Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

The philosophy is a little beyond my understanding, so I'll briefly ignore it.

 

Question though - why is the Biblical portrayal of this 'God' character so human-like - i.e. with so much emotion?

[Omar]

Which biblical portrayal of God? A text whose author is no longer present to explain it is subject to to interpretation, and as such to inevitable misrepresentation. While, if a God exists, he only has certain properties and not their opposite, centuries of copy and translation have rendered the text corrupt and highly unlikely to be significant of what God truly wants. As such, no conception of Abrahamic religions is known to be false: Spinoza's pantheism was born from exegesis, for example, despite the fact that the text seems to call for monotheism.

[Jonanananas]

The philosophy is a little beyond my understanding, so I'll briefly ignore it.

 

Question though - why is the Biblical portrayal of this 'God' character so human-like - i.e. with so much emotion?

 

Well...because the bible was written by humans, and humans can obviously only think in human ways, not matter how hard they try.

 

 

I'd also like to talk about the determinism thing, but I'm wondering if that would go beyond the scope of this thread. Should I create a different topic for it?

[Assume Nothing]

I think that would be useful that it is to be made, since this thread is more specific about religion, its beliefs (specifically the existence or non-existence of deities), and the role of religion.

[Omar]

I think you’ve left your sentence incomplete. ‘because you don’t do anything to […]’ I’ll refrain from commenting until you clarify.

Yeah, I did. My point can be summarized like this: atheists don't have greater concern for the truth-values of their beliefs; those who hold this position are just flexing their brain, as it were.

You believe I exist, don't you? Can't prove it, that's for sure. I once had a dream in which I was debating an issue in class, and someone put forward a reasoning that seemed truly astonishing to me. In my dream, I thought "I would never have thought of that!", even though it was my own argument on the issue, since it was my dream. You can't argue past a solipsistic position (I think, and this proves that I exist, but what next? Descartes only made his way out of solipsism by using a dodgy proof of God's existence). That being said, you do act as if it were true by having this conversation with me, and this is the manifestation of a belief, and one which is without proof (evidence is closer to empirical data, in my understanding), a faith.

 

Gods transcend reason? It sounds as much as a non-answer as ‘God works in mysterious ways’, if I’m interpreting you correctly. Everything we know of has been explainable – scientifically, mathematically, or philosophically. Please clarify: is it another way of saying ‘beyond reason’?

Underlined: absolutely false. As I have explained earlier, metaphysical problems (problems for which empirical evidence is not and never will be available) cannot be resolved; we can speculate about them, but incompatible yet equally valid statements can be made about them: this is what Kant calls antinomies. This includes God's existence, the existence of a spirit which animates matter (the existence of a soul can't be proven or disproven). Kant's criticism of metaphysical discourse is actually the answer to "Why does science make progress while philosophy goes nowhere?": science gets stuff done because it rejects questions which can't be tested. As such debate about God's existence is meaningless.

 

I have no idea where you’re getting the ideas of ‘corrupt Christianity’ - how exactly do you know? I’d place a [citation needed] tag, but I don’t really want to engage in informal debate.

What I'm saying is that through centuries of marriage of politics and religion and hand-copying of religious texts, there may have been mistakes, and critical ones as well. Additionally, the original meaning of the Bible cannot be known because the symbolic universe (the meaning we associate to each word or symbol) it refers to isn't ours; it would have to be translated into a new symbolic universe to mean something to us, and any linguist will tell you translation is treason of the original meaning. As such, a wide variety of interpretations of the Bible exist, including Spinoza's pantheist point of view. To boot, even nowadays Christians have widely varying beliefs.

 

You have to act in some way or another, despite having no justifications. In this sense, you are not any more justified than a theist is.

I don’t think it requires justification for a neutral/default position – in fact – as part of the justification; it is the lack of justification of the opposition. (Don’t get philosophical here, it’ll only serve to distract us from the crux of the argument.)

Acting is not a neutral position. In order to act, you have to have faith that your action means something. In order to debate with me, you have to believe I exist despite the fact that my existence isn't proven.

 

Oh, I think I understand you a little better now. If you mean justified in the context of ‘having a good reason to act in such way’, but if you mean ‘having good reason to believe’ – I’d argue otherwise.

What I mean is that outside of philosophical debate, which is useless if it does not serve reality (the question of God's existence being important only because it has an impact on our way of life), atheists act as though their beliefs were justified; expressing greater concern with your beliefs is useless if, when the debate is done, you go against what you say. If I asked you, you would probably say you don't know I exist, but you're still talking to me, which means your belief cannot be shaken, despite a valid argument calling for a neutral position, i.e. inaction.

 

I’m not entirely sure what that means – faith in values. How exactly are you defining faith? If you won’t clarify, I’ll presume the Webster definition of ‘acceptance of a claim as true without sufficient evidence’ – which doesn’t seem to fit the context (thus I ask for clarification).

"Belief without proof" would be more accurate. I could very well not exist, but you're still going to answer.

I’ll clarify: by serious, I mean with greater concern for its truth values.

Only in a debate. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

 

You’ve illustrated a position with little/no concern for truth values – which makes this argument a little moot, but it’s a fun discussion nonetheless.

You're misunderstanding me; the truth-value of a value is unimportant, because we need values and yet all of them are strictly false. It's the measurement by which we judge values that I don't agree with, not the value itself. Once this is established, we can use it as a premise, and then the truth-value of other statements ("the best way to x is y" for example) is important. If "best" means cheapest, we won't arrive at the same result as if "best" means "most expensive".

 

What you were praising was essentially an atheist's skepticism, but no one is actually a skeptic. You don't know whether, say, a rock exists, but I'm sure if I throw it at you you're going to duck. And since the question of whether a rock exists is only important insofar as a rock may have an effect upon you, saying you don't believe its existence and yet acting as if it does is senseless. You too are faithful, as faithful as any theist in fact. They too doubt the existence of God (this is why I cited Kierkegaard: his philosophy was significantly more complex than ours, thus more critical, but he was still a theist).

[aspeeder]

I'll try and make this my one post. I like to say that I'm technically agnostic, but functionally atheist. Sure, there may be a god, why not? It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and the existence of a more powerful force doesn't really have any implications in and of themselves. Now, do I believe in any of the gods worshiped here and now, or even before? No, I've found that there are enough holes in pretty much any religious belief to make it impossible to fully believe that any religion has the "one true grasp on the greater power." Could some parts of some religions be true, maybe, but that doesn't really matter. Religions are inductive by Nature, and without a demonstrably true beginning premise I just see no reason to accept why something should be true when there are also various other explanations that hold the same amount of evidence behind them (Aka, none).

[Sprint]

I'm of the idea that I can't be sure there isnt a god, but probably not. If there is a god, he's a tremendous [wagon], which I don't care about saying because i'm already going to the christian hell for not worshiping him, if he does exist.

 

Religion is a nice idea, but really, all it's ever been is a way to explain away the things that we have no way to currently explain. What happens after we die? We go to join god/go to heaven (not always the same thing). What will happen when the world ends? God will come and save us. Why do bad things happen? It's a result of the devil, an evil angel who makes bad things happen to piss off god and he also enjoys it.

 

Every religion, every mythology, they're all the same. There's always the god/gods. The tricksters, some cataclysmic event (curiously enough, most mythologies have a story about a great flood that covered the earth. And the ones that don't, reference a great flood in a far away land (Japanese), or the earth is already covered in water. (A few native american)), and some event that takes place at the end of the world.

 

Once you read these different mythologies, it's not hard to see that Christianity is just a copy, but a copy that keeps people held back. Not the "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not steal", but the gay hate, the hatred of other religions, etc. God is what keeps us held back as a species.

[Kimberly]

Once you read these different mythologies, it's not hard to see that Christianity is just a copy, but a copy that keeps people held back. Not the "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not steal", but the gay hate, the hatred of other religions, etc. God is what keeps us held back as a species.

 

I can't tell if you're trying to express your personal beliefs, or if you're stating this as fact.

[Assume Nothing]

@Omar: I have far too little time in the morning to make a response to you, but I'll reply a little later.

 

 

I'll try and make this my one post. I like to say that I'm technically agnostic, but functionally atheist.

I'd hate to argue, but I'd like to comment on some of the remarks nonetheless. I think the terminology is too often misused; agnosticism is not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - it entails a proclamation of knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof). To be agnostic is not to say you're an atheist, or a theist - it merely says you cannot be sure about the existence/non-existence of deities either way - it's different from being indecisive.

 

 

Sure, there may be a god, why not? It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and the existence of a more powerful force doesn't really have any implications in and of themselves. Now, do I believe in any of the gods worshiped here and now, or even before? No, I've found that there are enough holes in pretty much any religious belief to make it impossible to fully believe that any religion has the "one true grasp on the greater power."

It depends what you mean by a 'god'. If you go by some of the Abrahamic faiths which claim active intervention in our lives, we can judge its relative plausibility based on how much of this intervention we can actually measure - so far, that is zilch. If you mean there may be a deistic god, then I'll agree. I can't say I disagree that because of the flaws in the 'holy scripture', it's very questionable at best since if there was a God, they should make darn sure that their word was infallible.

 

 

Could some parts of some religions be true, maybe, but that doesn't really matter. Religions are inductive by Nature, and without a demonstrably true beginning premise I just see no reason to accept why something should be true when there are also various other explanations that hold the same amount of evidence behind them (Aka, none).

I refrain from commenting here.

 

EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.

[Omar]

EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.

>implying you don't

[Assume Nothing]

EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.

>implying you don't

>taking it in a non-literal context.

[Crocefisso]

Every religion, every mythology, they're all the same. There's always the god/gods. The tricksters, some cataclysmic event (curiously enough, most mythologies have a story about a great flood that covered the earth. And the ones that don't, reference a great flood in a far away land (Japanese), or the earth is already covered in water. (A few native american)), and some event that takes place at the end of the world.

 

 

Just as an interesting aside, if you read the Kojiki (perhaps you have) you will see that when Izanagi and Izanami try to create deities of the aspects of nature, the latter's genitals are burned giving birth to the fire deity and she falls ill, and from her vomit, faeces and urine, some thirty or so deities are created. :blink:

 

Probably the strangest creation story I've ever come across.

[Omar]

EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.

>implying you don't

>taking it in a non-literal context.

Relax, I'm kidding.

[Faux]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

[Peronix]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Most people who call themselves atheists hold the position that there is insufficient evidence for god, and although there may be a god, the lack of evidence means there is no reason to believe there is.

 

Agnostics usually hold the same position, the only difference being that they tend to be generally apathetic about religion, and see no point in debating it. They may have a point...

 

But then I do love a good argument. :)

[Assume Nothing]

Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.

 

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods.

 

... in other news, I'll post a brief thought experiment for theists - or more specifically, creationists:

 

 

(the last video starts at 3:54)

 

What makes you think that your god/gods were responsible for the creation of this universe, and what makes you think that we don't live in a world without one? The point of posting these videos is to illustrate that for the most part, a deity is superfluous.

[Omar]

A deity is superfluous to explain life (describe), not to understand (find a meaning) in it. Your question is disingenuous, because you call for skepticism whereas you are anything but a true skeptic in regards to your own irrational faiths (although not in the religious domain). What you may do is question the usefulness of religion, and suggest we replace it with another lie, because that lie would serve a certain value better.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't claim to be a 'true' skeptic - whatever that entails, just remarking skepticism as a quality in which I possess. I don't follow in how a deity helps persons 'understand life' in its most literal context, so until you clarify what you mean by that statement, I'm not going to provide a response.

 

You claim that I have irrational faiths - but what do you mean by faiths, and how are they irrational? I don't see how this pertains to the existence or non-existence of deities, either. I don't see why we should replace religion with 'another lie' - what's wrong with truisms, scientific education, philosophical ideals, and other related concepts?

[Omar]

a) Someone who "assumes nothing" is a true skeptic. A true skeptic suspends his judgment and thereby attains ataraxia.

b) Religion gives us a notion of morality and a horizon to look forward to after death. In this sense it gives meaning to a life devoid of one. If you don't understand that, your understanding of religion in general is going to be very limited.

c) A faith is a belief which is not shaken by reasoning. For example, you believe I exist (your participation in this debate is proof) despite the fact that you can't prove I do... yet you say that since you can't prove God's existence, you shouldn't believe he exists. You're not applying the same criteria of truth to your own beliefs, and that's because truth isn't always that useful.

d) Science (and I mean physics, for example, not humanities) does nothing to understand: it only describes. Science cannot give us the meaning religion does because it is nothing more than a tool we use to do certain things more efficiently (e.g. extract a tumor); it doesn't tell us what the meaning of life is, it is a means to act in accordance to certain meanings of life (saving someone who has cancer implies a valuation of life, and the statement "life is good" isn't universally true, as a cannibal or killer might explain). Truisms are generally not very valuable--they answer questions about which there is no debate--so I don't see where you're going with that. Philosophical ideals (such as progress) are nothing more than ideals and never contain universal truth; they can help us live, but they are not more valuable than religion in terms of truth.

[Jonanananas]

a) Someone who "assumes nothing" is a true skeptic. A true skeptic suspends his judgment and thereby attains ataraxia.

b) Religion gives us a notion of morality and a horizon to look forward to after death. In this sense it gives meaning to a life devoid of one. If you don't understand that, your understanding of religion in general is going to be very limited.

c) A faith is a belief which is not shaken by reasoning. For example, you believe I exist (your participation in this debate is proof) despite the fact that you can't prove I do... yet you say that since you can't prove God's existence, you shouldn't believe he exists. You're not applying the same criteria of truth to your own beliefs.

d) Science (and I mean physics, for example, not humanities) does nothing to understand: it only describes. Science cannot give us the meaning religion does because it is nothing more than a tool we use to do certain things more efficiently (e.g. extract a tumor); it doesn't tell us what the meaning of life is, it is a means to act in accordance to certain meanings of life (saving someone who has cancer implies a valuation of life). Truisms are generally not very valuable so i don't see where you're going with that. Philosophical ideals (such as progress) are nothing more than ideals and never contain universal truth; they can help us live, but they are not more valuable than religion in terms of truth.

 

I've always found c) to be a weird point. Given that until now, only humans are capable of communicating in the way we do here, it's very reasonable to assume that you do indeed exist. Even in the unlikely case that you are AI, the situation won't really change.

 

 

About religion giving a meaning to life, providing morals etc. : If you assume god doesn't exist, you can conclude that all religion comes from the mind of a human and as such isn't needed for any of that. Now, for some people religion makes it easier to deal with these kind of things, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that others do not need it in any way. I presume Assume is one of those and just hasn't been able to understand why someone would need it (No offense intended)

[Assume Nothing]

It's also a poor example. Omar's existence is evident by observation - as you've said, we are the only known beings that communicate in this manner. Even if Omar's existence is not indeed true, that doesn't change anything in human behaviour - or even my behaviour, so I fail to see how that has any relevance to religious beliefs (presumably it's an argument in favour of it?)

 

Religion, on the whole, is an unnecessary construct that has largely caused a myriad of problems, as I've illustrated countless times before. The argument that it gives meaning to life is weakened by the counterargument that it diminishes the meaning of life in its literal interpretations of heaven/hell (I can elaborate if you request so).

[Jonanananas]

Religion has its advantages and disadvantages. Which side prevails is up to personal opinion and not an issue we can really discuss well.

[Assume Nothing]

It depends what you're referring to. If we're referring to actions caused by religious belief, it can be evaluated easily.

[Omar]

I've always found c) to be a weird point. Given that until now, only humans are capable of communicating in the way we do here, it's very reasonable to assume that you do indeed exist. Even in the unlikely case that you are AI, the situation won't really change.

It's also a poor example. Omar's existence is evident by observation - as you've said, we are the only known beings that communicate in this manner.

I'm just saying atheists aren't necessarily more rigorous about their beliefs. I chose the example of my existence because strictly speaking, nothing proves I do. It's a reasonable assumption to say I do exist, but it's still an assumption, and you could be dreaming or in some sort of matrix. Is this an interesting question? Not really. It's not like we can exit this matrix: the truth of the answer doesn't matter. Same goes for the existence of a God; it may or may not be true, but that doesn't really matter--what does matter is whether believing he does is useful.

 

About religion giving a meaning to life, providing morals etc. : If you assume god doesn't exist, you can conclude that all religion comes from the mind of a human and as such isn't needed for any of that. Now, for some people religion makes it easier to deal with these kind of things, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that others do not need it in any way. I presume Assume is one of those and just hasn't been able to understand why someone would need it (No offense intended)

Religion, on the whole, is an unnecessary construct that has largely caused a myriad of problems, as I've illustrated countless times before. The argument that it gives meaning to life is weakened by the counterargument that it diminishes the meaning of life in its literal interpretations of heaven/hell (I can elaborate if you request so).

 

I don't believe in God; I'm just defending people who do. The question you two are answering here is whether religion is useful or not, not whether atheists are more serious about their beliefs. It's a different issue, and one in which I would likely end up agreeing with you.

 

@Assume: the evaluation can't be universal. If I were to consider religious wars to be a good thing, then religion would be great. This is why it's a matter of personal opinion.

[Assume Nothing]

I should rephrase my original claim: many outspoken atheists are more concerned for whether their religious/irreligious are well-founded than their religious counterparts, based on quantity/quality of sound argumentation provided.

 

EDIT - that's a problem of ethical decision making more than religion. If we can agree that social progression is a good thing, then it could be easy to start a discussion on whether religion is good/bad. I value social progression and prosperity, so I'd categorize religion as 'bad'.