Way Beyond Atheism: God Does Not (Not) Exist

[Philoctetes]

Really? Because all I'm saying is I'm against believing supernatural/unsupported claims and he keeps telling me it's not that simple (it couldn't be simpler, really)

We pretty much live in that world, I'm afraid. We are doing great, aren't we?

Really? Because I don't think that is how anyone else would read your posts.

No. You're proof positive that we don't live in that world.

[Iconito]

Really? Because I don't think that is how anyone else would read your posts.

Then there must have been some misunderstanding (which several posts repeating "all I'm saying is I'm against believing supernatural/unsupported claims" were unable to clarify)

No. You're proof positive that we don't live in that world.

Why? People do believe whatever they want. I'm doing nothing to repress their right to do so, am I? I'm just stating my opinions.

[Philoctetes]

Then there must have been some misunderstanding (which several posts repeating "all I'm saying is I'm against believing supernatural/unsupported claims" were unable to clarify)


Why? People do believe whatever they want. I'm doing nothing to repress their right to do so, am I? I'm just stating my opinions.

Well I think the issue arises with all of the other bullshit you attach to your 'simple' statement.

No. People don't do whatever the want. There are many modes of oppression and suppresion in this world, and not just of the 'legal' or 'agreeable' sort.

I say you, because you seem quite adament in people only seeing things in your light. You come off just as bad as those 'born-again' buffons.

[Iconito]

Well I think the issue arises with all of the other bullshit you attach to your 'simple' statement.

Such as? I'll be happy to clarify if necessary.

No. People don't do whatever the want.

We were talking "believe", not "do".

There are many modes of oppression and suppresion in this world, and not just of the 'legal' or 'agreeable' sort.

Are you suggesting my posts here somehow oppress or suppress... what, whom? I'm lost here.

I say you, because you seem quite adament in people only seeing things in your light. You come off just as bad as those 'born-again' buffons.

I'm truly sorry if that's the case. I don't mean to come out like that. I'm only stating my opinions the best my English permits.
And I have to point out that, in all my posts –I think- in this thread except the first one, all I was doing was responding to people misrepresenting what I said. I'm not preaching here.

[Philoctetes]

Such as? I'll be happy to clarify if necessary.

We were talking "believe", not "do".

Are you suggesting my posts here somehow oppress or suppress... what, whom? I'm lost here.

I'm truly sorry if that's the case. I don't mean to come out like that. I'm only stating my opinions the best my English permits.
And I have to point out that, in all my posts –I think- in this thread except the first one, all I was doing was responding to people misrepresenting what I said. I'm not preaching here.

I don't care about clarification.

I'm a pragmatist.

I don't think I suggested that at all.

Your English is quite good.

I didn't see any misrepresentation.

[Iconito]

I don't care about clarification.

I'm a pragmatist.

I don't think I suggested that at all.

Your English is quite good.

I didn't see any misrepresentation.

"I don't care about clarification" doesn't suggest willingness to reach a mutual understanding, does it?

Being a pragmatist is not excuse to confuse "believe" with "do"

You said I'm proof positive that we don't live in that world (where everybody believes what they want). I asked why, you came up with the "many modes of oppression and suppression" bit, I asked if you were saying my posts here somehow oppress or suppress, you said no... So it seems somewhere you stopped talking about me, which brings me to square one: Why did you say I'm proof positive that we don't live in that world (where everybody believes what they want)?

Do you really think my English is quite good? Why, thank you! (But it must be not true, since I spent most of my time here explaining what I mean to say )

You didn't see any misrepresentation? Well, after my first post in this thread Mensch commented that my "description describes a shallow kind of top-down doctrinaire theology" to which I responded "I gave very simplistic examples for the sake of brevity, but I didn't mean to battle a straw man there. No matter how sophisticate or simple the belief (or the believers), if it involves the supernatural it's unacceptable.", which I think is pretty straight forward. Yes, I talked about someone aiding the poor because he believes god wants him to, and another one stoning his wife to death for the same reasons. I know it's simplistic (which doesn't mean there are not people who are just like that, and worse). I know it doesn't represent ALL believers. My point was (is) religion involves supernatural/unsupported claims and I'm against that... But this explanation didn't work for Mensch, and we kept running in circles since then... That's pretty much all the story. Reread our posts if in doubt.

[MishaK]

Give me some examples of all those choices of mine that are not based on any evidence whatsoever. And then explain to me how does that everyday "faith" of mine compare to the capital "F" Faith in, e.g. some almighty ghost; the kind of Faith that makes people build churches.

Let's start with these two:

1. If you've ever sustained a romantic relationship for more than 5 minutes, you're hopefully aware that your decision to enter into, and continue, the same had nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of evidence or empiricism.

2. Why [**] do you listen to classical music?

The answers to your other points will follow from how you deal with this.

No matter how sophisticate or simple the belief (or the believers), if it involves the supernatural it's unacceptable.", which I think is pretty straight forward. ... That's pretty much all the story. Reread our posts if in doubt.

The reason we're running around in circles is that you're unwilling to recognize that human life by necessity includes a vast deal of non-rational, non-evidence-based thought and action, whether religious or otherwise. Indeed, life would be somewhat impossible without it. However, one needs to be aware of what it is, what it's good for, and what its limits are.

**: edited, Q.

[Que]

Don't expect me to be a diligent reader of this thread - I find these discussion beyond boring. I do not believe in a god or any other supreme being, but I have no urge to "prove" my point or try to prove anyone who does believe in a god wrong - I don't think either is possible.

But please try to keep your head cool and be civil!

Q

[Daidalos]

I think this digression is quite pointless. I suspect that few atheists would claim that everything they do or think is entirely based on evidence or rationality. As for me, I don't care what others believe, as long as they don't try to enforce their beliefs on me. Naturally, I think that if claims are made in a discussion, those claims must be supported by argument. Here is where I occasionally quarrel with theists; testimonies of personal revelation or specially imparted knowledge are immune to refutation or verification, and therefore have no place in rational discourse.

Reading the article linked by the OP, I found myself reacting in the same way as DavidW did on page 1. I kept asking myself, Why should I be convinced of any of this? If the author intended to manufacture a concept of god that was so ephemeral and vague as to be completely impossible to attack, then I suppose he succeeded, but he provided no reasons why anyone should believe in such a convoluted being. I can imagine unassailable notions regarding the creation of the universe all day long, but I doubt I would be very persuasive; why anyone would be impressed with the sophistry displayed in that article boggles my mind. I must say, however, that this line from the article cracked me up:

Therefore, if we use the conventional definition of existence, God does not exist.

What I take from reading this kind of thing is that even talking about such a god is pointless, because our minds cannot (by definition!) hope to grasp the "being" in question. This is not a point in the theists' favour, quite the opposite. You've managed to define your god in such a way as to be incomprehensible, thus invalidating anything and everything you could possibly have to say about that god, even such a seemingly trivial thing as to whether it even "exists".

In short, and I'm sure some might disagree, if this is an example of sophisticated theology, I'm not impressed; in fact, I have trouble imagining anything more preposterous.

[MishaK]

What I take from reading this kind of thing is that even talking about such a god is pointless, because our minds cannot (by definition!) hope to grasp the "being" in question. This is not a point in the theists' favour, quite the opposite. You've managed to define your god in such a way as to be incomprehensible, thus invalidating anything and everything you could possibly have to say about that god, even such a seemingly trivial thing as to whether it even "exists".

Bravo!

[Philoctetes]

I somehow think this applies to the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdByHqC_bQg&NR=1

[Philoctetes]

In short, and I'm sure some might disagree, if this is an example of sophisticated theology, I'm not impressed; in fact, I have trouble imagining anything more preposterous.

Sophisticated it is not. There are plenty of authors to look at for that though, in this regard. I linked to the one I find most cogent, Duns Scotus, but any of the great medieval masters could be looked at for this, or in recent times Barth is probably the preeminent theologian or perhaps even Tillich, whom I think more 'forward' looking folk would find more compelling.

[Iconito]

Let's start with these two:

1. If you've ever sustained a romantic relationship for more than 5 minutes, you're hopefully aware that your decision to enter into, and continue, the same had nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of evidence or empiricism.

2. Why [**] do you listen to classical music?

The answers to your other points will follow from how you deal with this.

I think we are using different definitions of "evidence" and "supernatural/unsupported claims"...

Music and romantic relationships between humans are very well known, familiar things. Music is known to exist; people are known to listen to music. I listen to music because I like music and I enjoy listening to it. There's nothing extraordinary there. We could do an MRI while I listen to music and see the "I like" parts of my brain lighting up, although I don't think that would be necessary.

The same with relationships. And I'd say empiricism ("pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation") has a lot to do with relationships (especially the experimentation bit) Also, if you like a woman and her behavior somehow makes you think that she may like you too, well, that's all the "evidence" you need to make your move. And if you get home early and find your wife engaged in a threesome with too two Russian sailors, that might be enough "evidence" to decide to not continue with the relationship, and so on... I could keep coming with more stupid scenarios, but my point is yes, there is indeed some sort of "evidence" involved in our decisions regarding relationships.

But I don't see how relationships or music (everyday, very well known things) can be compared to e.g. the existence of god or the afterlife or the existence of the soul. Those are extraordinary, supernatural claims. And there is not (valid) evidence of any kind to support them.

The reason we're running around in circles is that you're unwilling to recognize that human life by necessity includes a vast deal of non-rational, non-evidence-based thought and action, whether religious or otherwise. Indeed, life would be somewhat impossible without it. However, one needs to be aware of what it is, what it's good for, and what its limits are.

No. Your first criticism was my description of a "shallow kind of top-down doctrinaire theology". I explained that. It was just a simplistic example, not meant to describe ALL believers. You kept beating that drum nonetheless.

I also said I'm perfectly aware we can't be 100% certain of almost anything. I know we assume many things in every day life that may not be true (is my wife really at work?), I know many times we just act, or react... But what does all that have to do with the active believe in supernatural/unsupported claims? Are you saying that my "automatic" responses to everyday life somehow justify that people believe in god and go to church to worship him? Or believe homeopathic "medicines" actually do something? Or believe in astrology? (to give some simplistic examples). Of course you are not saying that. It is too stupid for you to say. So, what are you saying?

[MishaK]

I think we are using different definitions of "evidence" and "supernatural/unsupported claims"...

HA!

Music and romantic relationships between humans are very well known, familiar things. Music is known to exist; people are known to listen to music. I listen to music because I like music and I enjoy listening to it. There's nothing extraordinary there. We could do an MRI while I listen to music and see the "I like" parts of my brain lighting up, although I don't think that would be necessary.

Replace "music and romantic relationships" with religion and you'll see your paragraph above is logically no different from what you wrote. You're essentially justifying activity which is not at all grounded in rationality on the basis of habit. Just because this is familiar activity it's OK. The same applies to religion. You've maneuvered yourself into a tight spot.

The same with relationships. And I'd say empiricism ("pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation") has a lot to do with relationships (especially the experimentation bit) Also, if you like a woman and her behavior somehow makes you think that she may like you too, well, that's all the "evidence" you need to make your move.

Note highlighted terms. It may escape you, but "liking" things or people has nothing to do with rationality or empiricism.

But I don't see how relationships or music (everyday, very well known things) can be compared to e.g. the existence of god or the afterlife or the existence of the soul. Those are extraordinary, supernatural claims. And there is not (valid) evidence of any kind to support them.

"Soul", "god", "afterlife" - this is just terminology. Point is: religion, music, art, human relationships etc. touch things within us that have nothing to do with rationality. Contrary to your own belief you are only fractionally rational.

No. Your first criticism was my description of a "shallow kind of top-down doctrinaire theology". I explained that. It was just a simplistic example, not meant to describe ALL believers. You kept beating that drum nonetheless.

No, you insisted that your simplistic description applies to all true believers as you claim that your description contains all common denominators of religion.

But what does all that have to do with the active believe in supernatural/unsupported claims? Are you saying that my "automatic" responses to everyday life somehow justify that people believe in god and go to church to worship him? Or believe homeopathic "medicines" actually do something? Or believe in astrology? (to give some simplistic examples). Of course you are not saying that. It is too stupid for you to say. So, what are you saying?

One thing at a time. We can discuss homeopathy and astrology elsewhere (BTW, the excellent link you provided earlier itself gives a superb explanation as to why homeopathy and acupuncture is useful even if it empirically doesn't work: because it conditions people to believe in its healing power which has a meditative and relaxing effect on the body which in turn indeed does help the body heal itself - even if the homeopathic remedy isn't the agent of healing, it helps as a catalyst of self-healing).

My point, if you had read my initial post in this thread, is that religion is a construct that puts our non-rational concepts about the purpose of our existence etc. into a more or less coherent system that helps many individuals live an ordered and productive social life. As long as you know that this belief system is not meant to supplant hard evidence in worldly decision-making, there is essentially no problem with this. The problems arise when fundamentalists insist on literal readings that are contradicted by hard evidence, which causes massively stupid decision-making. You may find a lot of the cultural rituals and paraphernalia of religious practice ridiculous (like most cultural traditions, they are - why the heck do you dress the way you do? Why do you wear pants and not skirts? Not for rational reasons). But confusing rituals for the essence of religion is akin to the fundamentalists' confusing literal reading with essence.

[Iconito]

HA!

From now on, let's make a mutual, conscious attempt to elevate the level of the discussion. Do you agree? 

Replace "music and romantic relationships" with religion and you'll see your paragraph above is logically no different from what you wrote. You're essentially justifying activity which is not at all grounded in rationality on the basis of habit. Just because this is familiar activity it's OK. The same applies to religion. You've maneuvered yourself into a tight spot.

Hey, make at least a little effort, would you? My point was to contrast (as I did later in that post) the familiarity of music and relationships ("everyday, well known things" and certainly not supernatural) with god, the afterlife, etc, which are very far from being everyday, well known things. What you are [mis]interpreting here is incredibly stupid. You might as well replace "music and romantic relationships" with "murder and raping", also very familiar things. It's almost offensive you misrepresent what I said like this.

Note highlighted terms. It may escape you, but "liking" things or people has nothing to do with rationality or empiricism.

Let's dispense with the empiricism (I'd say relationships and listening to music have a lot to do with experience, but the specific act of liking... I don't know... but never mind)
Now, about rationality... There's the sense of something not being rational in that it doesn't involve the conscious and concrete exercise of reason (i.e. reasoning). In that sense I think it could be said that liking things or people is not rational. You just like them. Even if we can reason we like certain piece of music because it's complex and has an interesting use of harmony or whatever, or we like this person because she is witty, funny, etc, it could be argued these are post-fact rationalizations, or maybe not, but anyway, let's accept without further discussion that liking things and people is not rational in that sense..... BUT there's another sense of "not rational": Something that is against reason, i.e., absurd, foolish, preposterous. In this sense, there is nothing "not rational" in liking music or people. On the other hand, believing -in the total absence of evidence- there's the soul, the afterlife, god, and moreover that this god wants something from us, listens to our prayers, etc can indeed be said to be highly not rational.
You are (bona fides, I hope) mixing these two uses of "not rational", in a similar way believers often argue "well, you have faith in science!!!", thus equating the modest "faith" in the sense of "trust" or "reliance" in the many well demonstrated merits of science with "Faith" in god, "Faith" that Jesus will come back from Heaven, etc.

"Soul", "god", "afterlife" - this is just terminology.

This is a deal breaker. If you really think "Soul", "god", "afterlife" is just terminology for most believers then we are not even living in the same planet. Go to your nearest mosque and share this idea of yours with the congregation (bring plenty of Preparation H)

Point is: religion, music, art, human relationships etc. touch things within us that have nothing to do with rationality. Contrary to your own belief you are only fractionally rational.

What I said above about the use of "rational", plus: I think I didn't use the word "rational" before you did. I was talking about beliefs in supernatural/unsupported claims, which I'd say are not rational, OK, but that's not quite where I put the emphasis...

No, you insisted that your simplistic description applies to all true believers as you claim that your description contains all common denominators of religion.

No. What I said all believers have in common is that they do believe (this couldn't be more obvious!) in god, the soul, the afterlife or some other supernatural/unsupported thing (and I've been repeating like a broken record that my point here is "I'm against believing supernatural/unsupported claims"). Here:
-Your description describes a shallow kind of top-down doctrinaire theology
- My description addresses [...] the unsupported beliefs [...] Yes, I gave very simplistic examples [...] but I didn't mean to battle a straw man [...] No matter how sophisticate or simple the belief [...] if it involves the supernatural it's unacceptable.
- You're not battling straw men. You're battling a shallow subset of believers
- The "shallow subset" of believers I'm battling are those who believe in god, the afterlife, the power of pray (etc. BTW this was qualified because I "battle" not believers but beliefs)

One thing at a time. We can discuss homeopathy and astrology elsewhere (BTW, the excellent link you provided earlier itself gives a superb explanation as to why homeopathy and acupuncture is useful even if it empirically doesn't work: because it conditions people to believe in its healing power which has a meditative and relaxing effect on the body which in turn indeed does help the body heal itself - even if the homeopathic remedy isn't the agent of healing, it helps as a catalyst of self-healing).

My point, if you had read my initial post in this thread, is that religion is a construct that puts our non-rational concepts about the purpose of our existence etc. into a more or less coherent system that helps many individuals live an ordered and productive social life. As long as you know that this belief system is not meant to supplant hard evidence in worldly decision-making, there is essentially no problem with this. The problems arise when fundamentalists insist on literal readings that are contradicted by hard evidence, which causes massively stupid decision-making. You may find a lot of the cultural rituals and paraphernalia of religious practice ridiculous (like most cultural traditions, they are - why the heck do you dress the way you do? Why do you wear pants and not skirts? Not for rational reasons). But confusing rituals for the essence of religion is akin to the fundamentalists' confusing literal reading with essence.

Homeopathy helps some people, in some cases. It involves the serious risk of not getting proper medical treatment in cases where empty pills won't work. They charge top dollar for the empty pills. And, to sum it up, it's bullshit. We could have ALL the (limited) benefits of homeopathy without the involved risks, without the wasted resources and without the bullshit.

I believe it's the same with religion. I SEE YOUR POINT (I think) but I respectfully disagree. I think the benefits of religion could be obtained without the fantasy. I think delusion is not desirable even if it brings some sort of (false) relief or comfort or purpose. I think the problems of religion (from plane crashing to Mendelssohn's Elijah and everything in between) are not caused by a few "fundamentalists" but are inherent to the phony beliefs (OK, plane crashers are of course fundamentalists, but they wouldn't do it if they didn't believe glory in Heaven awaits them). I think the sheer majority of religious people in the world are nothing like your super sophisticated Christian friends (and even they are ultimately deluding themselves)... OK, I think I sufficiently stated my opinion. 

[snyprrr]

Mensch reminds me of that French guy in the Matrix.

[Florestan]

...Oh, and what happened in Wittenberg again? 

The schism of a schism was set in motion, that's what happened.   

[Florestan]

all I'm saying is I'm against believing supernatural/unsupported claims

What's so special about this that makes you feel the need to repeat it like a mantra? Who cares what you are for or against, anyway?   

Seems like you can't sleep well at night because someone somewhere might be praying or believing in afterlife. Not good for your health, amigo! 

[Florestan]

I come from a long line of Turkish secularists

Have you by any chance read Orhan Pamuk's "Snow"? If not I warmly recommend it --- fascinating reading about the conflict between secularism and traditionalism / islamism in contemporary Turkey.

Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were held then by a European power

Europe of course, only not Central and Western as you claimed.

Rome's successor state

The Emperors never called themselves anything else than Emperor of the Romans (Basileus / Autokrator ton Romaion), the Empire was never called anything else than Empire of the Romans (Basileia ton Romaion) and the inhabitants never called anything else than Romans (Romaioi) --- so it was actually not a succcesor but the very original Roman Empire continuing its existence for another thousand years after its Western provinces fell into the hands of the "barbarians".

[Iconito]

What's so special about this

Nothing, really. Isn't it a shock I'm in the minority, since most people on Earth believes in one or another supernatural/unsupported thing? 

that makes you feel the need to repeat it like a mantra?

The reasons why I repeated it so much are explained before. Actually they are obvious if you just follow the exchange from the beginning. You won't, and I won't explain again, which brings us to your next point:

Who cares what you are for or against, anyway?   

Ah, you naughty boy!   Nobody cares, probably. In fact, if I die right now only a handful of people (mostly family and friends) will really care. This is true for the sheer majority of people on this planet, of course. But I'm completely OK with my own insignificance. It's not like I believe the Creator of the Universe loves me or has a plan for me or anything like that 

Seems like you can't sleep well at night because someone somewhere might be praying or believing in afterlife. Not good for your health, amigo! 

There are many things on this world which bring me different grades of sadness (or disgust, or anger or some other not comforting feeling) if I really think of them but, like most of us, I can very well not really think of them and sleep like a baby

Praying can be pretty harmless, although it costs the life of a child from time to time (you know, those who pray instead of taking the child to the hospital). The same for believing in the afterlife, when some loonies take it too seriously and blow themselves up in a suicide attack. Of course these are extreme cases; most cases are nothing like these (like most children who play with matches don't actually burn the house )


(too many smileys!  )