Irony
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 934
Further evidence: you're sorry "I feel that way", but show not the slightest sign of reevaluating your words and considering why they would give someone such an impression.
What actually do JREF religious believers believe?
- Thread starter Soapy Sam
- Start date
Further evidence: you're sorry "I feel that way", but show not the slightest sign of reevaluating your words and considering why they would give someone such an impression.
Minarvia
fading orb
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,224
I'm so glad you posted this. I was seriously considering starting a thread in the Community Section about how to end my apparent idiocy. I know realise that what you said is exactly why I interpreted the post as being terrible.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Based on your posts in this thread, you come across as someone who believes in God and eternal damnation.
How you then apparently joke about your being consoled that another poster will suffer for all eternity (as nonsensical as that is) is anything but lighthearted.
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
That's the point. If you think that agnostics are right because there is a possibility that a god exists, then you must also be a Harry Potter agnostic, that is you must believe there is a possibility that Harry Potter exists, too.
It hinges on why one can't be sure about those types of things and for the same reason that you can't be sure about a god, you can't be sure about Harry, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, elves, flying pink elephants, etc.
Every positive claim requires evidence or it is just an assertion. Saying "there is a god" requires evidence that there is. Saying "there could be a god" requires evidence that there could be. There isn't evidence to support either claim, they are both mere assertions.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, I'll grant a "could be" even without evidence, personally, but that's because it doesn't really mean anything and is the default position for anything unsupported. I'm quite open minded that there could be an invisible gnome in my fridge who turns the light back on when I close the door, if evidence of that were presented, but before that, "could be" without evidence is pretty much equivalent to "could be, but it isn't."
Heck, the weird city of R'lyeh where great Cthulhu lies dreaming "could be." There was a recent paper by an actual scientist showing that the weird geometry and shifting perspectives and even "that is not dead which can eternal lie", can be explained by a bubble of warped space-time. And in fact even the timeline given in the Call of Cthulhu makes more sense if the sailors experienced some extreme time dilation in their very short time (from their perspective) inside that warp bubble around R'lyeh. In fact it's arguably too consistently explained by GR to be just some random ramblings of a layman. And that actually anyone who can create such a stable warp bubble, could actually use it for interstellar travel (and a few other things) which is consistent with the description of the Great Old Ones being space travellers.
Fascinating paper, really, and well worth a read.
So, yeah, it "could be." Doesn't mean you should take it as more than "but it isn't" anyway.
(Now when we finally awake the Great Old One, THEN you can start taking him seriously
)
Heck, the weird city of R'lyeh where great Cthulhu lies dreaming "could be." There was a recent paper by an actual scientist showing that the weird geometry and shifting perspectives and even "that is not dead which can eternal lie", can be explained by a bubble of warped space-time. And in fact even the timeline given in the Call of Cthulhu makes more sense if the sailors experienced some extreme time dilation in their very short time (from their perspective) inside that warp bubble around R'lyeh. In fact it's arguably too consistently explained by GR to be just some random ramblings of a layman. And that actually anyone who can create such a stable warp bubble, could actually use it for interstellar travel (and a few other things) which is consistent with the description of the Great Old Ones being space travellers.
Fascinating paper, really, and well worth a read.
So, yeah, it "could be." Doesn't mean you should take it as more than "but it isn't" anyway.
(Now when we finally awake the Great Old One, THEN you can start taking him seriously
)
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, it's not just that, but it is something said in all earnest by theists every day. There are people calling atheist TV shows to say something like that, or sending emails to Dawkins or Hitchens (well, while he was alive) to gloat about just that.
Plus you can find no shortage of even theologians holding it that part of the entertainment in heavens will be to watch the other guys burn in hell. At least one (Samuel Hopkins) going as far as to say that if God stopped torturing those guys in hell, THAT would ruin a lot of the fun of being in heavens. And we're not talking just "back then", but it was no farther back than the 1960's that a pamphlet from the Catholic Truth Society proclaimed that a mother seeing her sinner kid burn in hell will just glorify the justice of God for that.
So, you know, a theist spewing one of the more or less standard nonsense responses seen when a theist can't support their argument... there is not much reason to assume that they were being sarcastic just this time. Sorta like if one were to see a skinhead doing a "sieg heil", there wouldn't be all that much reason to assume that he's just taking the piss.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,033
I thought it was fairly obvious that by 'greater good' I was referring to the human species alone. This is a pure evolutionary survival thing - increase the chances of survival / better conditions etc of the human species as a whole and you increase the chances of survival / better conditions etc for you and your progeny. Hence the gathering together into tribes for protection etc. That does not contradict the fact that the universe doesn't give a toss - we are an extremely minor blip both timescale wise and geographically wrt the universe.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
I wouldn't even go as grandiose as the whole human species. Make a difference for one community or even for one person, and you've done something of value for them.
I may have mentioned before that as a kid I had an accident and went straight into circulatory shock. Or at least I was there when the ambulance came. They got called by a neighbour who, frankly, had no obligation to do that, if all your actions have to be measured by their cosmic-scale value. (Or if you listen to some libertarian apologetics.) There was no cosmic-scale good to be achieved there, no turning point for the whole human species, etc.
Does the universe give a flip? No. Does God give a flip about a dying child? Judging by his track record about not even caring about kids with brain cancer or kids dying in a fire, I'd say there is no reason to assume he'd care about my being about to die rather comfortably from circulatory shock. Will the whole human species remember that in a thousand years? Well, no.
But it still made a difference for ME. I'd be dead and buried decades ago otherwise. It made a huge difference in my world views too, because that was enlightened self-interest working right there. It made a difference for my parents, for grandma, etc.
I don't see any reason why I wouldn't find a real value in that act. For myself. I don't need God's or the universe's seal of approval to value it. I don't see why would I need God's or the universe's seal of approval.
My being alive is worth something TO ME. And presumably to my relatives, friends and so on, too.
As I may have mentioned before, I really can't imagine what kind of lack of self-respect would I need to consider my life, or that act, as worthless unless it pleases some imaginary friend in the sky. Why would I judge my life or that act as effectively worth nothing, except ìn how much it pleases some imaginary dictator? What kind of lack of self-worth would I need to effectively say that the only thing that matters is how much I please that guy over there, and what he thinks of me? Regardless if that's a real guy or an imaginary one.
It sounds to me more like the position of a totally abused spouse, whose spirit has been totally crushed. That's what God does to people.
I may have mentioned before that as a kid I had an accident and went straight into circulatory shock. Or at least I was there when the ambulance came. They got called by a neighbour who, frankly, had no obligation to do that, if all your actions have to be measured by their cosmic-scale value. (Or if you listen to some libertarian apologetics.) There was no cosmic-scale good to be achieved there, no turning point for the whole human species, etc.
Does the universe give a flip? No. Does God give a flip about a dying child? Judging by his track record about not even caring about kids with brain cancer or kids dying in a fire, I'd say there is no reason to assume he'd care about my being about to die rather comfortably from circulatory shock. Will the whole human species remember that in a thousand years? Well, no.
But it still made a difference for ME. I'd be dead and buried decades ago otherwise. It made a huge difference in my world views too, because that was enlightened self-interest working right there. It made a difference for my parents, for grandma, etc.
I don't see any reason why I wouldn't find a real value in that act. For myself. I don't need God's or the universe's seal of approval to value it. I don't see why would I need God's or the universe's seal of approval.
My being alive is worth something TO ME. And presumably to my relatives, friends and so on, too.
As I may have mentioned before, I really can't imagine what kind of lack of self-respect would I need to consider my life, or that act, as worthless unless it pleases some imaginary friend in the sky. Why would I judge my life or that act as effectively worth nothing, except ìn how much it pleases some imaginary dictator? What kind of lack of self-worth would I need to effectively say that the only thing that matters is how much I please that guy over there, and what he thinks of me? Regardless if that's a real guy or an imaginary one.
It sounds to me more like the position of a totally abused spouse, whose spirit has been totally crushed. That's what God does to people.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
In fact, heck, check God against any of the lists of signs that you're in an abusive relationship. Jesus loves you, except
- he's putting you down, and bonus points if you actually start believing that you've got no worth except in as much as you're pleasing him
- he's belittling your achievements and your role in them. The RCC still has pride as the deadliest sin, and it includes ANY crediting yourself, even as little as "I prayed to God more", instead of treating it as a random gift from God.
- he puts you down and makes you feel stupid. No, really, the whole arguments about how infinitely smarter he is than you, and conversely how much of an intellectual zero you are next to him.
- he blames you for any abusive behaviour. No, really, I'm supposed to believe that even babies killed in a tsunami deserved it, and God wouldn't have to do that violence if they weren't such bad persons.
Again, bonus points if you've actually begun to believe that you're an inherently bad person who deserves to be punished and mistreated.
- you find that you've been broken to the level where you HAVE to make up excuses for his bad behaviour, no matter what he's done
- he treats you as an object or property, not as a real person with feelings and an own intelligence. You'll do what he says, or else.
- you're effectively his servant.
Bonus points if you've actually begun to think everything you do must be with him, or with his approval.
- there are rigid roles in that relationship. He's master, you're slave. There are no circumstances under which you can feel entitled that he does something for you too, for a change.
- he's stalking you all the time and constantly checking up on you. (This is actually one behaviour that's a sign you need to RUN, not just walk away, in a real relationship.)
- he has a history of being violent and often homicidal to previous people he supposedly loves lots. (Again, if this happens in a real relationship, RUN, don't walk.)
- he has sudden mood swings, going from loving to angry vengeful monster at the least provocation or excuse. Read the OT.
- there are threats of violence against you. See, Hell. (Again, this is one of those 'RUN, don't walk' things in a real relationship.)
- there is an inordinate hypersensitivity, and he feels insulted or enraged by even the most mundane and normal things. See, for example, the 7 deadly sins. Jesus ain't talking to you no mo' and WILL fry you unless some priest puts in a good word for you (that's what makes them deadly sins) if you just have normal human thoughts or urges.
- he has utterly unrealistic expectations of you, and holds you responsible if you fail to meet that impossible standard. See above, you're not even supposed to have a normal human brain, with the normal needs from Maslow's pyramid. Also see real women contrasted with the impossible standard of Mary, and in fact being told up front that they can't even think of measuring up to that standard.
- he is abnormally and insanely jealous. And, hey, God even says so himself.
- he tries to control you by (direct or indirect) threats or even actual violence against your children. See all the dead babies explained as God's punishment for their parents' sins.
Etc.
But really, WTH... Far from thinking I'm the one with a problem if I find my worth without needing the approval of such an abusive partner, it seems to me like the ones with a problem are those who actually need to be validated by such an abusive partner.
ETA: And such apologetics where the standard is so high that the only way for anything you do to be worth anything without God's approval, is for it to be significant at whole universe scales, are just propagating the emotional bullying. THAT kind of it being flat out impossible for you to measure up to anything, outside of the abusive partner's approval, is exactly what such abusive relationships are about. That's apologetics for being Jesus's battered wife.
- he's putting you down, and bonus points if you actually start believing that you've got no worth except in as much as you're pleasing him
- he's belittling your achievements and your role in them. The RCC still has pride as the deadliest sin, and it includes ANY crediting yourself, even as little as "I prayed to God more", instead of treating it as a random gift from God.
- he puts you down and makes you feel stupid. No, really, the whole arguments about how infinitely smarter he is than you, and conversely how much of an intellectual zero you are next to him.
- he blames you for any abusive behaviour. No, really, I'm supposed to believe that even babies killed in a tsunami deserved it, and God wouldn't have to do that violence if they weren't such bad persons.
Again, bonus points if you've actually begun to believe that you're an inherently bad person who deserves to be punished and mistreated.
- you find that you've been broken to the level where you HAVE to make up excuses for his bad behaviour, no matter what he's done
- he treats you as an object or property, not as a real person with feelings and an own intelligence. You'll do what he says, or else.
- you're effectively his servant.
Bonus points if you've actually begun to think everything you do must be with him, or with his approval.
- there are rigid roles in that relationship. He's master, you're slave. There are no circumstances under which you can feel entitled that he does something for you too, for a change.
- he's stalking you all the time and constantly checking up on you. (This is actually one behaviour that's a sign you need to RUN, not just walk away, in a real relationship.)
- he has a history of being violent and often homicidal to previous people he supposedly loves lots. (Again, if this happens in a real relationship, RUN, don't walk.)
- he has sudden mood swings, going from loving to angry vengeful monster at the least provocation or excuse. Read the OT.
- there are threats of violence against you. See, Hell. (Again, this is one of those 'RUN, don't walk' things in a real relationship.)
- there is an inordinate hypersensitivity, and he feels insulted or enraged by even the most mundane and normal things. See, for example, the 7 deadly sins. Jesus ain't talking to you no mo' and WILL fry you unless some priest puts in a good word for you (that's what makes them deadly sins) if you just have normal human thoughts or urges.
- he has utterly unrealistic expectations of you, and holds you responsible if you fail to meet that impossible standard. See above, you're not even supposed to have a normal human brain, with the normal needs from Maslow's pyramid. Also see real women contrasted with the impossible standard of Mary, and in fact being told up front that they can't even think of measuring up to that standard.
- he is abnormally and insanely jealous. And, hey, God even says so himself.
- he tries to control you by (direct or indirect) threats or even actual violence against your children. See all the dead babies explained as God's punishment for their parents' sins.
Etc.
But really, WTH... Far from thinking I'm the one with a problem if I find my worth without needing the approval of such an abusive partner, it seems to me like the ones with a problem are those who actually need to be validated by such an abusive partner.
ETA: And such apologetics where the standard is so high that the only way for anything you do to be worth anything without God's approval, is for it to be significant at whole universe scales, are just propagating the emotional bullying. THAT kind of it being flat out impossible for you to measure up to anything, outside of the abusive partner's approval, is exactly what such abusive relationships are about. That's apologetics for being Jesus's battered wife.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
qayak
No. The age-adjusted volume of evidence against the existence of Harry Potter is roughly as massive as the evidence against Santa Claus, starting with voluntary confessions from the perps. Mrs Rowling in particular has been subjected to the comfy chair of Monty Python fame. Her confessions, then, are most persuasively voluntary disclosures.
Differentiated and even graduated possibility have already been invented. That I acknowledge the possibility of some proposition, the syntactically verifiable circumstance that it is not necessarily false, says literally nothing at all about my beliefs about its contingent truth or falsehood. Harry Potter and company are easily relegated to the "not seriously possble" category, which was so usefully proposed by Isaac Levi.
Although there are many definitions of an agnostic, presumably something they all describe is someone for whom both "Some god exists" and "No god exists" are serious possibilities in Levi's sense. That much might be true for many theists and atheists, too. It really is a gentle assumption about agnosticism.
It must be reasonably obvious, then, that a religious-sense agnostic need not be a children's-story-sense agnostic. Then, again, that was breathtakingly obvious anyway.
Your further point has more traction. Agnostics can't be right about the question of God. There is or else there is not, and they profess neither. If they are right about anything, then the more Huxleyan varieties commit to characterizations of the evidence and argument bearing on the ontological question of God. So, it is possible that they are right that the quality, in either direction, is underwhelming. Personally, I rate that as seriously possible, and then some.
No. The age-adjusted volume of evidence against the existence of Harry Potter is roughly as massive as the evidence against Santa Claus, starting with voluntary confessions from the perps. Mrs Rowling in particular has been subjected to the comfy chair of Monty Python fame. Her confessions, then, are most persuasively voluntary disclosures.
Differentiated and even graduated possibility have already been invented. That I acknowledge the possibility of some proposition, the syntactically verifiable circumstance that it is not necessarily false, says literally nothing at all about my beliefs about its contingent truth or falsehood. Harry Potter and company are easily relegated to the "not seriously possble" category, which was so usefully proposed by Isaac Levi.
Although there are many definitions of an agnostic, presumably something they all describe is someone for whom both "Some god exists" and "No god exists" are serious possibilities in Levi's sense. That much might be true for many theists and atheists, too. It really is a gentle assumption about agnosticism.
It must be reasonably obvious, then, that a religious-sense agnostic need not be a children's-story-sense agnostic. Then, again, that was breathtakingly obvious anyway.
Your further point has more traction. Agnostics can't be right about the question of God. There is or else there is not, and they profess neither. If they are right about anything, then the more Huxleyan varieties commit to characterizations of the evidence and argument bearing on the ontological question of God. So, it is possible that they are right that the quality, in either direction, is underwhelming. Personally, I rate that as seriously possible, and then some.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
I dunno... if one can read through the giant conspiracy theory that is Mark, a text which needs to end each event with some form of, basically, "but the Jews are keeping it a secret", and still come out the other end believing that it all happened, I'm sure that Harry Potter would be no bigger a problem. In one case one has to believe that a LOT of Jews are lying to keep a secret, while in the latter we just need to believe that one person, Rowling, is lying about it. Perhaps to not disclose to the muggles her own magical education at Hogwarts 
Between needing lots of people in a conspiracy to suppress and deny evidence of Jesus, and needing one person to lie, I'd actually say that believing in Harry Potter makes more sense.
ETA: but fine, if that's the big stumbling block, we do have anonymous stories, some dating all the way back to ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. We don't know who wrote those, and have no confession from the authors either way. Should I then keep an open mind for the idea that princesses can sleep for centuries, like Cthulhu, without needing food or water or anything? That magical crocodile statuettes can turn into a real crocodile and eat a cheating spouse? (There actually is a story from Ancient Egypt along those lines.) That witches lived in candy houses in the woods and ate children?
Between needing lots of people in a conspiracy to suppress and deny evidence of Jesus, and needing one person to lie, I'd actually say that believing in Harry Potter makes more sense.
ETA: but fine, if that's the big stumbling block, we do have anonymous stories, some dating all the way back to ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. We don't know who wrote those, and have no confession from the authors either way. Should I then keep an open mind for the idea that princesses can sleep for centuries, like Cthulhu, without needing food or water or anything? That magical crocodile statuettes can turn into a real crocodile and eat a cheating spouse? (There actually is a story from Ancient Egypt along those lines.) That witches lived in candy houses in the woods and ate children?
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Which god myth do you think does not have a "volume of evidence against the existence" of said god?
Is it that you don't have a confession of the 'perp'?
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2012
- Messages
- 745
Hi there!
I share the interest of the OP, largely because the more critical thinking I learnt and applied, the less I believed in the religion I'd been brought up in. It's not much use trying to explain exactly where I am right now, because that keeps changing, hence my blog, but since I got over the "4 hump" in the middle of Dawkins' scale, I've been coasting down the hill ever closer to 7 without no real effort.
Speaking for myself, and not intending my experience to be taken as normative in any way, I found that religion was very difficult to let go of. There are so many cognitive biases and tricks that can be deployed to create or maintain belief, and once you're in, you pretty much do it yourself, because a threat to your beliefs becomes a threat to your identity, self-worth and relationships with friends and family. Looking back, I think the fatal blow for me was dealt 13 or 14 years before I left the church, but I did everything I could (generally not consciously) to battle that, because I didn't want it to be untrue, and in Christian circles, doubt was generally treated with pity or even scorn. As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Religion is chock-full of clever ways of not answering questions in "deep" ways, which also helps to convince you that you're clever and anyone asking difficult questions doesn't really understand - look at how often Dawkins is vilified or described as ignorant because he asks those questions. If you accept the reasoning, it becomes really quite easy to defend those beliefs. Take transubstantiation, for example - objections can be deflected by claims that only the substance changes, not the material, or in the last resort that God wouldn't allow himself to be tested. It's easy to feel that your beliefs make sense if you can dismiss arguments like this, but in reality the offence against critical thinking is the "arguments" you cling to like a liferaft because they help you to win the argument. It's argumentum ad Sagan's Dragon.
The best way of changing your beliefs is not to know the "right" answer, and to think about it for yourself. I think my beliefs were shaken when I was asked why God doesn't heal amputees, but completely holed below the waterline when I discovered how laughably weak the historical evidence for Jesus is, and how long it was before any gospel accounts were circulating. Around that time, I was humiliatingly taken in by the blatantly obvious NASA/Joshua hoax. I was so embarrassed at my gullibility that I think that incident was a huge factor in me taking an interest in critical thinking and eventually deconverting.
Despite that, I tried all sorts of things to hold onto what there was of my faith, and for a while, I was even keener than before. I tried focusing on how the church had come into being - it clearly did, so something huge must have happened to convince them that it was true. When that started to crumble, I went in for experiential Charismatic beliefs, trying to find another basis for my existing beliefs. I tried on different understandings or interpretations, adopting the label Christian Agnostic (which was more or less code for "I'd like it to be true, but if I'm honest I don't think it is") and finally a sort of weak culturally Christian form of Deism. Each time, I was eventually forced to concede and change my belief. Even then, it took a proper reason (same-sex marriage) to force me into leaving the church, rather than just sticking around and not causing a fuss.
I share the interest of the OP, largely because the more critical thinking I learnt and applied, the less I believed in the religion I'd been brought up in. It's not much use trying to explain exactly where I am right now, because that keeps changing, hence my blog, but since I got over the "4 hump" in the middle of Dawkins' scale, I've been coasting down the hill ever closer to 7 without no real effort.
Speaking for myself, and not intending my experience to be taken as normative in any way, I found that religion was very difficult to let go of. There are so many cognitive biases and tricks that can be deployed to create or maintain belief, and once you're in, you pretty much do it yourself, because a threat to your beliefs becomes a threat to your identity, self-worth and relationships with friends and family. Looking back, I think the fatal blow for me was dealt 13 or 14 years before I left the church, but I did everything I could (generally not consciously) to battle that, because I didn't want it to be untrue, and in Christian circles, doubt was generally treated with pity or even scorn. As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Religion is chock-full of clever ways of not answering questions in "deep" ways, which also helps to convince you that you're clever and anyone asking difficult questions doesn't really understand - look at how often Dawkins is vilified or described as ignorant because he asks those questions. If you accept the reasoning, it becomes really quite easy to defend those beliefs. Take transubstantiation, for example - objections can be deflected by claims that only the substance changes, not the material, or in the last resort that God wouldn't allow himself to be tested. It's easy to feel that your beliefs make sense if you can dismiss arguments like this, but in reality the offence against critical thinking is the "arguments" you cling to like a liferaft because they help you to win the argument. It's argumentum ad Sagan's Dragon.
The best way of changing your beliefs is not to know the "right" answer, and to think about it for yourself. I think my beliefs were shaken when I was asked why God doesn't heal amputees, but completely holed below the waterline when I discovered how laughably weak the historical evidence for Jesus is, and how long it was before any gospel accounts were circulating. Around that time, I was humiliatingly taken in by the blatantly obvious NASA/Joshua hoax. I was so embarrassed at my gullibility that I think that incident was a huge factor in me taking an interest in critical thinking and eventually deconverting.
Despite that, I tried all sorts of things to hold onto what there was of my faith, and for a while, I was even keener than before. I tried focusing on how the church had come into being - it clearly did, so something huge must have happened to convince them that it was true. When that started to crumble, I went in for experiential Charismatic beliefs, trying to find another basis for my existing beliefs. I tried on different understandings or interpretations, adopting the label Christian Agnostic (which was more or less code for "I'd like it to be true, but if I'm honest I don't think it is") and finally a sort of weak culturally Christian form of Deism. Each time, I was eventually forced to concede and change my belief. Even then, it took a proper reason (same-sex marriage) to force me into leaving the church, rather than just sticking around and not causing a fuss.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
This simply isn't true. We've had this discussion before and I'll stop now as I don't have time to go though it with you again. IMO, what you are claiming is like saying there's no evidence for alien abductions. You are excluding all anecdotal evidence and personal testimony as being 'evidence'. That the existing evidence is not sufficient to convince you the stories are true is not the same as there being no evidence whatsoever.
My point is that even if fiction does best explains the available evidence, that would not imply that no gods exist. Just as the fact that other, better, explanations exist for people's alien-abduction stories does not allow me to go further and conclude that therefore life does not exist elsewhere in the universe, concluding that religious books are fiction does not allow me to then go further and conclude that no gods exist. I consider it an extrapolation without sufficient justification.
Actually, some rocks are important and it matters to humans what happens to then. Diamonds for one instance, continents for another.
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
With our modern technology, there should be solid... at least not solely anecdotal.. evidence of alien visitations.. discarded space ship parts, disposed food remnants, unusual pregnancies with odd creatures coming out.. 
A lot more than for anything in the field of religion, which is 100% anecdote, and all of those are brain farts.
A lot more than for anything in the field of religion, which is 100% anecdote, and all of those are brain farts.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
This simply isn't true. We've had this discussion before and I'll stop now as I don't have time to go though it with you again. IMO, what you are claiming is like saying there's no evidence for alien abductions.
Why don't the aliens ever give documentary evidence to the abductees?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
They never respect them in the morning.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Most skeptics do not accept "I feel God exists" as evidence of gods existing.
Your analogy fails because there is evidence life exists in the Universe: us.
[clarification] I have no reason to believe any alien abduction to date actually occurred, so if all you are talking about is an abduction, then I have no problem saying the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion aliens have not visited Earth. As for ETs existing, that's another question. [/clarification]
With god myths there is only evidence of myths. There is nothing left to form an alternative hypothesis from.
I'll agree to disagree with you about the "I feel it" evidence.
The bottom line, if it looks like a duck, it's time to call it a duck.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Ginger
No. Myths are not typically ontological claims about their casts of characters, whether gods or otherwise. The story itself isn't typically offered as a truth claim, either. There's nothing about myths which the perp needs to confess. If the myths happen to be believed anyway (for example, Daniel), then the author is the wrong person to ask about what happened.
However, if I had the confession of a perp, then it would be sufficient to decide most questions. As it happens, I do for Potter and Santa. For Odysseus and Circe, I don't. No matter, I can resolve those cases prioristically, as I could have with Potter and Santa had I wished.
I believe you and I have already discussed at length our opinions about how much or little evidence bears on supernatural ontological questions. We didn't reach a satisfactory resolution. Fortunately, reopening that discussion wouldn't plausibly cast any light on qayak's remark about some supposed incompatibility of agnosticism in supernatural questions with a confident categorical disbelief in characters whose very point is that they are make-believe.
Best, then, to file this under "already asked and answered," since it has been.
No. Myths are not typically ontological claims about their casts of characters, whether gods or otherwise. The story itself isn't typically offered as a truth claim, either. There's nothing about myths which the perp needs to confess. If the myths happen to be believed anyway (for example, Daniel), then the author is the wrong person to ask about what happened.
However, if I had the confession of a perp, then it would be sufficient to decide most questions. As it happens, I do for Potter and Santa. For Odysseus and Circe, I don't. No matter, I can resolve those cases prioristically, as I could have with Potter and Santa had I wished.
I believe you and I have already discussed at length our opinions about how much or little evidence bears on supernatural ontological questions. We didn't reach a satisfactory resolution. Fortunately, reopening that discussion wouldn't plausibly cast any light on qayak's remark about some supposed incompatibility of agnosticism in supernatural questions with a confident categorical disbelief in characters whose very point is that they are make-believe.
Best, then, to file this under "already asked and answered," since it has been.
Last edited: