|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 17, 2009 8:32:30 GMT
But that position is as impossible either to verify or falsify as the theistic hypothesis. Where there is reasonable doubt, we may not dogmatise. But I don't have reasonable doubt. Based on evidence there is no supreme being. All that is presented as evidence is hearsay. As you can not prove the negative (you cannot prove there isn't) I have to base my rational decision on the positive - there is no evidence that there is. I apply the same logical thought process to the existence of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy (whom also cannot be proven to not exist). ;D How do you define evidence? What evidence is there for or against the existence of some kind of supreme being? I would not describe the existence of laws of nature as being in the nature of hearsay evidence. I would equally not regard the possibility of events that appear to operate outside the normal laws as being hearsay evidence. Nor am I in any respect gullible or credulous. Temperamentally I am not sympathetic to the theistic hypothesis but I am afraid that it IS possible to prove a negative, or rather to disprove a positive. Until Europeans discovered Australia it was taken as a given that all swans were white. Then black swans were discovered. To assert that a divine being EXISTS appears to me altogether too strong an assertion and one for which there does not seem to be what I would consider sufficient evidence. Equally to claim that one does NOT exist is too strong a claim. It is readily apparent that the available evidence does NOT support the existence of a God but it is equally clear that no evidence exists to support the NON-existence of a supreme being either. The hypothesis is one that has neither been verified nor falsified and as such both the theistic AND atheist claims are simply statements of personal opinion and in no way constitute a FACTUAL observation. The most generally accepted definition of knowledge is 'justified true belief.' Neither theism NOR atheism appears to come into that category and a statement that there either IS or is NOT a God is therefore NOT an expression of fact but simply one of a belief that CANNOT constitute a truth value or a reference to a known entity. Where is the truth quotient or the factual referent to the statement that God does or does not exist? Both statements are simply expressions of opinion. Your atheism is every bit as much a statement of faith as my wife's Christianity. I do not share either opinion but each claim is simply a different way of choosing to interpret the universe and it is hard to see how either can ever be proved or disproved. I take it (since you clearly display exceptional intelligence) that you are familiar with the traditional arguments in favour of the existence of God and are aware that they have all been demolished. The arguments from the First Cause, from design, from ontology and the alleged uniqueness of certain events have all been endlessly discussed and their validity was decisively disproved in the eighteenth century (in the case of the ontological argument, as long ago as the twelfth century). However, the only purely LOGICAL argument in favour of atheism would be along the principle of Occams' Razor, that 'entities are not to be multiplied without necessity,' the form in which it is normally given, though what Occam actually wrote was 'it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer.' This was the same argument that Copernicus used to support the heliocentric rather than geocentric theory. It was rightly seen as not enough and not till the observations and mathematical calculations of Kepler and Galileo was the veridical nature of the heliocentric hypothesis clearly demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 17, 2009 8:41:03 GMT
Incidentally, there are many things in life which fall outside the strict criteria of fact and truth.
How does one assess the truth value of beauty? Or love? Or compassion?
On what basis is one entitled to prefer a compassionate action to a cruel one?
Whatever the criteria, it can only be on the basis of values rather than of a truth hypothesis, not least since it is an elementary point in logic that NO truth claim CAN, even in principle, involve a value judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 17, 2009 9:23:24 GMT
I don't believe in God. But if others do, that's fine, so long as they don't come telling me what I should believe in.
I have a great dislike of the "evangelical atheists" as well, they are just as bad (if not worse) than fundamentalist religious nutters for trying to force their views on people.
Religious people find comfort in believing that they are loved and will be rewarded for good behaviour by their God.
Atheists find comfort by believing that they are smarter than people who believe in God.
Both are entitled to believe what they do, so long as they keep out of other peoples lives/affairs.
AH
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 17, 2009 9:26:40 GMT
And oddly enough, for a nation of secularists, we seem to expect that *somebody* is still making a nice heaven for us after we die (but not God obviously, must be some other deity we've not heard of) Most Britons 'believe in heaven' The majority of Britons believe in heaven and life after death, new research suggests. The survey of 2,060 people showed 55% believe in heaven, while 53% believe in life after death and 70% believe in the human soul. The study was carried out between October and November last year for the public theology think tank Theos. It also suggested that nearly four in 10 people, 39%, believe in ghosts and 27% believe in reincarnation. A further 22% believe in astrology or horoscopes and 15% believe in fortune telling or Tarot. The think tank said the findings were "especially striking" when compared to the 1950s. Then only 10% of the public told Gallup that they believed in ghosts and just 2% thought they had seen one. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996187.stmAH
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 17, 2009 11:18:07 GMT
you are entitled to your opinion, but, an opinion with NO basis in reality is not a choice one should wish to make. however, no one else is responsible for your opinion, so you live and die with your choice, as with EVERYTHING in the world. the consequences are yours alone, which is why i said that we should never try to force your eyes open It is my lack of willingness to base my opinion on anything other than reality that means I could never believe in a holy spirit of any sort. However, I have no antipathy for those who gain comfort and succour from their faith and wish them all the best. We all find our own way. it is unfortunate that you do not believe that the wind exists. you have never SEEN the wind, so there is no such thing. of course, the fact that the leaves move, and a flag waves, and all the other evidence that the wind actually exists, means nothing to you since you can't see it. there is NO difference between the wind and god. just as you cannot see the wind, you see the effects of the wind. the same is true of god.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 17, 2009 13:44:16 GMT
And among the 'effects' of God are earthquakes, tsunamis, and various other natural disasters (to say nothing of the various appalling actions carried out by human beings.)
If such a being did indeed create the world in which we live, I would find it difficult to regard him as being benevolent and would have to suggest that his actions better merit the descriptions attributed traditionally to the supposed Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 17, 2009 14:13:29 GMT
The one flaw there is that God gave "instructions" on how to behave, but also gave us free will, like parents do for their children I suppose.
AH
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 17, 2009 18:48:08 GMT
It is my lack of willingness to base my opinion on anything other than reality that means I could never believe in a holy spirit of any sort. However, I have no antipathy for those who gain comfort and succour from their faith and wish them all the best. We all find our own way. it is unfortunate that you do not believe that the wind exists. you have never SEEN the wind, so there is no such thing. of course, the fact that the leaves move, and a flag waves, and all the other evidence that the wind actually exists, means nothing to you since you can't see it. there is NO difference between the wind and god. just as you cannot see the wind, you see the effects of the wind. the same is true of god. I never mentioned having to 'see' something to believe it Jumbo, please do not attribute things to me which I have not said. I have seen tornadoes though
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 17, 2009 23:06:21 GMT
Ah, the old freewill chestnut.
Leaving aside all the difficulties that poses with regard to human behaviour, are we supposed to believe that a notionally benevolent being gave earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and volcanoes free will?
That facile argument has long since been exploded.
Incidentally, I will lighten the discussion with a secularist joke.
Why did the atheist cross the road?
He believed there was another side but refused to believe it until he'd tested it for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 17, 2009 23:44:55 GMT
The ultimate Divinity (the Godhead) is beyond manifest existence but through a series of concretisations or emanations eventually beccomes the physical world. Each manifestation is further from the Unmanifest Perfection than its predecessor so it is inevitable that the physical world must be as far from protection as possible (unless there is an even more degenerate Hell). No manifestation can experience less crude ones, only Spirituality, which is an aspect of the Godhead but imagines itself as part of the physical, can do that. The Godhead cannot intefer with its material manifestation but through Spirituality can clean up the physical from its initial chaos. This is Evolution of the physical Manifestation from pure material chaos back to self-aware harmony with its original Unmanifest divinity Deities who to be sacrificed or prayed to exist as personifications (pr rationalisations) of natural and abstract concepts. As such, they are false gods, false both in having no real existence beyond the mind of their believers, but false also that if threated on their own terms, then they are ignorant of the greater Ultimate Godhead beyind them. Polytheists generally understand that the gods are all human attempts to comprehend some part of the Incomprehensible. Because of its great antiquity and composite origins, the Old Testament refers to both gods (in fact probably to more originally). Monotheism has put the two together as one with unfortunate results. The 'false god' of rationalisation is written as YHWH. The philosophical transcendent Godhead is usually Al/El. St. Paul says that to evaluate 'scripture' (the OT) according roughly, to whatever is said of 'god' that confirms an abstract Principle of Harmony, Love, Compassion, truly is so, and whatever defines the god of wrath and of disaster and of holy war is the projection of rationalising and justifying minds. . www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm
|
|
|
Post by o on Apr 18, 2009 1:18:29 GMT
Where can I buy some of these "freewill chestnuts"? They sound delicious.
|
|
|
Post by drewsmom595 on Apr 18, 2009 10:14:45 GMT
And among the 'effects' of God are earthquakes, tsunamis, and various other natural disasters (to say nothing of the various appalling actions carried out by human beings.) If such a being did indeed create the world in which we live, I would find it difficult to regard him as being benevolent and would have to suggest that his actions better merit the descriptions attributed traditionally to the supposed Satan. I hear what you're saying, Mike. But I think that by labeling all natural disasters as "acts of God," or "effects of God" that we deny our own collective and personal responsibility -- especially those which people play an active role in human suffering and toll involved. Take Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, for example. The public officials in Louisiana were warned for decades that a hurricane would devastate that area. What did they do? Not a whole lot. They reinforced their levies, but not to the level that research showed would be effective against a massive hurricane. And tsunami's? There's proper warnings and emergency systems available that can give countries ample warning that such a disaster is impending. But do they have them? NO. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that perhaps there's a larger collective lesson from these natural disasters that we're supposed to be grasping...and it's the easy way out to just blame them on an unmerciful God or even "proof" that no God exists at all.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 18, 2009 14:39:39 GMT
It is my lack of willingness to base my opinion on anything other than reality that means I could never believe in a holy spirit of any sort. However, I have no antipathy for those who gain comfort and succour from their faith and wish them all the best. We all find our own way. it is unfortunate that you do not believe that the wind exists. you have never SEEN the wind, so there is no such thing. of course, the fact that the leaves move, and a flag waves, and all the other evidence that the wind actually exists, means nothing to you since you can't see it. there is NO difference between the wind and god. just as you cannot see the wind, you see the effects of the wind. the same is true of god. But we choose which things to attribute to God on an entirely subjective basis and we know which things are caused by the four winds because wind is measurable, quantifiable, can be accurately predicted using a tested formula - completely unlike any god. I don't have to believe in wind to experience it and know it. The wind did not allegedly dictate a whole load of memos to Moses explaining the rules we must live by. The wind does not respond to prayer or send sons to earth. All in all the wind is so different in every way and only useful as an analogy to help children understand a rather odd concept. But I have explained this before.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 18, 2009 15:00:10 GMT
Quite right Trubs. Back to Gospel of Philip, God may make Man (or not) but Man makes gods according to the limitations of the human intellect. We can blame the god we made for 'Acts of God' but only a few fundamentalist nuitters genuinely believe that the 2007 (?) Christmas Indonesian Tsunami literally was sent by God because America does not prosecute homosexual acts. (In which case, amopng other things, God has either remarkably poor aim or indifference to who gets what for stepping out of line).
The philosophy I quoted above is one possible rationalisation that underlies most mysticisms. The Buddhist variant includes 'gods' but more as a higher form of life than in any western sense, while the Hindu treats them more as accessible facts of hte Unknowable Jewel. Extreme forms (which have influenced Christianity) see the Manifest as polar opposite to the Unmanifest, so positivley evil; the less extreme see focus on it as relevent to the divine (as with Fundamentalists) as ignorant or evil. On the whole I find myself in agreement with the more benign interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 18, 2009 15:24:14 GMT
Earthquakes, Tsunamis etc could be "acts of Gaia" I think we should pollute her a bit more, teach her who is boss. AH
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Apr 23, 2009 17:44:52 GMT
To me, none. I have no use for religion and it, along with nationalism, has been a bane to humanity.
I regard beliefs, or the lack of, as a personal thing, but I abhor religious fundamentalism of any kind because of its inherent intolerance towards other beliefs. Worse yet, moreover, is the literal belief in scripture. That to me defies all logic and promotes ignorance. It's just complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Apr 23, 2009 18:53:08 GMT
Tectonic plates, swirling hot and cold fronts, facial hair, menstruation: all glitches in the design. Six days did he labour and on the seventh day, he rested. Had he put in a bit of overtime on Sunday morning, he could have fixed all that. Good idea, poor research. Why did god need a rest? he's god!
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 23, 2009 22:41:59 GMT
Alan, maybe just wanted a rest, and if you can't chill out and kick back when the fancy takes you, well, there's not much point being supreme ruler of the Universe is there? AH
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 23, 2009 23:19:30 GMT
I tried to learn Hebrew because I want to know exactly what it says, though the issue is complicated in that the traditional Christian OT was a Greek translation of a lost older version than the current Hebrew. The book was terrible and I didn't get far! I do know that that creator (El, Elohim, Allah) is entirely different from the second creation we hear little about until the 'rib' incident. It probably wasn't a rib - the word can even refer to a crab because most walk sideways, but what a 'coincidence' that the Crab has always been the sign of the Mother Goddess, that Hawwah, (more accurately than 'Eve') means something like 'Life' and that Adam/Edom mean 'Red' or 'Red Earth'. According to this second creation 'YHWH' (pronounced Adonai/Adonis = Lord, or maybe in secret 'Ieooa' - there's a general consensus that he originated as god of the wind) created Man first, then all the creatures.
The religious tract I put up earlier is one interpretation that at least makes something a bit more profound of it than the usual claptrap. It's pretty certainly retrofitted but shows that not everybody took it all at literal face value any more than they did the Resurrection. Unfortunately, simple interpretations always appeal and what became the Church was better at organisation and strong-arm tactics than theology.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 27, 2009 21:02:28 GMT
A long time ago the understanding of H. sapiens regarding the world and the cosmos was somewhat less than it is today. Any natural catastrophe must - in their paradigm - be the wrath of their god(s) for some perceived transgression. You still hear the occasional barking US Evangelist spouting this stuff - in the 21st century. But that was fine then when they thought lightning was a manifestation made by a god. It evolved into a really neat means of social control.
At nearly every turn religions have had to accomodate new knowledge and painfully change their unchangeable beliefs. The Flat Earth is an obvious one, however, the absurd idea of a 6000 year old Earth remains a firm favourite with the intelligent design (creationist) 'school' of thought.
Personally, I have no real interest in the beliefs of others, yet the religious are simply unable to keep their faith a private matter, one between them and their place of worship or their home. They insist on knocking on doors or 'reaching -out' in town-centres and the reason for this is pretty obvious. And its annoying.
There isn't a shred of evidence for any supernatural being - and you can philosophise on that if you really want to - therefore the null hypothesis must be there is no god. Can any believer disprove it. No.
It really is time that the mumbo jumbo was junked. You don't have to be religious to be a good moral agent.
|
|