. As per my post above, God is essentially a game of Pass the pigs. :pac:

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've often wondered about this; is there an approach which (before you actually start to work it out) might lead one to think 'this could be the way to do it'; an approach which used techniques known of in his day?

I had a rather wonderful physics teacher back in the day who used to say physics was 5% inspiration to 95% perspiration. More simply, if you take a leap of faith into the unknown you have to be able beat a path back to known territory for it to count.

magicbastarder

wasn't there a case of some japanese maths student many years ago who arrive late to a tutorial, took down the problem that was written on the board, and went home and - assuming it was homework - managed to work it out, much to the astonishment of the tutor who had written it on the board as an example of an unprovable hypothesis?
maybe it was just my applied maths teacher blowing smoke up our arse.

smacl

To this unread Philistine 'Good Will Hunting' comes to mind.

Fourier

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've often wondered about this; is there an approach which (before you actually start to work it out) might lead one to think 'this could be the way to do it'; an approach which used techniques known of in his day?

Forgive me if the level of the answer is too high or low, I'm not sure of your background.

Yes. So essentially many number theory results are an expansion of results the Greeks had already proven. By the 17th century it was known how to improve on these Greek results using a combination of new methods and usually a trick or two related to the specific problem.

Today we know that this works for most number theory problems, but a rare few statements in number theory turn out to really be statements about some more advanced area of mathematics*. Such as Fermat's theorem turns out to be equivalent to a statement about how complex functions in higher dimensions work.

So he probably tried extendeding some Greek method, got halfway, then saw it doesn't work. The theorem couldn't be proven until years later when people understood complex functions better.

Fourier

magicbastarder wrote: »

wasn't there a case of some japanese maths student many years ago who arrive late to a tutorial, took down the problem that was written on the board, and went home and - assuming it was homework - managed to work it out, much to the astonishment of the tutor who had written it on the board as an example of an unprovable hypothesis?
maybe it was just my applied maths teacher blowing smoke up our arse.

American of Ashkenazi Jewish descent: George Dantzig.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

A person, for example, can refuse to believe something.

Then go talk to that person if you find him. I can only speak for myself and I am telling you, this is not something I am capable of doing. If compelling evidence is presented to me, I can not refuse to believe it.

The reason I do not believe the claim there is a god has nothing to do with refusal. It has everything to do with no one, least of all you, presenting any basis for me to believe it. Even when asked to. Repeatedly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Luckily, you aren't being asked to do any such thing.

By you. I am however asked to by many other peoples, many times. But as I said, asking me to believe something will fail. I can not by choice assent to the request. I can not choose what to believe, even if others can.

The people asking me to believe could MAKE me believe. Helplessly. All they would have to do is present substantiation for their claims.

This they, like you, have failed spectacularly to do. Your entire post seems to say nothing more than "If you would believe it, then you would believe it" which is hardly a revelation.

magicbastarder

Fourier wrote: »

Forgive me if the level of the answer is too high or low, I'm not sure of your background.

a twenty something year old ****ty degree in physics.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then go talk to that person if you find him. I can only speak for myself and I am telling you, this is not something I am capable of doing. If compelling evidence is presented to me, I can not refuse to believe it.

Do you smoke?

The reason I do not believe the claim there is a god has nothing to do with refusal. It has everything to do with no one, least of all you, presenting any basis for me to believe it. Even when asked to. Repeatedly.

We would have to grant your immunity to refusal claim. Prolematic that: something common to mankind, such as cog dissonance is an impossibilty for you. No matter what area of life.

By you. I am however asked to by many other peoples, many times. But as I said, asking me to believe something will fail. I can not by choice assent to the request. I can not choose what to believe, even if others can.

It might be due to them not realising the word "believe" is stative. Or thinking much about how belief comes about.

Suffice to say, the bible doesn't fall into that error.

The people asking me to believe could MAKE me believe. Helplessly. All they would have to do is present substantiation for their claims.

If only the salvation process would operate as you demand. If only it needed to operate so in order to work.

There is an arrogance here: that God, if he exists, is confined to a functional process as prescribed by you.

This they, like you, have failed spectacularly to do. Your entire post seems to say nothing more than "If you would believe it, then you would believe it" which is hardly a revelation.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm merely outlining a process that doesn't require you believing something that you have no evidence for.

The process will provide evidence. If successful, then you will believe. Then you will be saved. Then you will see God. Then you will believe God exists.

That's the order. It doesn't confound the way you yourself say you believe things.

Evidence before you > belief follows. That's the salvation process. Not the other way around.

And the primary saving belief is not that you believe in God, but that you believe God - an entirely different matter.

S'all.

Mick_1970

Interesting thread, I'd class myself as a militant atheist that 'Knows' no god's exist as they have had plenty of time to provide even a shred of evidence.

I have many theist friends and often enjoy the different viewpoints. I've always noticed that with believers evidence is post belief and when that belief becomes matured evidence is present everywhere, whereas I seek verifiable evidence before accepting any claim.

I suppose this is the key difference which makes us irreconcilable on god's but still friends, sometimes.

antiskeptic

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Interesting thread, I'd class myself as a militant atheist that 'Knows' no god's exist as they have had plenty of time to provide even a shred of evidence.

What about a God who exists and has no interest in evidencing itself. How would you know that doesn't exist?

Dawkins reserved a special place in Hell (so to speak) for athiests who know no gods exist.

I seek verifiable evidence before accepting any claim.

By verifiable evidence I assume you mean empirically demonstrable and testable?

Assuming verifiable evidence is a threshold needing surmounting in order that you be satisfied, wouldn't it be sufficient that you merely be satisfied, however satisfied?

Ockhams Razor would see empirical verification as as a superflous step, if you can be equally satisfied without it

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

....wouldn't it be sufficient that you merely be satisfied, however satisfied?

To try to cut to the chase here, despite best efforts to obfuscate some pretty simple things here, the answer is 'no'.

Some are happy to accept a possibility of existence as a truth. Fine. It's really tiresome that they'll accept that themselves and then spend their time trying to convince the rest of us to buy into their belief in the make believe. Is your own faith not enough? It should be.

Dress it up whatever way you want, but it's as simple as that, really.

Mick_1970

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about a God who exists and has no interest in evidencing itself. How would you know that doesn't exists

A god that exists without evidence, can easily be dismissed without evidence. How do you know your god is real when all they do is play hide and seek with your assertions, if god were real he would back you up in an instant and show these 'lost souls' the actual truth of his existence.

using "Ockham's" razor

a person that wants a god that exists without any evidence needs no evidence at all in order to believe in such a god

imagine such a thing!

oh. you do.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you smoke? We would have to grant your immunity to refusal claim. Prolematic that: something common to mankind, such as cog dissonance is an impossibilty for you. No matter what area of life.

Unwarranted personal questions about my private life aside, I am sorry that me not being like everyone else is "problematic" to you. But I for one celebrate the diversity and individuality in our species.

The rest of your post with words like "arrogance" is just the same as your first post. Your derision of the sceptic that you are so "anti". You have no evidence for your god. You just have derision and invective to throw at people who do not swallow your assertions whole.

But as long as your posts are, they have not yet presented any evidence for your claims. I am happy to keep waiting.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about a God who exists and has no interest in evidencing itself. How would you know that doesn't exist?

Dawkins reserved a special place in Hell (so to speak) for athiests who know no gods exist.

What if your god is nothing but a sock puppet and the real super god (Odin) wants to be the one to remain hidden behind, so much so that you fail to believe in it.

Meanwhile, as you pray to the wrong god you make the true god more angry with each passing day.

Believing in something with no proof is less then childish, even kids believe in Santa based on the presents they believe they are getting from Santa and the same for the easter bunny and eggs.

But to believe in a god with zero proof seem to suggest a maturity level equal to a very suggestable 3/4 year old who accepts everything they are told without question.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unwarranted personal questions about my private life aside, I am sorry that me not being like everyone else is "problematic" to you. But I for one celebrate the diversity and individuality in our species.

My doubt was more along the lines of encountering somone who said they didn't breathe air.

The rest of your post with words like "arrogance" is just the same as your first post. Your derision of the sceptic that you are so "anti". You have no evidence for your god. You just have derision and invective to throw at people who do not swallow your assertions whole.

But as long as your posts are, they have not yet presented any evidence for your claims. I am happy to keep waiting.

You don't seem to want to engage in the substance (such as the problem of insisting that any God conform to your take on how God might save or evidence himself).

You don't seem to appreciate that discussion can involve things other than evidencing.

I see you banging an objection drum. "I can't believe without evidence and I am told to believe without evidence". You are then faced with a description of a process that deals with that objection.

The point isn't to provide evidence. The point is to silence that route of objection.

Bang on about no evidence if you like. But perhaps consider not raising the "believe without evidence impossible" objection again. At least not with me.

The process described would circumvent how you think it works. Which is something you might bear in mind when supposing it must work as you say it must work.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Believing in something with no proof is less then childish, even kids believe in Santa based on the presents they believe they are getting from Santa and the same for the easter bunny and eggs.

You believe that empiricism as a supreme mode of arriving at knowledge.

Proof? There is none

But to believe in a god with zero proof seem to suggest a maturity level equal to a very suggestable 3/4 year old who accepts everything they are told without question.

You are so confined in your thinking. We don't operate in our lives leapfrogging from proof to proof.

You might stand outside the national concert hall and enquire of patrons why it is they paid so much money for tickets to a concert when there was no proof that the performance wasn't rubbish.

They will look at you oddly. You have to prove you know it is?

Mark Hamill

Jeez, away from the forum for a day and the thread more than doubles in length :eek::D

I know the below posts are old, but it doesn't seem like the discussion has actually gone far beyond the points in them (no doubt a wain in antiskeptics book).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because God (for relational, intimacy reasons) invariably works on man through man

If god works on man through man then you purposefully stalemating, in the way you are, is you working against god, as you are only preventing his work from getting through.

Fourier wrote: »

Well the whole point you're making is "What if everybody is inherently irrational in a way that prevents them from reaching my conclusion and that conclusion is the correct one".

Well then God would exist, be as you imagine he is and we'd be unable to realise that due to being too biased. It's contained in the definition of the scenario. That's it. It's not really a discussion, it's just a defining trait of a particular scenario.

And begs the question I've asked antiskeptic repeatedly and not received an answer

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you [antiskeptic] believe it?

Yes, sure, you feel convinced of it, but that not is not because of objective rationing or logic, it is because of subjective feeling. Many other fundamentally contradictory theists claim the exactly the same way about their beliefs. Even some atheists might. You can't all be right. Maybe none of you are. So do you have something besides your subjective feeling that it is true? Or is your basis exactly the same, and therefore completely indistinguishable, from so many other worldviews?

Mick_1970

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point isn't to provide evidence. The point is to silence that route of objection.

Bang on about no evidence if you like. But perhaps consider not raising the "believe without evidence impossible" objection again. At least not with me.

So how did you discover your chosen deity? Did your hear about it from another person? Did you read about them? Which form of evidence that you consider worthy lead you to worship this particular god?

The only other possibility is that you had an epiphany. Where did your journey start?

magicbastarder

it's always an interesting one to ask - the 'if you'd been born into a jewish family, do you think you'd still be jewish, or would you have converted to catholicism?'
because (assuming your interlocutor is willing to play ball), the answer can be interpreted as 'well, the primary reason you're catholic is because your parents were'; or if they say yes, that begs the question as to why more jewish (or people of any other religious faith) don't convert to catholicism.

Mortelaro

Cabaal wrote: »

Believing in something with no proof is less then childish, even kids believe in Santa based on the presents they believe they are getting from Santa and the same for the easter bunny and eggs.
.

Ah here now
If the above is the basis for childish ness,we are all fooked
I believe I'll be sleeping with the love of my life eventually
I don't know who that is and I've no proof it will happen
But I do believe it will happen

You could argue that's believing in something tangible because theres evidence its happened to people so it's something its possible to make
But is it? How do I know if its possible for me to make it?*

Questioning beliefs is a fundamental basis for this forum, SURE.
Abandoning belief across the board shouldn't be

* all my examples are hypothetical, in case my better half reads this

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's always an interesting one to ask - the 'if you'd been born into a jewish family, do you think you'd still be jewish, or would you have converted to catholicism?'
because (assuming your interlocutor is willing to play ball), the answer can be interpreted as 'well, the primary reason you're catholic is because your parents were'; or if they say yes, that begs the question as to why more jewish (or people of any other religious faith) don't convert to catholicism.

Martin Luther was so convinced he had cracked it when it came to interpreting scripture that he was sure the Jews would see the error of their beliefs/ways/lifestyle and accept (his version) of Christianity.

It was important the Jews convert as the general consensus was that when the whole world accepted Jesus he would return (which was thought to be a good thing).

Luther reckoned that the Jews were never going to convert to the Roman version because that was all wrong. His version, however, was all right. 100% scripturally sound. It was totes amazeballs.

The Jews were going to see how Rome got it wrong, Luther got it right, and join the Christ the Messiah Club.

From the German States would radiate out the true form of Christianity, quickly spreading across the globe with the aid of wordy pamphlets and sharp pointy things and Hallelujah Judgement Day would be upon us pretty damn quick.

The Jews disagreed and failed to convert in droves.

This made Luther very angry indeed and he wrote at great length about the awful, stubborn, not like us, anti-Christ Jews.

Views which became embedded in German Lutheranism.

They lay there. A pernicious undercurrent. Waiting....

joe40

Surely the whole point of faith, in the Christian context is belief without evidence.

Was the disciple Thomas not admonished for looking for proof.

The people who maintain belief, even in the absence of proof or evidence, are considered more holy. That is the definition of faith.

Bannasidhe

joe40 wrote: »

The people who maintain belief, even in the absence of proof or evidence, are considered more holy. That is the definition of faith.

That's what Luther said too.

And he quoted chapter and verse to 'prove' it.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say that if very smart educated people are capable of self delusion then smarts and education isn't a protection against self delusion.

No protection is absolute. And "smarts and education" are not an absolute either, people tend to be smart and educated in specific fields, with little to no knowledge in many others. But that doesn't mean that smarts and education can't reduce the likelihood of self delusion, if applied consistently.