Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2013 10:44AM

georgesstreet wrote: »

The idea of god is a beautiful idea, a sort of super father who takes care of us.

Sure thing. I know what you mean but I think I personally find the idea more horrific than beautiful really. I not only see no reason to think it true, I find myself in parallel being quite relieved at that fact too. Though of course those with a penchant towards ad hominem will be quick to suggest that my lack of belief in god is just a result of my not wanting it to be true, rather than any intellectual consideration of the subject.

But I mentioned how there are aspects to us that leave us prone to such things and actually one of those aspects is how we as humans personify things mentally.

We often create mental representations of things in our mind. Other people is the most common one, and we likely evolved to be able to recursively think things like "I wonder if he knows that I know he knows that he shagged yer mans women" which are actually massively complex at the level of the brain.

As a byproduct of that we personify other things too. Think of the people who stub their toe on a door stop and actually get angry at the door stop. Think of the people who actually start reasoning with their car, offering it the best of quality oil if only it would be so kind as to start this morning.

And think of how such personifications can seem more real and terrifying than the reality. Many teens creeping home past curfew have a representation of their parents in their heads, and their reaction, that is often more terrifying than the reality when they actually get home.

We personify aspects of reality. The God of Thunder. The God of Love. It is a quick step to actively personify existence or the universe itself too. Personifications than can seem every bit as real and terrifying.

And.... seemingly.... for many people.... it is just another minor short step to actually believing those personifications real. Especially when fueled by other aspects of our psychology like the intentional stance, and hyper active agency detection and so forth.

georgesstreet wrote: »

the decision is cultural and not intellectual or academic.

Agreed, but I would add "emotional" to cultural. A lot of theists and other memetic infectees of other types are often swayed as much by arguments from emotion as by cultural or peer influence. I would shudder to try and guess at a ratio, but I would be unsurprised to find it tending towards 50:50.

tommy2bad · 27-11-2013 11:21AM

nozzferrahhtoo;
Agreed, but I would add "emotional" to cultural.

I'v been saying this all along. The thing is you seem to assume that the fact that's it's an emotional decision makes it inferior. I don't see how this follows.
Lets take the example of deciding who to marry, an emotional decision based on evidence felt or perceived by both parties. Not a decision based on rational arguments. Should it be? Or is an emotional decision in fact better?

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2013 11:40AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'v been saying this all along. The thing is you seem to assume that the fact that's it's an emotional decision makes it inferior.

Arguments from emotion do not a substantiation make.

Take the concept of "hell" that some enterprising and likely pressed clergy man or witch doctor or some such once came up with. Clearly they trotted it out in order to emotionally cajole people to believe something that perhaps he or she felt they were failing to buy any more. Or too many uncomfortable questions were being asked.

Arguments designed to emotionally cajole you into accepting something as true, especially something that is otherwise entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way, are not a good thing.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lets take the example of deciding who to marry, an emotional decision based on evidence felt or perceived by both parties.

Bad analogy I feel. Choosing who to marry and spend your life with is not a truth claim. I am talking solely about using arguments from emotion to support otherwise unsubstantiated truth claims.... such as the existence of god.

Making life decisions while acknowledging emotional factors could not be a worse analogy for accepting truth claims on a solely emotional basis.

Also yes many people DO include and incorporate and pander to rational arguments AS WELL as emotional ones when making marital decisions.

georgesstreet · 27-11-2013 01:09PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'v been saying this all along. The thing is you seem to assume that the fact that's it's an emotional decision makes it inferior. I don't see how this follows.

This thread is called Arthiesm/Existence of God debates. While your own emotions may, for you, be enough evidence for the existence of a god, to expect others to be persuaded to believe in anything because of your subjective emotions demonstrates why emotion is an inferior method as a means of proof or evidence.

You don't believe in Hinduism because an individual hindu has a strong emotional belief in his religion, so why should you claim your emotions are equal to actual proof and evidence for others? Emotions are clearly inferior to evidence.

marienbad · 27-11-2013 01:24PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Where do you get the idea we have evolved away from slavery?

We have a holier than thou attitude in the West towards slavery, but slavery exists at an unprecedented level today, there are an estimated 20 - 30M people in slavery worldwide. Most of them are either directly supporting the global economy or used in prostitution, a large number of them children. Now some of that large number is obviously due to the population explosion in the past few centuries, but the root cause of slavery is the same as it ever was, to maintain the standard of living of those with disposable income. Even though it is illegal everywhere, slavery exists due to government corruption, as there is simply too much money involved in slave labor and human trafficking, and slaves are cheap and disposable.

The attached makes for sobering reading. Makes our problems in western society seem a little trivial by comparison. Doesn't absolve us from blame however when we buy cheap electronics from Asia, coffee from Brazil, actually pretty much anything nowadays as slave labor is literally in every supply chain, the joys of globalization.

http://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=301[/QUOTE]

Please n - not another lecture .

I was just making the point that because something is around since the dawn of time doesn't make it right or necessary.

tommy2bad · 27-11-2013 05:50PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Arguments from emotion do not a substantiation make.
Never said they did, thats kinda my point.
Take the concept of "hell" that some enterprising and likely pressed clergy man or witch doctor or some such once came up with. Clearly they trotted it out in order to emotionally cajole people to believe something that perhaps he or she felt they were failing to buy any more. Or too many uncomfortable questions were being asked.
Or some revenge fantasy, my personal favorite theory of the doctrine of hell.
Arguments designed to emotionally cajole you into accepting something as true, especially something that is otherwise entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way, are not a good thing.
More answers to an emotional need than anything else. I don't doubt the fear factor played a part though.

Bad analogy I feel. Choosing who to marry and spend your life with is not a truth claim. I am talking solely about using arguments from emotion to support otherwise unsubstantiated truth claims.... such as the existence of god.

Making life decisions while acknowledging emotional factors could not be a worse analogy for accepting truth claims on a solely emotional basis.
Er I think you have made my point. Disparaging decisions made while acknowledging emotional factors is what I was objection to.
Also yes many people DO include and incorporate and pander to rational arguments AS WELL as emotional ones when making marital decisions.

Many people also include and incorporate rational arguments as well as emotional ones when making religious decisions.

tommy2bad · 27-11-2013 05:52PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

This thread is called Arthiesm/Existence of God debates. While your own emotions may, for you, be enough evidence for the existence of a god, to expect others to be persuaded to believe in anything because of your subjective emotions demonstrates why emotion is an inferior method as a means of proof or evidence.

You don't believe in Hinduism because an individual hindu has a strong emotional belief in his religion, so why should you claim your emotions are equal to actual proof and evidence for others? Emotions are clearly inferior to evidence.

Mt apologies, I didn't realize we were here to settle the matter of Gods existence once and for all. Good luck with that!

nagirrac · 27-11-2013 06:50PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have my doubts and I can only go by what I have observed which suggests otherwise.

Well, you can observe away, but after that comment I won't be observing you in the future. Quite interesting given you just expressed your slim veneer of biology on the A&A forum, a subject you apparently "studied for years".

Adios.

tommy2bad · 28-11-2013 01:31AM

marienbad wrote: »

Please n - not another lecture .

I was just making the point that because something is around since the dawn of time doesn't make it right or necessary.

And how dose science or reason prove that slavery is bad?
After all it had benefits to entire societies, were they held back because they had slaves or advanced? Apart from the (religious) notion that all men are created equal, how do we know we didn't make a monumental mistake by forfeiting the value of slave labor?

marienbad · 28-11-2013 01:51AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And how dose science or reason prove that slavery is bad?
After all it had benefits to entire societies, were they held back because they had slaves or advanced? Apart from the (religious) notion that all men are created equal, how do we know we didn't make a monumental mistake by forfeiting the value of slave labor?

Science or reason doesn't prove it to be bad as far as I know. Our evolving sense of right and wrong is no longer comfortable ( for the most part) with it.

I was just making the general point that just because something is around since the dawn of time doesn't confer any special privilege

RoyalCelt · 28-11-2013 04:56AM

It's funny how atheism is like a religion for a lot of atheists. Some of you/them put too much effort into "converting" believers.

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 05:04AM

RoyalCelt wrote: »

It's funny how atheism is like a religion for a lot of atheists. Some of you/them put too much effort into "converting" believers.

I dunno, but if you want to ask them the Buddhist forum is below Christianity in the tab. Pretty sure most sects of Buddhism don't encourage proselytizing.

RoyalCelt · 28-11-2013 05:10AM

Jernal wrote: »

I dunno, but if you want to ask them the Buddhist forum is below Christianity in the tab. Pretty sure most sects of Buddhism don't encourage proselytizing.

Don't really get what you're saying. Sorry I'm not the brightest star in the sky.

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 05:24AM

Buddhism is an atheist religion. So, perhaps they're the ones you should be asking about convincing others.

RoyalCelt · 28-11-2013 05:39AM

I still don't get you. Fack this, back to the simpler forums.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-11-2013 09:42AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Many people also include and incorporate rational arguments as well as emotional ones when making religious decisions.

I am not sure why you quoted me then put words I never said inside the quote. However it seems what you are taking "objection" to is something I, and perhaps no one else, actually did or said.

You are taking exception to people disparaging decisions made on an emotional basis. No one here is doing that.

What we are talking about is making TRUTH CLAIMS based on emotional arguments alone. And that very much is inferior to evidence. More specifically, when it is done SOLELY on the basis of emotional arguments.

This is a thread about debating the existence of god. Is there reason to think there is a god, or not? And arguments from emotion, to my mind, simply should be rejected as they are presented. They are not evidence. They do not substantiation make.

nagirrac wrote: »

Well, you can observe away, but after that comment I won't be observing you in the future. Quite interesting given you just expressed your slim veneer of biology on the A&A forum

I presented nothing on that forum. I asked you a question. So I feel your imagination is running away with you there. A question is not a presentation. But do not let that stop you doing a cut and dive retreat behind a smoke screen of personal attacks.

I addressed your points and I likened some of your points to common lay man errors. Which they are. If you choose to take personal offence, where none was intended, at that comparison then that is a shame but I have no control over your subjective responses.

To counter your ad hominem attack and actually return to the topic I can only repeat myself however and rewind us back to before your post where there are points still waiting to be addressed, rather than get drawn into a bickering match.

Your point appears to be to suggest religion confers/conferred some evolutionary selective advantage. Your sole support for this assertion is to point out that religion arises early in culture, and is ubiquitous and perennial. That is: It arises early, and it lasts.

The counter point to that is simple and you appear to want to dodge it. MANY traits arise early and persist in all species. And MANY of them confer no selective or useful advantage. Some even confer DISADVANTAGES to the species in which they arise. Yet they last.

The common lay error people new to Evolution make is to assume that early and OR persistent traits must have arisen early and persisted because they are useful or advantageous. Quite the opposite is often true however which goes against peoples lay intuitions.

To summarise: If one wants to make the Evolutionary Assertion that religion confers, or at one time conferred, a selective advantage to our species then one has a lot of work to do and the place you chose to start simply fails.

I am not outright saying that it does NOT or never did confer an advantage here. Perhaps it did. But if we are to convince anyone that it does, or did, then doing so with fallacious arguments is likely not a good starting point, or?

georgesstreet · 28-11-2013 11:04AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To summarise: If one wants to make the Evolutionary Assertion that religion confers, or at one time conferred, a selective advantage to our species then one has a lot of work to do and the place you chose to start simply fails.

I have never seen any evidence that, for example, Thor, or the Sun God, every conferred any evolutionary advantages on their followers or, more accurately, on the generations which succeeded their followers.

But even if it could be proven it had, it still does not prove the existence of any god or gods.

Brian Shanahan · 28-11-2013 11:57AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And how dose science or reason prove that slavery is bad?
After all it had benefits to entire societies, were they held back because they had slaves or advanced? Apart from the (religious) notion that all men are created equal, how do we know we didn't make a monumental mistake by forfeiting the value of slave labor?

Well if christianity is so against slavery, then why is the bible so full of passages which condone it and none which condemn it. Oh and the idea that the bible promotes equality is a lie of long standing, it doesn't.

RoyalCelt wrote: »

It's funny how atheism is like a religion for a lot of atheists. Some of you/them put too much effort into "converting" believers.

It's funny how some christians are so insecure about their own beliefs that they have to pretend that those who question those beliefs automatically do so because of religious beliefs themselves, when manifestly some do not.

georgesstreet · 28-11-2013 12:11PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well if christianity is so against slavery, then why is the bible so full of passages which condone it and none which condemn it. Oh and the idea that the bible promotes equality is a lie of long standing, it doesn't.

At a guess that was the old god. He moved in mysterious ways and no one amongst us could ever understand him or even begin to understand his mysterious ways.

Nowadays we have new god, he is compassionate and loving and all huggy and kissey. He loves all of us and we are all made in his image. Except homosexuals, of course, which the roman catholics tell us are not made in gods image and are morally disordered individuals. Or they did, they may have changed that slightly recently, I'm not sure. And the jews are made imperfect in his image and he wants them to saw off the end of their penis to make them perfect. And so and so on.

To try to argue for the existence for a god by only looking at specific policies of one god seems futile.

tommy2bad · 28-11-2013 02:27PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well if christianity is so against slavery, then why is the bible so full of passages which condone it and none which condemn it. Oh and the idea that the bible promotes equality is a lie of long standing, it doesn't.

It's funny how some christians are so insecure about their own beliefs that they have to pretend that those who question those beliefs automatically do so because of religious beliefs themselves, when manifestly some do not.

I never claimed that Christianity was against slavery (through the anti slavery movement did start with a christian denomination) what I was pointing out was that the idea the all men are created equal is so obviously and demonstrability false that holding to it is a religious position.
We don't only claim truth for scientifically provable facts. That's my point.

georgesstreet · 28-11-2013 02:50PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never claimed that Christianity was against slavery (through the anti slavery movement did start with a christian denomination) what I was pointing out was that the idea the all men are created equal is so obviously and demonstrability false that holding to it is a religious position.
We don't only claim truth for scientifically provable facts. That's my point.

How does any of that prove or disprove the existence of any god?

Lub · 28-11-2013 02:59PM

RoyalCelt wrote: »

It's funny how atheism is like a religion for a lot of atheists. Some of you/them put too much effort into "converting" believers.

Atheism is a religion as much as off is a TV channel or bald is a hairstyle - which is to say, not at all. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods and nothing more or less. It's not a belief system, a way of life or a set of rules.

There's is simply nothing to convert to! :P

Brian Shanahan · 28-11-2013 04:48PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never claimed that Christianity was against slavery

So why spout the bs that it was "the (religious) notion that all men are created equal" then, if you aren't going to fight to support it?

You were obviously making the point that it is only because of religion that we have slavery currently, whereas I refuted your point by pointing out that religious tolerance and acceptance of slavery (as laid down in scripture) is one of the contributing reasons why it lasts so long.

tommy2bad · 28-11-2013 08:38PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So why spout the bs that it was "the (religious) notion that all men are created equal" then, if you aren't going to fight to support it?

You were obviously making the point that it is only because of religion that we have slavery currently, whereas I refuted your point by pointing out that religious tolerance and acceptance of slavery (as laid down in scripture) is one of the contributing reasons why it lasts so long.

|I'll repeat this again as Brian seem hard of understanding.
The notion that all men are created equal was the target of my remarks. I was drawing the parallel with religious claims because of all the secular claims this one is the easiest to disprove. When something is held to be true with out any evidence and most actual you know real world evidence shows the opposite then it's pretty much a religious claim. Or as close as makes no difference.
The reason I pointed this out is because some one said that we shouldn't make truth claims for stuff we don't have scientific proof for. So much for secular reason not doing so then.
Further to this is the blinding obvious truth that we actually do make truth claims for stuff based on emotional reasons rather than first doing studies and research to prove something.

And as a fyi. I'm am not attempting to prove the existence of God (or disprove it) I am only explaining why I believe in God and further believe that the Christian God is the closest description of that God. You otoh seem to be determined to prove that their is no god of any kind. So who's proselytizing who?

PopePalpatine · 28-11-2013 09:24PM

I don't think it's fair to assume that only Christianity (or at least religion) can arrive at the notion that all humans are born equal. All it takes is a bit of empathy for others.

nagirrac · 28-11-2013 09:25PM

Jernal wrote: »

Buddhism is an atheist religion. So, perhaps they're the ones you should be asking about convincing others.

Buddhism is not an atheist religion Jernal. I am a Buddhist, by both belief and practice, and I believe in God. So, puff goes your definition of Buddhism. Funnily enough all the Buddhists I know, and I suspect I know a few more than you, all believe in God. Not the God as described by other religions, the God that is unknowable, at least at present.

nagirrac · 28-11-2013 09:29PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume that only Christianity (or at least religion) can arrive at the notion that all humans are born equal. All it takes is a bit of empathy for others.

All men are not born equal in reality rather than theory. Do you believe that someone born in the slums of Mumbai is created equal to Prince William? All men (and women) should be treated as equal, I'm pretty sure that is the Christian message, but I might have misunderstood it.

Pushtrak · 28-11-2013 09:30PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to assume that only Christianity (or at least religion) can arrive at the notion that all humans are born equal.

It would be a baffling assumption anyway...

The rich man at his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate.

-"All things bright and beautiful"

Turtwig · 28-11-2013 09:36PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Buddhism is not an atheist religion Jernal. I am a Buddhist, by both belief and practice, and I believe in God. So, puff goes your definition of Buddhism. Funnily enough all the Buddhists I know, and I suspect I know a few more than you, all believe in God. Not the God as described by other religions, the God that is unknowable, at least at present.

Nah, point still stands buddhism is an atheist religion. Some buddhists aren't atheists obviously. But many flavours of buddhism don't involve any personal God.

Benny_Cake · 28-11-2013 10:02PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Buddhism is not an atheist religion Jernal. I am a Buddhist, by both belief and practice, and I believe in God. So, puff goes your definition of Buddhism. Funnily enough all the Buddhists I know, and I suspect I know a few more than you, all believe in God. Not the God as described by other religions, the God that is unknowable, at least at present.

Jernal wrote: »

Nah, point still stands buddhism is an atheist religion. Some buddhists aren't atheists obviously. But many flavours of buddhism don't involve any personal God.

I'm sorry to say that I know less about Buddhism than I probably should. From my experience of Theravada Buddhism when I spent a few months living in Thailand though it seemed that it was strongly influenced by Hinduism and local folk religion / animism (most apparent in all the "spirit houses" that are outside homes and places of business). Theism in the sense that the Abrahamic religions would understand it? Probably not, but a belief in the supernatural nonetheless.

I always thought that Buddhism, stripped to it's core, took the position that the existence or non-existence of God was essentially irrelevant in that it was a question that couldn't be answered. Bit of a bucket of cold water over this thread if that's the case!

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments