Scared of theism

John Wine · 15-11-2006 06:37PM

bluewolf wrote:

That still doesn't mean they're right

A lot to get through lads.
Bluewolf, correct, nothing means we're right. I must accept I may be wrong and you (if you are rational) must do the same.
The feelings theists experience, may be purely similar to vestigious organs.
For if we are wrong, our feelings and thoughts are incorrect and pretty much a complete waste of brain space. That is something every critical theists thinks long and serious about.
It's not as if I am blind to the counter arguments it's just that the counter arguments are not compelling enough to alter my theist position.

In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that. Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.

Wicknight wrote:

Not really because then everyone would be the same religion. The fact that they are not is more reason to think that the "feeling" of God is actually a trick of the human mind, since no two feelings appear to the same, just as no two people or culture are the same.

Well most religions share a common denominator. The unique parts are add ons, or political / cultural spins put on them. It is the common denominator I am referring too. Most liberal Christians are interested in other faiths as it helps them understand their own. Dito other religions. We all look at God at the end of the day. The evidence of the common denominator is not evidence of a mental trick the majority of the human species has fallen for.

Scofflaw wrote:

You're making another huge leap. All Christians follow the Bible, don't they?
If not, why would you consider yourself Christian.

There's a massive difference between following the Bible literally and using it as a reference point. The word Christianity in 2006 has become almost meaningless because it does not differentiate. I'll put it to you this way, it says in The Bible to stone Children, how many Christians do that? So how many Christians follow the Bible literally?
I consider myself Christian, purely as it facilitates my spiritual needs. I also have a propensity towards the teaching and philosophy of JC.
I have investigated other Religions and I don't see any value add in changing.
However, I don't see me as being right and all Muslims as being wrong. Ultimately we are looking at God and using different tools to help us get there.
You're circular logic is valid for extreme fundamentalists but these are in the minority despite what Mr. Dawkins thinks. Theology has moved on.

aidan24326 wrote:

Your reasoning that your 'innate intrinsic wonderful feeling' somehow implies the existence of god is a leap way too far for me, and I would think for anyone of a rational mindset. You are by all means entitled to think and feel whatever you want and if it feels right for you well then good for you. But that doesn't make it right anywhere else outside of your own mental landscape

Correct, but I find it interesting that the majority of the human race experience a similar menatl landscape, are the majority nuts?
Perhaps we are, we will blame natural selection for our vestigious mindsets so.

aidan24326 wrote:

As others have said many people are now coming up with all sorts of vague wishy washy definitions of 'god'. It seems god can be just about anything you want him/it to be. God has always been the cop-out answer for 'that which we do not yet understand'.

No, If you studing various theologies you will see a common denomintor for God. He is a metaphysical concept, a creator etc.

aidan24326 wrote:

If there is a god, why play hide and seek? If the god of the bible really exists, why not reveal himself and end the whole debate, leaving Richard Dawkins with a big splatter of egg on his face. Surely this would be very tempting even for a supernatural deity?

Well this is a reasonable argument. But again it goes back to existence and proofing it. As far as I am concered I have accepted my proof.
After that, I am not sure what to say. Perhaps there is a use for Richard Dawkins, he challenges me, challenges most theists. Perhaps he is a blip in God's plan for natural selection, perhaps God has a sense of humour and finds him amusing, I do anyway. Perhaps he is there purely to eliminate fundamentalism as that is who most of he's arguments are against. Or to stiffle some debate in the science community, I know many scientists don't agree with him.
I don't know.

5uspect wrote:

You see comments like this are just nonsense until you put put tight definitions on your terms.

It's impossible to put tight definitions on existence of meta physical concepts that we can all agree on. It's subjective.

5uspect wrote:

But I find it difficult to understand how people can make these leaps, pulling the idea of a ancient god and some unanswered question together for absolutely no reason. I wonder is it simply a refusal to think or something more. Is it a fear of thinking or even an inability to comprehend anything else? If their delusion makes them happy or socially accepted then does the need to question become dangerous for them? Almost like a sin.

It is purely because no "reason" comes even close to explaining the feelings that encompasses a belief in God. Again, I point you to LeMaitre and Copernicus, men of reason and faith.
You mention the word leap, and the word delusion in reference to belief. But you must understand if we are right, there has been no delusion so it is actually a leap in your argument (again Dawkins like) to use the word.

5uspect wrote:

Every idea that goes through your head and mine is simply that just a personal whimsical notion. In order to make sense of our world and our existence in a philosophical sense we must decide which ideas are verifiable in the world which we are are, build upon them to discover more truths or replace them with new ideas.

I disagree with that, unless of course you are a very whimsical person.
As for second part, you cannot come up with the same rules for the physical and metaphysical.

5uspect wrote:

Why the bible? Why start there? What qualifies it as the holy book of choice?

Because where I am from, it is the most accesible. However, as I have stated, we must reach out to other theologies. If you feel there is a value add switching, then switch.

Scofflaw · 15-11-2006 07:29PM

John Wine wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no. You're making another huge leap. All Christians follow the Bible, don't they? If not, why would you consider yourself Christian? Hence step 1, which doesn't require a literal reading of the Bible, or any such fundamentalism - it applies equally to "love thy neighbour" as to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Possibly you're unable to follow the logic?

There's a massive difference between following the Bible literally and using it as a reference point. The word Christianity in 2006 has become almost meaningless because it does not differentiate. I'll put it to you this way, it says in The Bible to stone Children, how many Christians do that? So how many Christians follow the Bible literally?
I consider myself Christian, purely as it facilitates my spiritual needs. I also have a propensity towards the teaching and philosophy of JC.
I have investigated other Religions and I don't see any value add in changing.
However, I don't see me as being right and all Muslims as being wrong. Ultimately we are looking at God and using different tools to help us get there.
You're circular logic is valid for extreme fundamentalists but these are in the minority despite what Mr. Dawkins thinks. Theology has moved on.

Er, OK - you can't follow the logic. You are talking about fundamentalists, and I am not.

Tell you what - here's a different version just for you:

1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants"
2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God
3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems
4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God
5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists
6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants
7. repeat step 1

There you go - no mention of the Bible.

regards,
Scofflaw

John Wine · 15-11-2006 07:52PM

1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants".

Well firstly we have to decide what God wants?
How do we decide that?

2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God

I also accept the impossibility of proving God, in a non metaphysical sense.

3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems

Well I don't think any theist has an incredibly vague definition of God. An abstract definition but certainly not incredibly vague.

4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God

Respect that any thesist cannot prove God outside the subconcious.

5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists

My inclination / belief is that he exists. Logically agnostism makes more sense, I make my belief on more than logic.

6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants

Not sure about that. There is something called, free will. My own taken is one should question the self and respect others.

7. repeat step 1

Why?

Sorry does not compute.

5uspect · 15-11-2006 07:56PM

John Wine wrote:

In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that.

Only when you begin the argument with the question: does a god exist? The atheist viewpoint is that any question is as trivial and and stupid as orbital china ware. The atheist/agnostic argument has been done to death so I won't restart it.

John Wine wrote:

Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.

We all know who proposed the orbital teapot, Dawkins does reference it in his books like all of his sources, its not stealing. The flying spaghetti monster is just another manifestation of the same idea. The fact that you find the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun out by pluto stupid proves Russell's point perfectly. We generally accept the notion of god or consider the question of god with less skepticism than it deserves simply because it is believed by a lot of people and we are fed it from birth. Your atheism regarding Russell's tea pot is our atheism about all gods.

John Wine wrote:

There's a massive difference between following the Bible literally and using it as a reference point. The word Christianity in 2006 has become almost meaningless because it does not differentiate. I'll put it to you this way, it says in The Bible to stone Children, how many Christians do that? So how many Christians follow the Bible literally?

Only the hard core fundamentalists follow their book to the letter, but since their book contradicts itself multiple times they too are forced to cherry pick.
You are right that Christianity, in a theological sense, has become meaningless. As has the meaning of god. However is this true for the majority of people? I'm sure a survey of Irish people would describe god as more like the interactive, intelligent, Santa Claus like, entity than your metaphysical (I say) wishy washy, deistic, pointless notion.

John Wine wrote:

Theology has moved on.

Yes but the congregation has not.

John Wine wrote:

...I find it interesting that the majority of the human race experience a similar menatl landscape, are the majority nuts?
Perhaps we are, we will blame natural selection for our vestigious mindsets so.

Natural selection is the best way we have to describe our existence as human beings. The fact that we all share a propensity to believe suggests that we evolved such an ability, as I pointed out earlier there has been much research carried out into this. And these mindsets are quite useful for the daily survival of an organism that must often think quickly to survive. However they poorly equip us for such philosophical, rational discussions.

John Wine wrote:

No, If you studing various theologies you will see a common denomintor for God. He is a metaphysical concept, a creator etc.

Okay, can you clearly define god for me, I'm getting confused with your various statements about what you believe.

John Wine wrote:

Perhaps he is there purely to eliminate fundamentalism as that is who most of he's arguments are against. Or to stiffle some debate in the science community, I know many scientists don't agree with him.
I don't know.

Dawkins seems to have really upset you? Makbe this thread should be called "Why is Dawkins scared of theism?" People like Dawkins and Sam Harris blame moderates for creating the breeding grounds for fundamentalism. Is this what freaks you out? Their argument suggests that moderates tolerate the fundamentalists but have hardly observed their religion themselves, never mind read the holy book and simply pay lip service to the religion. But by doing so they allow a tolerance of unquestioned religious freedom in society. I'm not too sure I agree, I'm reading Harris' The End of Faith at the moment so I'll let you know.

John Wine wrote:

It's impossible to put tight definitions on existence of meta physical concepts that we can all agree on. It's subjective.

Thats the problem, its utter made up nonsense

John Wine wrote:

It is purely because no "reason" comes even close to explaining the feelings that encompasses a belief in God. Again, I point you to LeMaitre and Copernicus, men of reason and faith.

As i've said there is plenty of psychological research into belief. I'm sure you can find it if you look.

John Wine wrote:

You mention the word leap, and the word delusion in reference to belief. But you must understand if we are right, there has been no delusion so it is actually a leap in your argument (again Dawkins like) to use the word.

The onus is on the claimant to provide evidence. If you are right I will get my evidence when I die, I'll simply await evidence and refuse to believe in the mean time. Thats the closest to agnosticism I'll go. Ignosticisms perhaps? Didn't someone point that out a few months ago?

John Wine wrote:

As for second part, you cannot come up with the same rules for the physical and metaphysical.

Then metaphysicality has no rules? As i'm blue in the face saying it just making it up.

John Wine wrote:

Because where I am from, it is the most accesible. However, as I have stated, we must reach out to other theologies. If you feel there is a value add switching, then switch.

If switching theology is fine why not switch between hypothesis regarding the big questions of the meaning of life and universe? What makes god so special? Why not a teapot? Just because a notion without any evidence is popular it is no more true than any other. As an atheist I disregard every hypothesis until there is some evidence.

John Wine · 15-11-2006 08:23PM

5uspec wrote:

If switching theology is fine why not switch between hypothesis regarding the big questions of the meaning of life and universe? What makes god so special? Why not a teapot? Just because a notion without any evidence is popular it is no more true than any other. As an atheist I disregard every hypothesis until there is some evidence.

I have no innate intrinsic evidence of a flying teapot, but I do for God, so do many other people. It is either correct and well founded or it is vestigious mindset.
I'm curious about the laws of the Universe, are these laws from a designer or not? For example, I am curious why the speed of light is constant no matter what speed the observer travels at.
This makes me ask the question, is their a grand designer beyond my comprehension similar to the way me on the interner is beyond my dog's comprehension.
For various other reasons, I formulate a vision and concept of God, which I belief and accept.
As for a flying teapot monster, I have no intrinsic evidence of one, I am not sure anyone else has. I don't see the flying teapot monster as helping me resolve the issue as to why is the speed of light constant?

5uspect · 15-11-2006 09:18PM

but god does not explain anything! you've essentially said that you would like god to have done it! Blaming god or saying god did it sweeps the question out of existence because you'll no doubt tell me god is outside of time and was not himself created.

You have this feeling of god, This feeling or image is probably influenced by the god of the bible and of your ancestors. A teapot is just another way of suggesting that this feeling or idea or whatever is just a manifestation of ideas plucked from various notions from human experiences. God as a father figure, indeed a male figure is the classic example. You obviously don't have a gut feeling of a midget loving, beer mountain creating flying spaghetti monster or a teapot (others might), but can you not see that your notion of a all powerful god is possibly an extension of these quite normal social realities to unanswerable (yet) questions?

Your intrinsic evidence is essentially biased, misleading and untrustworthy.

John Wine · 15-11-2006 09:23PM

5uspect wrote:

but god does not explain anything! you've essentially said that you would like god to have done it! Blaming god or saying god did it sweeps the question out of existence because you'll no doubt tell me god is outside of time and was not himself created.

No if God exists it explains my instrinic feelings and the fixed laws of the universe.

5uspect wrote:

You have this feeling of god, This feeling or image is probably influenced by the god of the bible and of your ancestors. A teapot is just another way of suggesting that this feeling or idea or whatever is just a manifestation of ideas plucked from various notions from human experiences. God as a father figure, indeed a male figure is the classic example. You obviously don't have a gut feeling of a midget loving, beer mountain creating flying spaghetti monster or a teapot (others might), but can you not see that your notion of a all powerful god is possibly an extension of these quite normal social realities to unanswerable (yet) questions?

It may be, as I have said several times throughout this debate.
But you can't proove that to me.

Your intrinsic evidence is essentially biased, misleading and untrustworthy.

Well that's your take on free will.

Scofflaw · 15-11-2006 09:35PM

John Wine wrote:

1. say "you should do X, it's what God wants".

Well firstly we have to decide what God wants?
How do we decide that?

2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God

I also accept the impossibility of proving God, in a non metaphysical sense.

3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems

Well I don't think any theist has an incredibly vague definition of God. An abstract definition but certainly not incredibly vague.

4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God

Respect that any thesist cannot prove God outside the subconcious.

5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists

My inclination / belief is that he exists. Logically agnostism makes more sense, I make my belief on more than logic.

6. state that as God exists , we should do what He wants

Not sure about that. There is something called, free will. My own taken is one should question the self and respect others.

7. repeat step 1

Why?

Sorry does not compute.

That's genuinely interesting. You appear to have little quibble with the logic as presented, except for the bit at the end, which you think makes it "circular reasoning" (or, alternatively, suspect that I think I'm being funny)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah · 15-11-2006 09:38PM

I'll call an ambulance, far too many people are banging their heads off the wall. We'll also need a plasterer, the wall has taken some pretty serious damage.

5uspect · 15-11-2006 09:48PM

Be careful wit all that talk of head banging, Captain Capslock (TM) will surely strike!

John Wine · 15-11-2006 10:31PM

Scofflaw wrote:

That's genuinely interesting. You appear to have little quibble with the logic as presented, except for the bit at the end, which you think makes it "circular reasoning" (or, alternatively, suspect that I think I'm being funny)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

No I went through every step actually and tried to explain what I thought was wrong or omitted from each step. Who is this Captain Capslock dude anyway? What's his buzz?

Ciaran500 · 15-11-2006 10:43PM

John Wine wrote:

I have no innate intrinsic evidence of a flying teapot, but I do for God, so do many other people. It is either correct and well founded or it is vestigious mindset.

If anything surely you would have a innate intrinsic belief in a higher power and would get the idea of god from people around you.

robindch · 16-11-2006 12:03AM

> Who is this Captain Capslock dude anyway?

He's a frequent poster to the creationism thread in the christianity forum, where he delivers long and endlessly repetitive pro-creationist rants under the name of "JC". He using smilies to excess

in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry. And of course, much of his prose is issued in capital letters. He's a hoot and should not be taken seriously.

> What's his buzz?

Oh that it were 800 volts. DC.

.

Scofflaw · 16-11-2006 12:17AM

robindch wrote:

> Who is this Captain Capslock dude anyway?

He's a frequent poster to the creationism thread in the christianity forum, where he delivers long and endlessly repetitive pro-creationist rants under the name of "JC". He using smilies to excess in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry. And of course, much of his prose is issued in capital letters. He's a hoot and should not be taken seriously.

> What's his buzz?

Oh that it were 800 volts. DC.

.

To some extent, he is the reason for the Creationism thread! Also, you forgot his liberal use of the exclamation mark!!!!

A good example of the style:

JC wrote:

Creation Scientists ARE willing (and able) to provide SCIENTIFIC PROOF for the existence of God – and they only demand the SAME level of scientific proof for Evolution as they have for Creation.

Creation Science – is actually where God and Modern Conventional Science meet!!:D

We're still trying to get to the bottom of the Creation Science thing.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zillah · 16-11-2006 03:36AM

Scofflaw wrote:

We're still trying to get to the bottom of the Creation Science thing.

It like saying "Conservative Liberal" or "Honest liar"...

John Wine · 16-11-2006 08:52AM

Ciaran500 wrote:

If anything surely you would have a innate intrinsic belief in a higher power and would get the idea of god from people around you.

No, I belief they are experiencing the same innate intrinsic belief.
I observe and question the coincidence.

Dades · 16-11-2006 10:26AM

I can understand looking at the way the cosmos operates, that the laws of physics etc might look (to some) like they had to have been designed. What I can't understand is how any type of "God" with characteristics could be gleaned from this notion.

Perhaps necessity is the mother of invention?

Zombrex · 16-11-2006 11:33AM

John Wine wrote:

It is the common denominator I am referring too.

But what is the common demoninator?

For example, what is the common denominator between the Hewbrew religion, and the Roman religion? One has one all powerful God. The other has tons of Gods, each with their own purpose and role. You could claim the common denominator is the concept of a "god", but that doesn't really help much because the concepts are so different between the religions. You run into more trouble trying to find common ground between western religions and eastern religions. A large number of eastern religions either have lots of Gods like the Roman religions, or importantly no gods at all. It is not true that we all look to God at the end of the time. Large porportions of humanity didn't, or still don't, look to a single god, or even multiple gods

To find the actual common denominator in human religions it is better to look at the purpose that these religions provide. Nearly all religions provide answers and explinations to questions about nature, and how and why things happen. Nearly all provide answers to questions about human fears and issues, such as what happens when we die, what is morality, why do we suffer.

You see this in the Roman and Viking myths about Zeus and Thor, explaining the weather and the cycle of the seasons. And you still see this today, with fundamentalists Christians wanting genesis taught in class rooms in the US and Europe.

The common denominator between all religions is what the religion provides, which is answers to difficult questions, and through these answer a kind of peace of mind.

There are very few religions out there that provide more questions than answers, or that make believers more unhappy or confused.

This to me would suggest even stronger than religion is simply a result of the way we think, it is a by product of the human minds attempt to process the world around us in ways that are easy for us to understand. It is easier for use to understand something like the weather in terms of a person doing something, so we have Thor creating thunder storms. It is easier for us to understand emotions such as love in terms of God wanting us to get married, so we have the Bible describing just that. Etc etc

What atheists (and some theists it must be said) do is reject this type of thinking. The most easy, most comfortable answer is not automatically going to be the correct one, and that while it might feel funny and uncomfortable, not knowing something is not a reason to fill in the gaps with religion. The Vikings didn't know how thunder was created, and this troubled them so they filled in their lack of understanding with religion. Atheists reject this. They simply say "We don't know"

Even know this bluntness troubles some theists, as one can see on the Creationist thread in Christianity. Some of the Creationists seem almost shocked that atheists like myself would state that we simply don't know what happened before the Big Bang. This was seen as a failing of science, and they took the opertunity to state that what existed before the Big Bang must have been God, because science cannot tell otherwise.

It seems that there is something about human nature that just hates the idea of a blank space in our understanding of the world around us. We a greatly troubled by simply not knowing. This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)

John Wine · 16-11-2006 02:41PM

Wicknight wrote:

It seems that there is something about human nature that just hates the idea of a blank space in our understanding of the world around us. We a greatly troubled by simply not knowing. This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)

Your hyphothesis is correct, if there is no God, otherwise it is in incorrect, simple as that.

aidan24326 · 16-11-2006 02:51PM

John Wine, you have a point about the whole 'flying teapot' thing. I am not a big fan of Dawkins using this analogy too much. To me the issue of god and the flying teapot are not quite on the same philosophical level. Near enough, but there is a difference imo. We can dismiss the orbiting teapot as nonsense because not only has no-one ever observed such a thing but it's impossible to think of any reason at all for such an object to exist.

On the other hand, the fact there's a universe here at all at least suggests the possibilty (slim as it may be) that there was some form of 'creator' or some kind of design involved. Whether we call that 'god' or not doesn't really matter, you can call it anything you want, but it's a possibility we can't completely dismiss. I don't believe it myself, but I can see why others might.

I guess the problem I have with theist thinking is the huge leap from a)belief in a creator to z)this creator, called god, taking on all manner of characteristics (mostly human ones,funny that) and pandering to all our little whims by answering our prayers and promising us a place in fairytale land if we comply with a set of vague and outdated rules and massage his ego every day. I can't completely dismiss the possibilty of some creative force for the universe, even though it's unclear as to whether there even needed to be one. Quite possibly not. But I would dismiss the latter notion of a 'god' outright, as pure nonsense.

Now whatever you say about 'theology moving on' that latter highly naieve description of god is still the one that the majority of religious people believe in. Certainly within christianity and islam, which are probably the two most widespread religions in the world. Whether you are muslim, christian, jew or whatever else merely serves to change the details a bit. But the fact that alot of people believe such a thing says absolutely nothing of it's validity or claim to truth.

Everyone used to believe the earth was flat, Galileo was threatened with execution for suggesting that earth revolved around the sun, and was not the center of the universe? How dare he suggest such a thing? Alot of people can be very stupid and very wrong alot of the time. 200 people sitting in a church on a sunday morning chanting meaningless phrases to some vague notion of a god is proof enough of that if you ask me.

Wicknight wrote:

To find the actual common denominator in human religions it is better to look at the purpose that these religions provide. Nearly all religions provide answers and explinations to questions about nature, and how and why things happen. Nearly all provide answers to questions about human fears and issues, such as what happens when we die, what is morality, why do we suffer.

The common denominator between all religions is what the religion provides, which is answers to difficult questions, and through these answer a kind of peace of mind.

You are quite right, and this goes some way to explaining why religion continues to flourish. The problem with religion is that while it may provide answers, these answers tend to be plain wrong more often than not, such as humanity being a few thousand years old and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, or that being gay is some kind of disease. The trouble with religion is it likes to have an opinion on everything, even where it is completely unqualified to do so. Most of the other 'answers' religion provides are unprovable (and more importanly undisprovable) nonsense with zero evidence to back them up. I am quite sure this is deliberate.

Wicknight wrote:

This to me would suggest even stronger than religion is simply a result of the way we think

That's exactly what it is, though very many people in the world obviously can't see that, or just refuse to. I'm no psychologist but I imagine there is some fairly powerful reward mechanism at work with religion, where people's faith is reinforced by the 'feelgood factor' that their faith/beliefs give them, and the comfort of 'knowing' that you're off to happyland when you die, and that there's a god out there taking a personal interest in your welfare (though it seems that people in certain parts of the world are very much in his bad books at the moment)

Wicknight wrote:

This can spur on science to attempt to find answers, but equally it can spur on religion to make up the answers. And to some people the made up answers is as comforting as the actual answer (often more so)

It seems that to alot of people the comforting answer is the only one they're interested in, whether it's made up or not.

aidan24326 · 16-11-2006 03:09PM

I can see how part of my previous post might seem contradictory. To clear that up, and pre-empt the question of why should a universe-creator be any more likely then an orbiting teapot. Well in a way you could say it isn't much more likely. However, for all we know evidence of some kind of design or a creative force might, just might, become available some day. Personally I have my doubts on that one, I think we may hit a brick wall at the big bang, science reaching it's limits if you like. Indeed big bang theory itself could turn out to be wrong.

But I still can't dismiss the idea totally. I prefer to admit that I just don't have a clue. We're only beginning to find answers, the scientific endeavour still in it's infancy, and who knows what we will yet discover should human life prosper for long enough (our longevity being far from guaranteed of course).

EDIT: For what it's worth, my own feeling on the matter is that there is probably no real beginning nor end to anything,possibly no ultimate chain of causation, no meaning, no purpose to anything, nothing but cold vast indifference. Of course my 'feeling' could be wrong, in a way I hope it is, but there seems to me to be very little evidence for me to believe anything else.

sorry if this has all rambled a bit.

pH · 16-11-2006 07:24PM

aidan24326 wrote:

John Wine, you have a point about the whole 'flying teapot' thing. I am not a big fan of Dawkins using this analogy too much. To me the issue of god and the flying teapot are not quite on the same philosophical level. Near enough, but there is a difference imo. We can dismiss the orbiting teapot as nonsense because not only has no-one ever observed such a thing but it's impossible to think of any reason at all for such an object to exist.

Well if there exists a God, who does anything he wants on a whim then he may have created it, so if you postulate the existence of a creative God, then anything no matter how weird is therefore possible as a consequence of his existence.

Back on earth, the 'teapot orbiting the sun' is used in a very specific argument relating to the falsifiability of God argument, the "YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD DON'T EXIST - LOSER" argument, and says nothing about the probability of God or teapots or possible reasons why each may or may not exist.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

17-11-2006 09:39AM

John Wine wrote:

A lot to get through lads.
Bluewolf, correct, nothing means we're right. I must accept I may be wrong and you (if you are rational) must do the same.
The feelings theists experience, may be purely similar to vestigious organs.
For if we are wrong, our feelings and thoughts are incorrect and pretty much a complete waste of brain space. That is something every critical theists thinks long and serious about.
It's not as if I am blind to the counter arguments it's just that the counter arguments are not compelling enough to alter my theist position.

In fact nothing shows atheism is right. Logically, agnostism is most correct. However, few people opt for that. Very few atheists will accept that, and usually counter argue with the Dawkins Flying Teapot argument (Dawkins robbed this from Russell). With respect, I find that trivial and stupid.

You realise I'm not actually an atheist, right? I'm in scofflaw's camp on this one
I'm not here to argue for atheism, I'm here to argue against some theists' reasoning

regarding JC:

He using smilies to excess in messages which make clear his luxuriant ignorance of biology, physics and chemistry

While simultaneously claiming to be an expert in all those fields

Zombrex · 17-11-2006 10:41AM

John Wine wrote:

Your hyphothesis is correct, if there is no God, otherwise it is in incorrect, simple as that.

No, because if there is a particular god, then all the other religions in the world that don't believe in that god are still wrong, yet they still come up with these religions.

If Christianity is the "correct" religion, and there is one God, the god of Abraham, then the Vikings were completely off with their complex hierachey of gods and godesses that were used to explain things like rain and the seasons. Likewise so were the Romans and the Greeks. And the Buddests who don't believe in a god, of Abraham or otherwise.

So my hyphothesis still holds, even if there is a god. The only way my hyphothesis is invalid is if every religion in human history actually was correct.

John Wine · 17-11-2006 01:00PM

Wicknight wrote:

No, because if there is a particular god, then all the other religions in the world that don't believe in that god are still wrong, yet they still come up with these religions.

What if there is no particular God as described exclusively by any particular theology, but a more generic God, which is compatable with most theologies?

Asiaprod · 17-11-2006 01:09PM

John Wine wrote:

What if there is no particular God as described exclusively by any particular theology, but a more generic God, which is compatable with most theologies?

How would you feel if I were to replace the word God in your question with power or force.

John Wine · 17-11-2006 06:46PM

Asiaprod wrote:

How would you feel if I were to replace the word God in your question with power or force.

How would I feel, instrinsically, extrinsically?

Zillah · 17-11-2006 08:19PM

John Wine wrote:

How would I feel, instrinsically, extrinsically?

Insane and irrational probably.

Ba dum tsch. I'll get my coat.

aidan24326 · 17-11-2006 09:02PM

John Wine wrote:

How would I feel, instrinsically, extrinsically?

Are you sure you are using these words in the right context?

From Wikipedia

Intrinsic describes a characteristic or property of some thing or action which is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly independent of any other object, action or consequence. A characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic.

5uspect · 18-11-2006 12:39PM

Is god just a label for the feeling you have of a higher power or force? This thread is about theism (or our fear of it), so is there some sort in interactivity in your belief with this world? Does this higher power grant wishes, perform miracles or control the weather?

Scared of theism

Comments