Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

antiskeptic

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Logical Reason - There's just no evidence for a God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.

2. Since extraordinary appears to lie in the eye of the beholder, where is the extraordinary proof that evidence for God has to be provable (to others) in order to qualify as evidence? It seems an extraordinary claim to me.

MOD NOTE:

This thread exists so that antiskeptic may give free rein to his/her hypothesis that Empiricism is a Belief without attracting further sanctions. Any post on this general topic he/she posts in other threads will be moved here. The rules against soapboxing are suspended in this thread only - the rules of civility have not been suspended. The gloves are off but please mask up.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.

It’s a self evident point.

It’s an extraordinary claim that water and wine magically turn into the real blood and body of a human who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. And whether he lived or not, it is extraordinary to claim that he is both the son of god, and is a god, is extraordinary.

You could of course argue that people who claim to be god is somewhat of a banality at the time. I mean Caesar was declared on his deathbed - which made it much easier for Augustus to claim himself a god as he was the son of a god. Very familiar - and a very extra ordinary claim.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Since extraordinary appears to lie in the eye of the beholder, where is the extraordinary proof that evidence for God has to be provable (to others) in order to qualify as evidence? It seems an extraordinary claim to me.

These points have already been made by you in other threads and you’ve already been reprimanded for making them repeatedly without furthering the discussion - I wonder where all this I going.

Extraordinary claims are not in the eye of the beholder but extraordinary on the basis of science. It is an extraordinary claim that a person can rise from the dead - of course resurrections themselves do not confer dignity as Lazarus proves but none the less it is an extraordinary claim to rise from the dead. In much the same way as someone told me they believed in zombies - I’d ask them to provide extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.

karlitob wrote: »

It’s a self evident point.

If it were self-evident, you wouldn't be reduced to "refuting" it by claiming "It's self-evident!" and then immediately switching to a critique of several entirely different claims.

Have another go?

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

It’s a self evident point.

It’s an extraordinary claim that water and wine magically turn into the real blood and body of a human who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. And whether he lived or not, it is extraordinary to claim that he is both the son of god, and is a god, is extraordinary.

It doesn't seem extraordinary to me. God existing, that is.

These points have already been made by you in other threads and you’ve already been reprimanded for making them repeatedly without furthering the discussion - I wonder where all this I going.

I was banned for having the aim of driving a discussion to stalemate on what is a discussion forum. Not sure why that trangresses anything, stalemate in one area of discussion opens the door to discussion in another area (such as: "we've hit stalemate there, so how are going to progress? Call it a draw? Find another angle of attack?"

But no matter, mod decisions discussed attract bans so I can't discuss

Extraordinary claims are not in the eye of the beholder but extraordinary on the basis of science.

That is an extraordinary claim: that science owns the word extraordinary. Can you evidence that only science can decide what is extraordinary?

Anyway. You were going to provide me with evidence as to why a proof-to-others was required in order that something be evidenced. Forget whether that's an extraordinary claim or not. Its a claim. Can you evidence it?

patnor1011

Any religion itself is extraordinary.
Mainly when you see how many of them came and went.
Current religions will fare the same, it is only a question of time.
Then new religions will come to an existence.

Peregrinus

patnor1011 wrote: »

Any religion itself is extraordinary.
Mainly when you see how many of them came and went.
Current religions will fare the same, it is only a question of time.
Then new religions will come to an existence.

Which, if true, suggests that while any particular religion is extraordinary, religion in general is entirely ordinary.

patnor1011

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which, if true, suggests that while any particular religion is extraordinary, religion in general is entirely ordinary.

Countless gods and deities are mostly forgotten. The only followers remaining are historians. I would bet 30 silver pieces that this is in store for current gods too. Since it will take quite some time I have no means to collect when proven right.

Peregrinus

patnor1011 wrote: »

Countless gods and deities are mostly forgotten. The only followers remaining are historians. I would bet 30 silver pieces that this is in store for current gods too. Since it will take quite some time I have no means to collect when proven right.

I dunno. The monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe emerged about two-and-a-half thousand years ago and is still going strong. This particular god has outlived many gods who emerged after him and who disappeared long ago. It looks like a fairly durable concept to me, and I doubt that it's susceptible of absolute refutation. As a concept it might die if it ceases to be of any use; while this could happen but there is no a priori reason to expect that it will.

But, even if it does, the death of any particular concept of god does nothing to show that concepts of god in general are extraordinary, any more than the death of a particular scientific idea would show that scientific ideas in general are extraordinary.

I think it's fair to say that ideas about god continually evolve or develop (like ideas about everything else, really). But this just underlines the point; any particular idea about god may be extraordinary when compared with all the other ideas about god, but the totality of ideas about god is not extraordinary at all; it's wholly ordinary, in the sense that all human cultures have always considered questions about god, and have proposed answers to those questions.

What would be extraordinary would be a human culture that didn't do this. But, SFAIK, there are no real-world examples of such a human culture. (Which perhaps underlines the point.)

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was banned for having the aim of driving a discussion to stalemate on what is a discussion forum. Not sure why that trangresses anything but no matter, mod decisions discussed attract bans so I can discuss

Mod: Carded for discussion of moderation of a previous banning and being told not raise the subject again, next time will be a ban.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

What would be extraordinary would be a human culture that didn't do this. But, SFAIK, there are no real-world examples of such a human culture. (Which perhaps underlines the point.)

Hmmm, there have been many cultures with enforced atheism just as there have been, and still are, many cultures with enforced theism. Exploration and open discussion about existence or non-existence of gods has not been a freedom broadly available to most societies until very recently. It is still not to some.

As for real-world extant examples, Buddhism predates Christianity by about six centuries and has no gods. Taoism predates Christianity by about three to four centuries and while some schools include a pantheon of deities, others are purely philosophical and do not.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Hmmm, there have been many cultures with enforced atheism just as there have been, and still are, many cultures with enforced theism. Exploration and open discussion about existence or non-existence of gods has not been a freedom broadly available to most societies until very recently. It is still not to some.

There have been political regimes that enforced atheism, or attempted to do so; I wouldn’t see those as wholly distinct cultures, though. Indeed, they wouldn’t have to enforce atheism if they didn’t exist within cultures in which theism flourished.

Similarly there have been political regimes which [attempted to] enforce theism, although if we’re honest they more usually attempted to enforce this form of religious practice/expression over other forms of religious practice/expression. It was rarely a straight theism-versus-atheism struggle.

smacl wrote: »

As for real-world extant examples, Buddhism predates Christianity by about six centuries and has no gods. Taoism predates Christianity by about three to four centuries and while some schools include a pantheon of deities, others are purely philosophical and do not.

Oh sure. I am not suggesting that J-C-I monotheism is the oldest or most enduring theist notion; just that it’s pretty old and pretty enduring, and the fact that many notions about what god is have vanished does not mean that all will. (After all, many notions about, say, the fundamentals of matter have vanished, but we don’t conclude from this that all will.)

In this (sometimes meandering) thread we have sometimes skipped fairly glibly between talking about theism/belief in god and talking about religion. As you point out, the two things are not the same, but there is an obvious intersection. Two thoughts about this:

First, to some extent, whether you classify a religion as theist, atheist or capable of being either depends on your notion of “god”. If you think god has to be a person, possessed of intelligence, will, etc, then a lot of religions are atheist, or at least atheism-compatible. Whereas if you think a supernatural life-force or a transcendent reality that accounts for the material universe or something of the kind can be classed as “god”, then some of those religions become theist. So this is a fairly blurry line.

But, secondly, this may not matter for the purpose of this thread. I suggested earlier that all human cultures consider religious questions and propose answers to them and that these answers are continually evolving/being developed. I’ll go further now and say that some of those answers will be theist in nature, no matter how you understand “theos”. Or, at any rate, we have no rational reason (to borrow a phrase from the thread header) to expect that ideas that can be classed as theistic will disappear from the range of ideas that this process generates.

lalababa

JayZeus wrote: »

There is not a single rational reason for any adult of sound mind and judgement to believe in any god.

Unless of course you live in a priest ridden conformist society hell bent(excuse the pun) on making anyones lives a misery if they don't conform. Ask any Irish parent why they pushed their kid to holy communion/confirmation and the answer will be..."ahh sure I wouldn't like em to stand out"
Or "where would they go to school??'
Thanks be ta f**k things are changing

GarIT

smacl wrote: »

You also have to consider the social ramifications of openly stating you don't subscribe to the dominant local religion. These days, in this country, this isn't the issue it once was but up until a few decades ago publicly stating you were an atheist would likely get you socially ostracised or worse. In some countries and some religions, apostasy is still a criminal offence with very serious penalties. Whatever about rational, it is often pragmatic to say that you believe in a god regardless of whether you actually do.

Surprisingly I was bullied over it in the the greater Dublin area up until 2012. One particular event of note had a 6th class religion teacher convince the class I was evil because I was the only one who supported abortion in 2012.

mr_fegelien

Ricky Gervais said something interesting which applies here.

If all the religious and science text books were destroyed in a human mass extinction event and humans only recovered 1000 years into the future, the future society would have science textbooks that mirror ours. They may not rediscover the same scientific principles but it would be there.

Meanwhile the religious textbooks (assuming they have any) will have different Gods. There won't be Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Muhammad etc.. these were all stories based on people living in a certain time.

Peregrinus

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Ricky Gervais said something interesting which applies here.

If all the religious and science text books were destroyed in a human mass extinction event and humans only recovered 1000 years into the future, the future society would have science textbooks that mirror ours. They may not rediscover the same scientific principles but it would be there.

Meanwhile the religious textbooks (assuming they have any) will have different Gods. There won't be Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Muhammad etc.. these were all stories based on people living in a certain time.

Yeah. But they might be similar ideas about God. God might not be called e.g. Yahweh, but there might still be a conception of an all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. god going by a different name.

Just as atomic particles might not be called electrons, positrons and neutrons, but by entirely different names, and yet might still be understood in ways very simllar to the ways we understand electrons, positrons and neutrons.

karlitob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which, if true, suggests that while any particular religion is extraordinary, religion in general is entirely ordinary.

No it suggests religion is merely a fad and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.

Seems a shame to waste your life believing in something that no long exists, or currently doesn’t exist - and if you think it does, will no longer exists in future when something new and exciting comes along.

karlitob

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it were self-evident, you wouldn't be reduced to "refuting" it by claiming "It's self-evident!" and then immediately switching to a critique of several entirely different claims.

Have another go?

It’s self-evident

-Ends

Peregrinus

karlitob wrote: »

No it suggests religion is merely a fad . . .

\
It suggests the exact opposite of that.

C'mon, you're letting the side down! You're supposed to be the defender of reason here!

karlitob wrote: »

. . . and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.

What an absurdly simplistic binary approach! You should open your mind to th possiblity that ideas can be more or less right, and that people can be right about some things but wrong about others. We have no rational reason for excluding these possibilities.

karlitob wrote: »

Seems a shame to waste your life believing in something that no long exists, or currently doesn’t exist - and if you think it does, will no longer exists in future when something new and exciting comes along.

I'm not sure I even understand the point you're making here. If your ideas about what exists are not perfectly true, or might be superseded by better ideas, they are somehow shameful?

That's a profoundly anti-scientific attitude, but you probably know that already. Which is why I', pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here. Can you have another go?

Peregrinus

karlitob wrote: »

It’s self-evident

-Ends

Like I say, you're supposed to be defending reason here.

If you can't mount a rational defence of your position, you might be better off saying nothing. Just sayin'.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe emerged about two-and-a-half thousand years ago and is still going strong. This particular god has outlived many gods who emerged after him and who disappeared long ago. It looks like a fairly durable concept to me

But the "monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is not a particular god, though, is it? It is an extremely brief and general concept that is so nebulous that even though nearly 2 1/2 billion people all self-label as following the same god, we are incapable of saying anything about their beliefs of that god beyond the 25 words you used. And even then, many of them don't even believe in that. Saying that concept is durable is like saying that air is durable because it doesn't break when you punch it.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Like I say, you're supposed to be defending reason here.

If you can't mount a rational defence of your position, you might be better off saying nothing. Just sayin'.

If we are going to pretend that we are defending reason here, then maybe the onus is on antiskeptic to explain how the claim for the existence of god is ordinary first?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the "monotheistic concept of a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is not a particular god, though, is it? It is an extremely brief and general concept that is so nebulous that even though nearly 2 1/2 billion people all self-label as following the same god, we are incapable of saying anything about their beliefs of that god beyond the 25 words you used. And even then, many of them don't even believe in that. Saying that concept is durable is like saying that air is durable because it doesn't break when you punch it.

It absolutely is a "particular god". This concept requires that there be only one god, that he be the creator of the universe, and that there be no other gods. It doesn't require him to have any particular name, but so what? If I believe in this god and call him Joe, and you believe in this god and call him Bill, we'lll both agree that we believe in the same god; we just refer to him by different names. And I might believe that you are wrong to call him Bill or you might believe that I am wrong to call him Joe, or we might both believe that his name is unimportant. But none of that will change the fact that we believe in the same god; a statement we couldn't make if the concept were not a particular concept of god.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But they might be similar ideas about God. God might not be called e.g. Yahweh, but there might still be a conception of an all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. god going by a different name.

Just as atomic particles might not be called electrons, positrons and neutrons, but by entirely different names, and yet might still be understood in ways very simllar to the ways we understand electrons, positrons and neutrons.

Atomic particles are inanimate objects. Their name comes from us. However the the results of any tests done in the future would be the same as the same tests done now (or in the past), so the facts derived about them would be the same.

God, if one exists, is not inanimate. God names himself in the bible as several things, like elohim and yahweh etc. If the same god exists in the future, then the same names should appear. If they don't (and I'm betting they wouldn't) then that is because we created the names.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If we are going to pretend that we are defending reason here, then maybe the onus is on antiskeptic to explain how the claim for the existence of god is ordinary first?

Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim". He doesn't make any counterclaim that belief in God is ordinary; he just asks why it's extraordinary. Mr Fegelein doesn't respond, but Karlitobob does; he says that "it's self-evident" that belief in God is an extraordinary claim, and he has since repeated that but refused to elaborate on it.

So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It absolutely is a "particular god". This concept requires that there be only one god, that he be the creator of the universe, and that there be no other gods. It doesn't require him to have any particular name, but so what? If I believe in this god and call him Joe, and you believe in this god and call him Bill, we'lll both agree that we believe in the same god; we just refer to him by different names. And I might believe that you are wrong to call him Bill or you might believe that I am wrong to call him Joe, or we might both believe that his name is unimportant. But none of that will change the fact that we believe in the same god; a statement we couldn't make if the concept were not a particular concept of god.

But we don't believe in this particular god. Your Joe and my Bill have inherently non-compatible concepts inherently attached to them. E.g. your Joe says pork is a sin, my Bill says pork isn't. Multiply that by every religious rule and how even you yourself have argued that multiple people self-labeling as the same religion doesn't mean you can say anything about what they should or shouldn't believe in.
There is no "particular god". Many many people have died in agreements over that fact (and in disagreement over whose particular god is the real or best one).

I'd wager that once you separate out the big contradictions, not even 10% of all christians could charitably be said to believe in the same particular god.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Atomic particles are inanimate objects. Their name comes from us. However the the results of any tests done in the future would be the same as the same tests done now (or in the past), so the facts derived about them would be the same.

Not necessarily, since we might develop different theories of matter and therefore conduct different tests to test different propositions. These tests might tell us different (but still true) things about atoms that we don't currently know, while we might fail to develop and test propositions that were previously developed and tested, but were then lost in the Great Forgetting.

Assuming we rediscover the scientific method, we can reasonably expect to learn things which are as reliably true about the natural world as the things we learnt before the Great Forgetting. But, while there would likely be a degee of overlap, they wouldn't necessarily be the same things. We might head off in different directions of enquiry.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

God, if one exists, is not inanimate. God names himself in the bible as several things, like elohim and yahweh etc. If the same god exists in the future, then the same names should appear. If they don't (and I'm betting they wouldn't) then that is because we created the names.

This argument only holds good if you accept (among other dubious things) the unstated premise that god wrote the bible. But, of course, given that premise, you cannot possibly conclude that god doesn't exist; your argument requires his existence.

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

No it suggests religion is merely a fad and that it clearly proves that those who believed in Zeus were either right or wrong, that those who believed in Odin were either right or wrong or those who believe in whoever the modern lads are are either right or wrong.

I hardly think you can refer to something that has been widespread through most of humanities existence 'a fad'. Quite the opposite.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But we don't believe in this particular god. Your Joe and my Bill have inherently non-compatible concepts inherently attached to them. E.g. your Joe says pork is a sin, my Bill says pork isn't. Multiply that by every religious rule and how even you yourself have argued that multiple people self-labeling as the same religion doesn't mean you can say anything about what they should or shouldn't believe in.
There is no "particular god". Many many people have died in agreements over that fact (and in disagreement over whose particular god is the real or best one).

I'd wager that once you separate out the big contradictions, not even 10% of all christians could charitably be said to believe in the same particular god.

All you're saying is that people might have different beliefs about the same god.

This is true, but so what? You and I might have different beliefs about (say) Michael D. Higgins, but this does not mean that we believe in different Michael D. Higginses or make the objective existence of Michael D. Higgins any less likely.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim". He doesn't make any counterclaim that belief in God is ordinary; he just asks why it's extraordinary. Mr Fegelein doesn't respond, but Karlitobob does; he says that "it's self-evident" that belief in God is an extraordinary claim, and he has since repeated that but refused to elaborate on it.

So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?

So questioning it doesn't count as a contradiction? Sure, fine, whatever. To at least move the discussion along:

If the existence of god is not extraordinary, then it is ordinary. Which would make "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" ordinary. That looks like a contradiction to me. If god is unique, then he is not common. If he is not part of the universe then he is not normal. If he created the universe then he is special.
Like, this is so obvious as to be self-evident, wouldn't you say?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

All you're saying is that people might have different beliefs about the same god.

No, I'm quite clearly saying that people are believing in different gods.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You and I might have different beliefs about (say) Michael D. Higgins, but this does not mean that we believe in different Michael D. Higginses

Except it does. It also means that, at most, only one of us can be believing in the real Micheal D Higgins. However that is a separate issue to the tangent I'm discussing about belief in the same particular god.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So questioning it doesn't count as a contradiction? Sure, fine, whatever. To at least move the discussion along:

If the existence of god is not extraordinary, then it is ordinary. Which would make "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" ordinary. That looks like a contradiction to me. If god is unique, then he is not common. If he is not part of the universe then he is not normal. If he created the universe then he is special.
Like, this is so obvious as to be self-evident, wouldn't you say?

The issue is not whether the existenc of god is ordinary or extraordinary; it's whether the claim that god exists is extraordinary or ordinary.

Think about it; if god exists, then his existence is certainly ordinary - as in, it's part of the order of things. And if he doesn't exist, then the question whether
his existence is ordinary or extraordinary is literally a meaningless question.

So, no: the issue here is whether belief in god is an extraordinary belief, or to assert that god exists is an extraordinary assertion. It's certainly not extraordinary in the colloquial sense; it's widespread across all cultures that we know of, and at all time that we know of. It's about as ordinary as a belief or assertion can be. So we're obviously looking at some other sense of "extraordinary". And I think the onus is on those who wish to advance this claim (Mr Fegelein, who first made the claim in this thread, clearly doesn't want to) is to start by eplaining what the claim means. When we describe a belief or assertion as "extraordinary", what exactly do we mean?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I'm quite clearly saying that people are believing in different gods.

Except it does. It also means that, at most, only one of us can be believing in the real Micheal D Higgins. However that is a separate issue to the tangent I'm discussing about belief in the same particular god.

I don't think it's a separate tangent at all. There's a clear difference between (a) believing in different things and (b) having differing beliefs about the same thing. You may believe that Donald Trump wears Man Tan Lurid Tartrazine no. 27; I may believe that he wears Clarins Jaundice Special Glow for Boys; regardless of which (if either) of us is correct, these are both beliefs that we hold about the same Donald Trump.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is not whether the existenc of god is ordinary or extraordinary; it's whether the claim that god exists is extraordinary or ordinary.

If a being who is "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" is extraordinary, then any claims about their existence is also extraordinary, as they would require an otherwise ordinary human being in the position to determine that a being is truly " a unique god who is the creator... etc.".

Peregrinus wrote: »

Think about it; if god exists, then his existence is certainly ordinary - as in, it's part of the order of things.

If god exists then by being a "a unique god who is the creator of all things that exist (other than himself) and who is not a part of the created universe" he is therefore unique, not part of the same order of things as we are (by virtue of being outside the universe) and singularly able to create our universe.


You seem to be trying to use a personal definition of extraordinary so obtuse that it would render the word unusable in any situation. Your usage would amount to saying that Jeff Bezo's isn't extraordinarily rich simply because his wealth exists.

looksee

lalababa wrote: »

Unless of course you live in a priest ridden conformist society hell bent(excuse the pun) on making anyones lives a misery if they don't conform. Ask any Irish parent why they pushed their kid to holy communion/confirmation and the answer will be..."ahh sure I wouldn't like em to stand out"
Or "where would they go to school??'
Thanks be ta f**k things are changing

Except of course this is nothing to do with believing in god, its all about just fitting in regardless, a pragmatic way of taking the easy route.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it's a separate tangent at all. There's a clear difference between (a) believing in different things and (b) having differing beliefs about the same thing. You may believe that Donald Trump wears Man Tan Lurid Tartrazine no. 27; I may believe that he wears Clarins Jaundice Special Glow for Boys; regardless of which (if either) of us is correct, these are both beliefs that we hold about the same Donald Trump.

And in such a facetious example, I would agree.
But in an example where I believed that Bill says we should execute people for working heavy machinery before 7.30am and you believe that Joe says we celebrate such people for having a good work ethic, our two concepts of the the gods we believe in are so different that it makes no sense to try and claim we just have semantic differences about the same god.

karlitob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic was responding to Mr Fegelein's characterisation, in post #1 in this thread, of belief in God an as "extraordinary claim". He doesn't make any counterclaim that belief in God is ordinary; he just asks why it's extraordinary. Mr Fegelein doesn't respond, but Karlitobob does; he says that "it's self-evident" that belief in God is an extraordinary claim, and he has since repeated that but refused to elaborate on it.

So, the only claim advanced about this on either side is that belief in god is extraordinary and, despite request, the reasoning offered in support this claim so far is precisely nil, though the claim is repeated. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith. Which is notable, in a thread which is supposed to be about the rationality of belief. Can you criticise the rationality of other people's beliefs if you can't or won't give a rational account of your own beliefs?

No I have elaborated.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a god exists, it’s an extraordinary claim that water and winS turn into blood and human flesh. It is an extraordinary claim that humans can rise from the dead. These extraordinary claims require evidence that is extra-ordinary. If someone claims that they believe in zombies then I need more evidence than just in believe in it, so do loads of people for millennia, which’s makes it an Ordinary claim (And I don’t even provide any evidence) therefore it’s true to me.


So I have elaborated. Stop misrepresenting me.

And I and other atheists here don’t have a belief in god or gods so stop misrepresenting our position.

boardise

As we know,discussions on this theme go around in brain-boggling circles but at least provide a pretext for a mental workout of sorts....so many layers of analysis possible ...where the definitions of the key concepts we use are open to constant question and dispute.
Unsurprisingly I have no crashingly original insights to add but would endorse some points made by Peregrinus above because I spent some time studing Anthropology and the general view of the discipline was that 'religion' ( however variously defined) was a human cultural universal.
As to the original thread starter question , I remember a saying of a philopsopher from Roman times -
'Credo Quia Absurdum' i.e. I believe (in the religion I believe in) precisely because it is absurd. This apparent paradox makes sense.If we were to assume that flawed fallible human reasoning could capture the nature of a transcendant realm of existence ( with or without Gods))-then we're simply dealing with an outgrowth of human needs or desires -not something that by definition is taken to be ineffable and ultimately unknowable in this world.
Religion is understood by many as a mystery, approachable only by belief and not amenable to colloquial human discourse or understanding.
Perhaps it is arguable that it could be a reasonable stance for some people to accept an overlay of mystery as a coping mechanism.
For now -I throw in another resonant remark from ancient times - Primus in orbe ,deos fecit timor !

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, to some extent, whether you classify a religion as theist, atheist or capable of being either depends on your notion of “god”. If you think god has to be a person, possessed of intelligence, will, etc, then a lot of religions are atheist, or at least atheism-compatible. Whereas if you think a supernatural life-force or a transcendent reality that accounts for the material universe or something of the kind can be classed as “god”, then some of those religions become theist. So this is a fairly blurry line.

I think you'd struggle to find a broadly accepted definition for god that meets the above. Closest is possibly pantheism, but even there the belief is that reality and divinity are the same thing and hence any notional godhead is natural rather than supernatural.

But, secondly, this may not matter for the purpose of this thread. I suggested earlier that all human cultures consider religious questions and propose answers to them and that these answers are continually evolving/being developed. I’ll go further now and say that some of those answers will be theist in nature, no matter how you understand “theos”. Or, at any rate, we have no rational reason (to borrow a phrase from the thread header) to expect that ideas that can be classed as theistic will disappear from the range of ideas that this process generates.

Again, I'd disagree. If you look at naturalist philosophies such as Taoism you wont find any theistic answers to any fundamental questions. No shortage of mysticism and mythology, but all contained within the natural universe (i.e. the Tao). I don't think you'll find much in the way of theistic answers to the big questions in Buddhism either.

patnor1011

Can we agree that eastern and western religions are fundamentally different?
By that, I mean Buddhism and Taoism as eastern and Judeo Christianity and its Islam offshoot as western.

I think that religions for the most part were not created as a means to explain things which people could not understand at that moment but rather as a control mechanism or oppression tool. How else can we call the idea of rules set in stone which must be obeyed with the promise of reward after we die?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

No so. Instilling a belief in something is not comparable to not doing so. The former involves time and instruction, the latter does not

You seem to be supposing that children live in a bubble formed by the four walls you live in. You ask us to believe that your kid won't get to something like age 9 before the question of God/Santa/tooth fairy comes up?

Whar do you say? And is that not instruction when you, influential parent, state your position? Especially so when God is placed in the same category as the other two.

You certainly hear that here all the time but nah, no one was told that by their atheist parents.

Funny that 2 of the 6 kids knocking at my door say their parents told then God doesn't exist ( 1 being told that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don't either)

antiskeptic

boardise wrote: »

As we know,discussions on this theme go around in brain-boggling circles but at least provide a pretext for a mental workout of sorts....so many layers of analysis possible ...where the definitions of the key concepts we use are open to constant question and dispute.

Not here they're not. Some beliefs are assumed as self evident. Evidence, for example. If you can't prove it to someone else then you can't know something for want of being able to evidence it to others

Unsurprisingly I have no crashingly original insights to add but would endorse some points made by Peregrinus above because I spent some time studing Anthropology and the general view of the discipline was that 'religion' ( however variously defined) was a human cultural universal.
As to the original thread starter question , I remember a saying of a philopsopher from Roman times -
'Credo Quia Absurdum' i.e. I believe (in the religion I believe in) precisely because it is absurd. This apparent paradox makes sense.If we were to assume that flawed fallible human reasoning could capture the nature of a transcendant realm of existence ( with or without Gods))-then we're simply dealing with an outgrowth of human needs or desires -not something that by definition is taken to be ineffable and ultimately unknowable in this world.
Religion is understood by many as a mystery, approachable only by belief

If you witnessed something on your own, then you can't evidence it to others. Meaning its a belief .. that you saw a fox cross the road on your way into work at 5am??

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

No I have elaborated.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a god exists, it’s an extraordinary claim that water and winS turn into blood and human flesh.

But you haven't said what makes it extraordinary. Indeed, we cannot but suppose you have beliefs and those are probably minority beliefs compared to the ones you suppose extrordinary.

The shoe is very much on your foot.

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief. You believe claiming God exists is extraordinary.

Argument without evidence??

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief.

Mod warning: Less of the back seat modding please. Any discussion on rules etc... to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

But you haven't said what makes it extraordinary. Indeed, we cannot but suppose you have beliefs and those are probably minority beliefs compared to the ones you suppose extrordinary.

The shoe is very much on your foot.

You know the rules around here: if you can't evidence your claim to all and sundry then what you have going is a belief. You believe claiming God exists is extraordinary.

Argument without evidence??

Both shoes are on my foot. I’ve already explained why claiming a belief In a magical mystery man in the sky is extraordinary. You’ve yet to respond to that.

smacl

patnor1011 wrote: »

Can we agree that eastern and western religions are fundamentally different?
By that, I mean Buddhism and Taoism as eastern and Judeo Christianity and its Islam offshoot as western.

Agreed.

I think that religions for the most part were not created as a means to explain things which people could not understand at that moment but rather as a control mechanism or oppression tool. How else can we call the idea of rules set in stone which must be obeyed with the promise of reward after we die?

A bit of both here I think, proto-Christianity and early Christianity for example were very much populist looking to serve the best interests of the various groups involved. Once you get to the Nicene creed, a large part of it is asserting dominance of the stronger trinitarian Christianity over other Christian groups, something that carried on for centuries and is still present to some extent today.

In Eastern tradition, things work a little bit differently. In China for example, Confucianism would be the religion surrounding social and ethical behaviour where Taoism would have more to do with personal behaviour and aspirations. It is quite common for Chinese people to subscribe to more than one system of belief and use the different systems almost like a tool box. So for example when I was staying with some Chinese friends in Hong Kong some years back they were raised Catholic, you'd find statues to the Kitchen God and other household deities knocking around the house, they'd visit the Buddhist temple by times for guidance on certain matters, and they'd practice qigong, taiji and certain aspects of Chinese medicine that are essentially daoist / Taoist.

antiskeptic

karlitob wrote: »

Both shoes are on my foot. I’ve already explained why claiming a belief In a magical mystery man in the sky is extraordinary. You’ve yet to respond to that.

It has been pointed out to you that belief in God is quite ordinary. That is demonstrable by sheer weight of numbers of people making that claim.

Extraordinary (in the other sense: shocked, suprised and amazed: thats extraordinary!) would only apply to someone who didn't already know God exists. You for instance. Me, being quite used to God existing wouldn't count his existance in the shocked/surprised/amazed category anymore.

Whilst you are entitled to speak for yourself, you can't really impose your own view, as to the extrordinariness of the claim, on everyone else.

Especially since so many people make the claim. Indeed, the majority of the world's population do.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you that belief in God is quite ordinary. That is demonstrable by sheer weight of numbers of people making that claim.

Extraordinary (in the other sense: shocked, suprised and amazed: thats extraordinary!) would only apply to someone who didn't already know God exists. You for instance. Me, being quite used to God existing wouldn't count his existance in the shocked/surprised/amazed category anymore.

Whilst you are entitled to speak for yourself, you can't really impose your own view, as to the extrordinariness of the claim, on everyone else.

Especially since so many people make the claim. Indeed, the majority of the world's population do.

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim. My point is that the claim that your god rose from the dead - just like similar claims of zombies - requires extraordinary evidence.


Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

You’d say ‘well I know this unicorn lad has a few million followers - albeit because it was original developed by nomadic illiterate goat herders 2000 years ago and we only believe in it because we happen to be born here - but the creation of the universe from his mad horn is an extraordinary claim. I’m sure that there is ‘evidence’ - irrefutable extraordinary evidence - which should be more than the claims of so called believers - before I send my child to this school.

Instead of engaging on the evidence though, believers just say - well, what is extraordinary and besides, it’s a personal Relationship I have anyway.

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

Again you’ve yet to respond to the points I raised that you requested - twice.

Extra-ordinary means beyond ordinary.

You claim because lots of people believe in god it’s not an extraordinary claim. My point is that the claim that your god rose from the dead - just like similar claims of zombies - requires extraordinary evidence.


Your central point in the last thread was on your interpretation of the word evidence.

This thread seems to be your interpretation of the word extraordinary.

If I claimed that a magical pink unicorn created the world in 2 days by spouting the universe from its magical horn and then ate fairy dust for another 5. And that you have to make your children go to a state school where the patron is a priest of this religion and be taught that that’s how universe was created.

You’d say ‘well I know this unicorn lad has a few million followers - albeit because it was original developed by nomadic illiterate goat herders 2000 years ago and we only believe in it because we happen to be born here - but the creation of the universe from his mad horn is an extraordinary claim. I’m sure that there is ‘evidence’ - irrefutable extraordinary evidence - which should be more than the claims of so called believers - before I send my child to this school.

Instead of engaging on the evidence though, believers just say - well, what is extraordinary and besides, it’s a personal Relationship I have anyway.

The belief is ordinary, the claim is not. As time passes, certain aspects of the belief are however also becoming extraordinary. Bible stories that were once considered literally true by many are now considered analogies by most Christians and creationism is rapidly becoming and extraordinary belief.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Bible stories that were once considered literally true by many are now considered analogies by most Christians [...]

"When something in religion is found to be false, it becomes a metaphor" was pointed out with some relish by Jerry Coyne during the knifejob of a debate he had in 2011 with US theologian, John Haught.

Coyne starts speaking at around 23:00 and it's easy to see why Haught refused for some while after the debate to authorize the release of the video (which seems to have vanished again from its original upload address). Here's a copy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEZaxwGl7gI

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Argument without evidence??

https://twitter.com/HistoryMuppet/status/1317179683260256256

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HistoryMuppet/status/1317179683260256256

Mr. Rogers is a card-carrying empiricist, based on that outing.

Trouble for him though, is that unless he could produce a 7ft English speaking bird, nobody is going to believe he encountered one.

"Imaginary!" they would cry. And Mr. Rogers, assuming he wasn't smart enough to already know it, would learn that his philosophy is built on sand.