[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[D'rok]

I'm returning to this party late after getting pissed off by the OP troll.

The view I am talking about does take that further and says that the only thing we can know about god is that it was the cause of the universe. This god could be anything from an intelligence beyond what we can imagine to a completely random occurrence stemming from another universe (that sounds weird, but remember, the first cause couldn't have been in this universe...it had to be in something else).

The "no god" position that acknowledges a first cause but claims that whatever this cause was, it wasn't the result of an intelligence or intention in this other universe.

So, the operational difference is that the "no god" position makes an additional assumption...for, from what I can see, no good reason other than faith.

These assertions do not follow. You are making at least two assumptions with your "natural" god. You assume there is a first cause that is either a) an intelligent internal (to our universe) first cause, or b) a non-intelligent external first cause, or c) a first cause with some other unkown characteristic. In any case, you are assuming a first cause that has a characteristic of some kind.

That's two for you, two for us (assuming I accept your two assumption characterization of atheism - which I don't except for argument's sake).

The right answer might be "no god," but that position is neither more logical or even simpler than the other.

According to your argument it is exactly as simple and equally logical.

 

[cj.23]

I have to go to bed now, but I'll try and carry on tomorrow. Just to make clear, when it comes to God, I think I'm wrong, and so is everyone else. I can't stress that enough. I will cheerfully explain tomorrow though.

cj x

 

[articulett]

Welcome to JREF. Not an atheist, or at least an agnostic? Then you are by definition an idiot, according to the vast majority here.

Well, at least you're not one of those terrible Christians. They all believe in a young Earth and an old men living in the clouds (or pink dragons, or some such) and go pounding on people's doors all hours of the day and night and other such horrific things. Oh and don't forget the Crusades!!!

Hyperbole, anyone? I think all supernatural beliefs and claims of "divine truths" are woo. I don't think that all believers are idiots. I am quite certain there is no evidence that the "vast majority" think so. The majority here are skeptics including skeptics in regards to religion. And I take it you are a Christian, because like most Christians, you hear things that are not said.

Christians tend to hear any criticism of something some christian does as something they all need to defend... something you must never blame on Christianity... moreover, they tend to be the preachiest here... though all woo is treated pretty much the same... skeptics require evidence before they determine if a belief is respect worthy or worth finding out more about. They tend not to find "faith" the fabulous things that many christians have been brainwashed to believe it is. Many people here are Christians or were Christians including myself. We recognize the defensiveness. I don't have any of those opinions you imagine about "most Christians", but if I post a clip about some fundies, you can bet most Christians will feel I've insulted them. They often attack the poster of such info. rather than the egregious acts of the Christians involved.

I think the judgement you imagine comes more from Christians who have been taught to tie in everything good to faith and negate anything bad associated with belief... oh, and exaggerate and vilify everything a non believer does.

It's just that you aren't used to being the minority. Most Christians aren't. They are used to special privileges and deference... but on this forum, they are the minority, and they might want to use this forum to understand how they make atheists feel in general with their constant demonization and crying about discrimination.

It's true... we don't find you as fabulous as you find yourselves. Have you heard the news? Everybody thinks that those who believe like they do are the nicest, most moral people of all. Muslims do... Moonies do-- and, as an atheist, I think that myself.

 

[cj.23]

Everybody thinks that those who believe like they do are the nicest, most moral people of all. Muslims do... Moonies do-- and, as an atheist, I think that myself.

Actually I get on by far the best with Atheists. It's why I spend a lot of my time in the lovely community at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/
The JREF is not an Athiest Forum. Dawkin's place is. Good folks...

Oh and to briefly explain - my crisis of non-faith was the realization that I did not actually know there was not a god, & did not have anyway to test that hypothesis. So I began to have doubts about if one might exist after all somewhere, somehow...

Time for bed!
cj x

 

[dglas]

I think the judgement you imagine comes more from Christians who have been taught to tie in everything good to faith and negate anything bad associated with belief... oh, and exaggerate and vilify everything a non believer does.

It's just that you aren't used to being the minority. Most Christians aren't. They are used to special privileges and deference... but on this forum, they are the minority, and they might want to use this forum to understand how they make atheists feel in general with their constant demonization and crying about discrimination.

...most excellent snippage...

85%

Some have become so used to saying what they say that they don't even realize what it is they are saying anymore. Maybe if we turned it around a bit...

Love the Christian; hate the Christianity.
Deep down inside they know they are wrong, but they can't help deceiving themselves.


Win Powerball!!!

 

[Tricky]

Christians tend to hear any criticism of something some christian does as something they all need to defend.

I wouldn't say that this is universally true, but it is certainly true often enough. Here's my anecdote.

This weekend I went to an Irish music festival and met my cousin Fred there. Fred was pretty much a free thinker when we were young, though not, as far as I know, an atheist. He was more of an apathist. About ten years ago he married Henrietta. Henrietta was Catholic. Within about three years, Fred was a Catholic too. I will not presume to surmise why.

About five years ago, I visited Fred and Henrietta because we were going to (go figure) an Irish music festival in town. During the course of the evening and several beers (at which Henrietta frowned severely), Fred and I got into a discussion of religion. Henrietta was in the kitchen, not participating in the conversation. After some lively (but not heated) exchanges between Fred and I, Henrietta, who had heard enough, stormed into the room and informed me that I was completely wrong about God and that I had insulted her religion. I was flabbergasted, and of course I apologized profusely. The evening ended sort of tensely, but I didn't worry about it too much.

This weekend when I met Fred, he informed me that he was separating from Henrietta. He was still religious, but he couldn't take the kind of gung-ho religious commitment that she required. He mentioned that his going to the festival with us had been yet another bone of contention. "You're going to a pagan ritual with that Christ-hater, aren't you?" she accused. Fred said he was but that I was not a Christ-hater. Unpleasantness ensued. He told me a little. I suspect there is more. She hasn't forgiven me for the sin of being an atheist while in her house. She has used it as a wedge to berate her husband.

Not all Christians are like this. But there are enough of them who are spiteful and unforgiving to make me a little more wary of expressing my opinions around them. I feel badly that I may have added some grief to Cousin Fred's situation, though I can't feel bad that he is getting free of this... erm... good Christian woman. I think he'll wind up happier. Much.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Um, load your questions much? "Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?"

Nope, just going off of all of the theists posts I've ever seen. No person has ever offered evidence of their god, all who try seem to try and use fallacious reasoning and word games as evidence.

With all due respect to your CT, I'm not aware of any grand theist conspiracy to pretend to believe in god in order to trick others into doing so.

Oh, I'm sure the theists really do believe in their gods. I'm also sure that they have no evidence of those gods. It's not a CT, it's just how they are taught to "reason" their god into existence.

[quote
The theistic proposition I have been talking about posits that there is no supernatural component to God.[/quote]

So you've changed the definition of "god" to something else that we know to exist. That's a blatant attempt at trickery.

To which I suppose you might just respond "You didn't prove there is a god. That's just stupid!"

True, and I stand by that position.

I suppose I could point out that you didn't prove there wasn't a god. There is zero evidence of that. Science equally supports both ideas.

I have no burden to disprove the claim that there is a god. How does one show evidence of non-existence anyway?

Guess what, the only way to decide between the two options is through the application of reason and logic. As I point out above, a position of "no god" requires and additional assumption over a position of "we know nothing of the god of first cause."

Wrong, the position of "no god" simply requires doubt of the claim "there is a god" coupled with the fact that there is no evidence, let alone a lucid definition, of any gods. There is no "god of first cause" it's BS and it's bad for ya.

The right answer might be "no god," but that position is neither more logical or even simpler than the other.

It's the most logical position based on the evidence and logic at hand.

 

[PBTree]

OK, Articulett's post I wanted to respond to first.



Yes, religions make claims from Special Revelation - that is they make claims which are not (currently) scientifically verifiable. I could of course give many examples where 1. Religions turned out to have got it right (the universe had a start, time does not exist before but is somehow part of time/space that, etc, etc) and traditional atheism was wrong (atheism historically was often linked to Steady State theories) --

2. I like to quote St.Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408 CE])


There is another option - 3. Martin Gardner is atheist who denies Special Revelation, a Fideist, and if you have never read his The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whys-Philos...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204596150&sr=8-1
I would strongly encourage you to do so. He is a wonderful thinker, and I think his influence on Scepticism is well known.

I may be an idiot - but DD, I challenge you to say Gardner is.

cj x

1. Are you making the statement that without religion we wouldn't have known these things?

2. Whilst he seems to have a couple of good ideas, I would assume that he (like everyone else of his time), thought the world was flat.

3. Whose to say he is not. This is just one man's opinion and one that you seem to agree with. Might even speak a great deal of sense, doesn't make it any more worthwhile than someone else. Now if he wrote a book full of facts and not just philosophical arguments, that would be different.

 

[articulett]

Not all Christians are like this. But there are enough of them who are spiteful and unforgiving to make me a little more wary of expressing my opinions around them. I feel badly that I may have added some grief to Cousin Fred's situation, though I can't feel bad that he is getting free of this... erm... good Christian woman. I think he'll wind up happier. Much.

Yes... it's a threat to them that we don't believe. I just avoid religion for the most part in regular life... a kind of "don't ask; don't tell"... I think people assume you believe as they do. I know I tend to assume that most people at TAM or on skeptic forums are nonbelievers unless they state otherwise. There is a lot of misperception and fear of "atheists"... we are the least trusted minority group in America (though Satanists weren't on the list... of course a lot of people think atheists are satanists... and some people who call themselves satanists are really just atheists with a desire to add shock value...)

There is all this drama over whether you believe in the right invisible man with the right unprovable myth to the right degree--(whatever that means and however that is accomplished I guess.) It always seemed like a no-win situation. You could never be sure if you believed in the right thing enough to pass the omniscient, invisible, undetectable being's rubric and this was compounded by the fact that he/she/it/they are indistinguishable from things you aren't supposed to believe in-- indistinguishable from Schizophrenic delusions or mythological figures or undetectable alien visitors or thetans. You were supposed to have faith--but not in "false prophets" or the wrong gods but you couldn't "question god" to find out if you had the right one.

How do you make yourself believe in something that has no measurable characteristics? How do you even know if you believe? To me, it's like everyone is saying "I believe in flibbidy floo, and I'm good and saved because of it." I spent a childhood (Catholic) trying to make sense of it or "feel" it or "get it"... but I couldn't... which sucked because that could mean I was eternally damned... but I was already eternally damned from a whole bunch of other religions and "infallible leaders" that I couldn't make sense of either. And there didn't seem to be any scientists concerned enough about our collective eternities so that they would test to see who the real people were that had access to divine truths. Some stuff felt better or seemed more true or fair... but I knew that wasn't really a way to "know" anything. Lots of people used that method and they didn't agree with each other.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that humans are prone to believe what their culture indoctrinates them with just as they speak the language of their culture. People are prone to emotional stories and confabulations for that which they don't understand in an attempt to gain control of fear and situations. We confuse correlation with causation and confirm those biases. Religions evolve like cities and the internet and ecological niches... because they can... because they encourage in-group amity and protection from outsiders-clansmanship... social order. They are primitive forms of government. But that doesn't make them true. And that doesn't make faith good. And it doesn't mean that people can make themselves believe nonsensical stuff... and maybe people can't make themselves not believe stuff either once they've taken something on faith and believe that faith is the key to eternal bliss.

Religion is not the cause of all evil... not all religions are bad... but there is no reason to think any of them have divine truths. And there is no reason to think they make anyone more moral. I know people credit their religion and god for morality and all that is good and fascinating that they do not completely understand... but that doesn't mean a god exists or that religion makes people moral. Religion, like laws, codify human social codes... but other social animals show similar behavior.

When something is true... like evolution... you don't feel threatened when people don't believe... you just feel sad for self imposed ignorance; you'd help them out, if you could. But religious people do feel threatened by non-belief. Successful religions use this meme to ensure itheir own growth. They encourage the meme that "faith is good" and the unfaithful are a threat.

But if something were really true, then my not having faith in it should not be a threat. You are not a Christ hater any more than you are a Cthulu hater or Santa hater or Thetan hater. But indoctrination ensures that true believers will see you as such and twist any of your words to reach that conclusion. It will ensure that they hear criticism of faith as criticism of them. That's so divisive. And it's a meme spread as something noble and good and salvation worthy. That bothers me. It bothers me that we live in a world where what people "believe" becomes more important than what they say or do or what is true. I can't say even that much in real life--because there are people like your sister-in-law everywhere. I sense the hair standing on end sometimes when I mention evolution even. People are "afraid" of "losing their faith".

You are not a different person than you were before your sister-in-law realized you were a non-believer--but in her head you have become as much. And that has happened to me as well. For many people my lack of belief in whatever they believe is a much bigger deal than all the values we share... and all the things neither of us believe in. And, like you, I've become really wary of trying to explore why. I just conclude that they would rather not have their belief questioned in any way. Although believers have no problem asserting their beliefs as fact (e.g. "everything happens for a reason")... , they usually have a big problem with non believers responding or expressing their non-belief aloud in any fashion.

 

[PBTree]

Yes... it's a threat to them that we don't believe. I just avoid religion for the most part in regular life... a kind of "don't ask; don't tell"... I think people assume you believe as they do. I know I tend to assume that most people at TAM or on skeptic forums are nonbelievers unless they state otherwise. There is a lot of misperception and fear of "atheists"... we are the least trusted minority group in America (though Satanists weren't on the list... of course a lot of people think atheists are satanists... and some people who call themselves satanists are really just atheists with a desire to add shock value...)

There is all this drama over whether you believe in the right invisible man with the right unprovable myth to the right degree--(whatever that means and however that is accomplished I guess.) It always seemed like a no-win situation. You could never be sure if you believed in the right thing enough to pass the omniscient, invisible, undetectable being's rubric and this was compounded by the fact that he/she/it/they are indistinguishable from things you aren't supposed to believe in-- indistinguishable from Schizophrenic delusions or mythological figures or undetectable alien visitors or thetans. You were supposed to have faith--but not in "false prophets" or the wrong gods but you couldn't "question god" to find out if you had the right one.

How do you make yourself believe in something that has no measurable characteristics? How do you even know if you believe? To me, it's like everyone is saying "I believe in flibbidy floo, and I'm good and saved because of it." I spent a childhood (Catholic) trying to make sense of it or "feel" it or "get it"... but I couldn't... which sucked because that could mean I was eternally damned... but I was already eternally damned from a whole bunch of other religions and "infallible leaders" that I couldn't make sense of either. And there didn't seem to be any scientists concerned enough about our collective eternities so that they would test to see who the real people were that had access to divine truths. Some stuff felt better or seemed more true or fair... but I knew that wasn't really a way to "know" anything. Lots of people used that method and they didn't agree with each other.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that humans are prone to believe what their culture indoctrinates them with just as they speak the language of their culture. People are prone to emotional stories and confabulations for that which they don't understand in an attempt to gain control of fear and situations. We confuse correlation with causation and confirm those biases. Religions evolve like cities and the internet and ecological niches... because they can... because they encourage in-group amity and protection from outsiders-clansmanship... social order. They are primitive forms of government. But that doesn't make them true. And that doesn't make faith good. And it doesn't mean that people can make themselves believe nonsensical stuff... and maybe people can't make themselves not believe stuff either once they've taken something on faith and believe that faith is the key to eternal bliss.

Religion is not the cause of all evil... not all religions are bad... but there is no reason to think any of them have divine truths. And there is no reason to think they make anyone more moral. I know people credit their religion and god for morality and all that is good and fascinating that they do not completely understand... but that doesn't mean a god exists or that religion makes people moral. Religion, like laws, codify human social codes... but other social animals show similar behavior.

When something is true... like evolution... you don't feel threatened when people don't believe... you just feel sad for self imposed ignorance; you'd help them out, if you could. But religious people do feel threatened by non-belief. Successful religions use this meme to ensure itheir own growth. They encourage the meme that "faith is good" and the unfaithful are a threat.

But if something were really true, then my not having faith in it should not be a threat. You are not a Christ hater any more than you are a Cthulu hater or Santa hater or Thetan hater. But indoctrination ensures that true believers will see you as such and twist any of your words to reach that conclusion. It will ensure that they hear criticism of faith as criticism of them. That's so divisive. And it's a meme spread as something noble and good and salvation worthy. That bothers me. It bothers me that we live in a world where what people "believe" becomes more important than what they say or do or what is true. I can't say even that much in real life--because there are people like your sister-in-law everywhere. I sense the hair standing on end sometimes when I mention evolution even. People are "afraid" of "losing their faith".

You are not a different person than you were before your sister-in-law realized you were a non-believer--but in her head you have become as much. And that has happened to me as well. For many people my lack of belief in whatever they believe is a much bigger deal than all the values we share... and all the things neither of us believe in. And, like you, I've become really wary of trying to explore why. I just conclude that they would rather not have their belief questioned in any way. Although believers have no problem asserting their beliefs as fact (e.g. "everything happens for a reason")... , they usually have a big problem with non believers responding or expressing their non-belief aloud in any fashion.

Hear Hear! What articulett said.

Quick point about your satanist point.

If a theist is a believer, wouldn't a satanist by definition, have to be a theist also. Only differing in whose rules they follow?

 

[PBTree]

I wouldn't say that this is universally true, but it is certainly true often enough. Here's my anecdote.

This weekend I went to an Irish music festival and met my cousin Fred there. Fred was pretty much a free thinker when we were young, though not, as far as I know, an atheist. He was more of an apathist. About ten years ago he married Henrietta. Henrietta was Catholic. Within about three years, Fred was a Catholic too. I will not presume to surmise why.

About five years ago, I visited Fred and Henrietta because we were going to (go figure) an Irish music festival in town. During the course of the evening and several beers (at which Henrietta frowned severely), Fred and I got into a discussion of religion. Henrietta was in the kitchen, not participating in the conversation. After some lively (but not heated) exchanges between Fred and I, Henrietta, who had heard enough, stormed into the room and informed me that I was completely wrong about God and that I had insulted her religion. I was flabbergasted, and of course I apologized profusely. The evening ended sort of tensely, but I didn't worry about it too much.

This weekend when I met Fred, he informed me that he was separating from Henrietta. He was still religious, but he couldn't take the kind of gung-ho religious commitment that she required. He mentioned that his going to the festival with us had been yet another bone of contention. "You're going to a pagan ritual with that Christ-hater, aren't you?" she accused. Fred said he was but that I was not a Christ-hater. Unpleasantness ensued. He told me a little. I suspect there is more. She hasn't forgiven me for the sin of being an atheist while in her house. She has used it as a wedge to berate her husband.

Not all Christians are like this. But there are enough of them who are spiteful and unforgiving to make me a little more wary of expressing my opinions around them. I feel badly that I may have added some grief to Cousin Fred's situation, though I can't feel bad that he is getting free of this... erm... good Christian woman. I think he'll wind up happier. Much.

She followed the famous rule of war, "The best defence, is offence".

I think maybe this lady stands out as a shining example of why DD started the thread. Can't be positive though, haven't met her.

 

[articulett]

Some people call themselves satanists and they are really atheists... there is a guy named LeVay who leads them... and some really believe in Satan... and they would be theists... with all the rights of theists regarding there religion and free exercise thereof.

I point that out when Christians get a little pushy about their freedom to exercise their religion. What's good for one is good for all... including the Satanists... and those who don't believe in any invisible beings. (Christians often grant themselves "freedom of speech" that they don't wish others to share in.)

 

[AkuManiMani]

Some people call themselves satanists and they are really atheists... there is a guy named LeVay who leads them... and some really believe in Satan... and they would be theists... with all the rights of theists regarding there religion and free exercise thereof.

LeVay's been dead for some time now, methinks.

I point that out when Christians get a little pushy about their freedom to exercise their religion. What's good for one is good for all... including the Satanists... and those who don't believe in any invisible beings. (Christians often grant themselves "freedom of speech" that they don't wish others to share in.)

LeVay Satanist are like hybrids of a cartoon parody of Rand's objectivists and social darwinists. They do not have supernatural or theistic beliefs, oddly enough.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

That's the thing - what would that evidence be to you?

There is no concrete evidence of God scientifically. If you're talking about personal evidence (i.e. "I had a vision and have seen Him!"), that's something entirely different. Besides, even if I were to have a "vision" of some sort, or a religious experience, I would also consider the possible circumstances that might generate said experience rather than divine intervention - maybe I bought a special brownie that someone mixed up with the regular ones. Maybe I had a frayed wire in my brain for a second. We know next to nothing about how the mind works, or what constitutes the conscious mind, or even what reality is, which allows for infinite possibilities other than there being a god that would produce the same experience.

I accept science as fact, because at least this can produce consistent, tangible, measurable support for its ideas, even if it is quite incomplete in total knowledge, or indeed based on an illusion of some kind. So far, I haven't been able to jump without coming back down to the ground, or cut my finger without bleeding. I tend to have personal evidence reflect scientific evidence for this reason, rather than the Bible, as I can't test to see if there is a God, nor can anyone else, and also since science doesn't make claims it can't support, which the Bible does. We're just supposed to take its word for it. I cannot accept that blindly, but I can allow for the possibility that it's true, just like the possibility that there may be some magical goat in the sky that watches over us, or that the universe is a gigantic intestinal tract of some large organism.

As far as the answer to your question, actually seeing him and witnessing extraordinary feats described in the bible would be a start.

 

[humber]

So, my question to the folks who seem to dislike religious beliefs...what specific religious beliefs bother you the most and how are they harmful? I'm not looking for lists of bad things done by religious people, mind you, but particular beliefs that end up causing harm.

Yes, the list of religious malfeasance would be too long.

Dislikes:
1. Raises humans to a self-serving level of self-importance.
2. Denial and disregard for the present, in favour of an afterlife.
3. Can be used as a just cause to incite violence or anything else.
4. Innate evolved tendencies (e.g. good Samaritan) are devalued against an arbitrary level of expectation, as defined by religious leaders or texts.
5. Answers nothing.

 

[humber]

Obviously, believers need to believe that the "universe" [or god] has some place for them and that they aren't just accidents of history. In order to make themselves more comfortable they must imagine this god to have anthropomorphic qualities so that it isn't completely alien to them and their human concerns. I would wager that such belief systems are vital the psychological [and incidentally the immunological/bodily] health of most theists. To use a very abstract metaphor, religions could be thought of as atmospheres to shelter a person(s) from the void of conceptual space. All people must have a conceptual paradigm -- or medium -- in which they place the context of their thoughts and ethical systems and some people seem to have a stronger natural need for some kind of theistic framework.

Agreed, Articullet and others have made similar points.
It is difficult for our jumped-up monkey brains to handle the implications of our existence. Creatures without a developed sense of self, would not have these problems. God does not exist for them, and we differ from them only by our thought processes.

Divination system with no paranormal claims <> Prophecy..
I know of very few people who use divination systems ....

Not now, perhaps. Like a lot religious ideas, many are currently unfashionable. There are countless religions whose members you do not know, and include ideas unknown to you. Their ideas for first cause are as valid as of any other religion.
[/QUOTE]

An argument can be rational and internally consistent while being based on a false premise.

Example, "If a god exists, he's made himself impossible to detect or measure or know about."

a.k.a The Argument from Homeopathy. ( internal inconsistency is a feature)

None of the judeo-christian religions claim to be able to fully understand God.....

This god could be anything from an intelligence beyond what we can imagine to a completely random occurrence stemming from another universe (that sounds weird, but remember, the first cause couldn't have been in this universe...it had to be in something else).
The "no god" position that acknowledges a first cause but claims that whatever this cause was, it wasn't the result of an intelligence or intention in this other universe.

So, the operational difference is that the "no god" position makes an additional assumption...for, from what I can see, no good reason other than faith.

..or a giant Smurf....
Fewer assumptions, surely? First cause for the "no god" position is "stuff happens". Atoms have gotta to be somewhere. If they weren't busy being you, they would likely be doing something else equally improbable.

Oh and to briefly explain - my crisis of non-faith was the realization that I did not actually know there was not a god, & did not have anyway to test that hypothesis. So I began to have doubts about if one might exist after all somewhere, somehow...

You were right. Same goes for knowing there is a god.
Crisis? That's a giveaway. Ontological hunger is always behind believers' arguments.

hey, that's why I said species to species! Ya know, what Creationsists call "macro-evolution"!

I noted that, but speciation is not in principle necessary to evolution. It can be seen to work, taxonomy or not. No creator required, either now, or at first cause.

Yes indeedy. The biological diversity of life on Earth can indeed be seen as staggeringly unlikely - however it can arise in a series of tiny steps, as described in Dawkin's Climbing Mount Improbable. I understand probability. Where the problem lies here is that we don't have many iterations of universes, there is no time for evolution of universes, the whole Big Bang thing then sets us a ridicolous enigma. Our usual arguments against teleology simply fail. Either we have a multiverse, so yes we do have scope for our universe to arise by chance, or something is dodgy - as Hoyle remarks "the universe looks like a put up job." Cosmologists Paul Davies or Bernard Carr explain this issue well, and I think it was Carr who memorably says it's "multiverse or God" - and I think he would go for multiverse - but Davies offers more potential solutions. I think the Skeptic magazine article I linked is pretty excellent.

Lack of time since the formation of the Earth, was used to deny evolution. Now that battle is lost, the front line has moved to the universe itself.

So they say. I am familiar with the Anthropic Principle. Paul Davies invites us to join him in his beliefs, for that is what they are. He knows he is on shaky ground, which is why he is so 'reasonable'

I can't find the quote, but in one of Davies' books he writes (I paraphrase) "We are more than just a bag of chemicals".
There it is again; "just". The signature of ontological hunger.

If you think you can possibly begin to think that you can imagine the timescale of the universe, and then assign probability to events within it - that's hubris.
Probability confounds even experts. The comparatively simple Monty Hall (see wiki) problem fools laymen and experts alike, even Paul Erdos.
[/QUOTE]

That's where we differ. I don't think I deny reality any more than any other human.

I can't speak for you, but I think that religion in general promotes such denial.
We differ in at least one thing. I am not looking for an explanation for my existence. Evolution has already explained it too me. Realising there is no god does not engender fear, hopelessness, loss of purpose or crisis. Religion and morals are conflated for convenience.

 

[cj.23]

Hey humber!

We differ in at least one thing. I am not looking for an explanation for my existence. Evolution has already explained it too me. Realising there is no god does not engender fear, hopelessness, loss of purpose or crisis. Religion and morals are conflated for convenience.

I don't think morality is based on religion - I'm with Sartre on that, and I certainly agree "realising there is no god does not engender fear, hopelessness, loss of purpose or crisis" - I certainly did not feel any of those things in my atheist years, well not in the sense meant here. I don't think evolution has any teleological or explanatory power outside of biology, it's just the mechanism by which the diversity of life on Earth arose, so we do disagree there. And i'm not at all sure i am looking for a purpose - I always had a pretty strong sense of who I was and what I wanted, and i don't think that had anything to do with my conversion to theism.

Still, I may be atypical of theists, but I don't know many so hard to tell.
cj x

 

[cj.23]

You were right. Same goes for knowing there is a god.
Crisis? That's a giveaway. Ontological hunger is always behind believers' arguments.

Ah! I see why you thought that now. Actually it was a joke on "crisis of faith". I don't feel any ontological hunger as far as I'm aware.

I noted that, but speciation is not in principle necessary to evolution. It can be seen to work, taxonomy or not. No creator required, either now, or at first cause.

Yes, I have since discovered it has been empirically observed (the talk-origins FAQ). It was initially of course however a rational deduction, not an empirical observation, though founded on Darwin's empirical research.

Lack of time since the formation of the Earth, was used to deny evolution. Now that battle is lost, the front line has moved to the universe itself.

Perhaps so. That in no way effects the truth or otherwise of the Cosmogeny though.

So they say. I am familiar with the Anthropic Principle.

So am I, both SAP, WAP and MSAP. As indeed are the cosmogenists who raised these issues. We can have a discussion on it if you want.

Paul Davies invites us to join him in his beliefs, for that is what they are. He knows he is on shaky ground, which is why he is so 'reasonable'

What beliefs though? He is not really on shaky ground as far as i can work out in my conversations with British cosmogenists - he is on extremely sound ground as far as his cosmogeny goes, and in fact in the Goldilocks Enigma avoids any kind of conclusion as i recall, offering 5 possibilities, and favouring two (neither theistic).

I can't find the quote, but in one of Davies' books he writes (I paraphrase) "We are more than just a bag of chemicals".
There it is again; "just". The signature of ontological hunger.

He is completely correct, both literally, and in terms of avoiding the error of ontological reductionism. A system is not necessarily equal to the sum of its parts as I'm sure you know - synergy can be demonstrated mathematically.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Ontological_reductionism

If you think you can possibly begin to think that you can imagine the timescale of the universe, and then assign probability to events within it - that's hubris.

Why? I'm not remotely trying to imagine it, I'm interested in the mathematics. There are many things i can't visualize of, like Evolutionary Development over vast epochs of time, but which I can fully rationally comprehend. I can't intuitively grasp QM, but I can rationally comprehend it. This sounds like an argument from incredulity.

Probability confounds even experts. The comparatively simple Monty Hall (see wiki) problem fools laymen and experts alike, even Paul Erdos.

Which door has the prize behind, and does changing your choice help? Yes I know it, and yes it's counter intuitive, but it's not irrational. Again, this seems to be an argument from incredulity. The fact that our understanding of probability is flawed, as I recall Susan Blackmore once demonstrating to me with "a how many people need to be in the room before two share a birthday?" question. Most people got it wrong, but by working through the math I avoided that. And there is the trick - there is a world of difference between an intuitive feel, and a rational evaluation like that of the cosmogenists on this issue. They are not making numbers up.

You appear to be denying the issue, but there is a real issue there, however uncomfortable that is.

cj x

 

[Tricky]

None of the judeo-christian religions claim to be able to fully understand God. I think some of the "eastern" religions do believe full knowledge is fully achievable. But still, a god with few known characteristics isn't that uncommon.

Exactly. That is why the position that "God is unknowable" is, if taken at face value, useless for saying anything about God. Most religions assert that there are some knowable things about Him, even if it is as basic as saying "God is good". I would submit that even such a vague statement is, if proper effort were made, a testable claim. First you would define what "good" meant, then identify some actions that were attributed to God and evaluate them for whether or not they fit the definition of "good" as defined previously.

But a God that is indistinguishable from nature is not "good" or "bad". It is nothing that can be distinguished. This is the difficult part of trying to discuss God with theists. Too often, they won't give precise meanings of what they mean by "God", so we never know if we're talking about the same thing. That is the reason so many atheists must go back to the Bible to ascertain the characteristics of the Christian God. It is the only referential point that is accepted by all Christians. And even then, many don't accept all of it. So you can see the problem.

The view I am talking about does take that further and says that the only thing we can know about god is that it was the cause of the universe. This god could be anything from an intelligence beyond what we can imagine to a completely random occurrence stemming from another universe (that sounds weird, but remember, the first cause couldn't have been in this universe...it had to be in something else).

If that's the case, then I don't see what you gain by calling this thing "God". In fact, it is probably a bad idea to do so, because for almost all theists, God is a conscious entity. To propose one which is arguably not conscious is just going to lead to more misunderstanding and confusion. Call it "first cause" and you won't have so much of a problem.

More arguments are the result of semantics than anything else.

The "no god" position that acknowledges a first cause but claims that whatever this cause was, it wasn't the result of an intelligence or intention in this other universe.

For most of us, the "no god" position says first cause is unknown. That means that no statement can be made as to its intelligence or source. Lacking that information, there is no need to assume an intelligence, since only biologic organisms have ever been shown to possess what could reasonably be defined as "intelligence". There is no need to assume a source outside this universe, since there is no evidence for anything outside this universe. In short, the "no god" position makes no claims whatsoever about the nature of the "first cause". This is much different from saying "The first cause has no intelligence or intention."

We don't know, so we make no claims. Contrast to theists who also don't know, but do make claims.

So, the operational difference is that the "no god" position makes an additional assumption...for, from what I can see, no good reason other than faith.

This is a common mistake. The "no god" position is not a positive claim. It is a withholding of any claim. (Technically, the position is not "no god" but "no evidence for god".) If you spend much time on these boards, you will see that point emphasized over and over again. The term "straw man" will probably be thrown out when one persists in telling atheists what they believe, so I'd advise against it.

 

[cj.23]

1. Are you making the statement that without religion we wouldn't have known these things?

Absolutely not.

2. Whilst he seems to have a couple of good ideas, I would assume that he (like everyone else of his time), thought the world was flat.

Nope, he was writing in 400CE, when the idea the world was a globe was well established (it was the normal belief in Medieval Europe - the idea that the medievals thought the Earth was flat is an Enlightenment myth). From his book, The City of God

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.9.html

Augustine did not doubt at all the world was round - he just did not believe people could possibly stand on the bottom (probably cos he thought they would fall off?!! Actually his problem with the idea was the then current belief that as one approached the Equator the proximity of the sun mad eit so hot the oceans would boil, an it would be impossible for anyone to get past that barrier to populate the area as I recall. As he believed all humanity was descended from a single ancestor, he saw no way to reconcile the problem!)

3. Whose to say he is not. This is just one man's opinion and one that you seem to agree with. Might even speak a great deal of sense, doesn't make it any more worthwhile than someone else. Now if he wrote a book full of facts and not just philosophical arguments, that would be different.

OK, true enough but I'd read his work first. I'm surprised to learn that anyone on the JREF would consider the founder of CSI(COP) as an idiot though.

cj x