I suspect that an atheist who is 99% sure that there's no god is likely to say he's agnostic, whereas a theist who is 99% sure that there is a god is likely to say that he's gnostic.
I fall into the former of those two categories. It's possible that god exists, but in a court of law, I'd have no problem finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not.
This has bothered me overnight, so I am going to belabor a point I tried to make yesterday.
I don't understand how it is possible that god exists.
The "agnostic" (?) arguments in this thread seemed to be based on the supposition that:
1) There is no current evidence to prove the existence of god.
2) The universe is a big place, so although there is no evidence of god here, somewhere way out there there could be a god.
Therefore it would be shortsighted of us to discount the possibility of there being a god based on the vastness of the universe, and the knowledge that we understand so very little of it.
Do I have that correct? I'm not a smart man, so feel free (anyone) to chime in if you disagree with the above statement.
I view the above as willfull blindness for the following reason:
If you replace the word "god" with any other creature or being for which there is no evidence (Santa Claus), the argument seems absurd.
In the vastness of the universe is there even the slightest possibility that a man with flying reindeer delivers toys once a year to every child (on a planet just like earth that isn't earth)? To me there isn't.
So, explain to me how can you argue for god, but not Santa? Is it simply because of the word "God" has more gravitas?
I think it's because of the social stigma attached to being an atheist. It is easier by far to say "I don't think so, but I don't know" than say "No, Santa doesn't exist (anywhere), he doesn't care if you are good or bad, he's not watching all of the time, and you're irrational if you believe otherwise."
Those with deep religious faith are comforted by it. It helps ease the difficulties of life. I recognize that. Those struggling with the disconnect between faith and rational thought, find it incrementally easier to take a step back from full disbelief - despite the argument being absurd when using any word other than "god".
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
I love Dr Tyson, and he talks about the labels and his dislike of being called agnostic or atheist.. He makes great points, hard to argue with.
This is great, touches on a lot of what I was trying to get at yesterday.
On my walk home yesterday I got to thinking about my experience in Catholic school and how I was never given an opportunity to find my own way spiritually. From the youngest age my view of God and religion and spirituality was focused around Catholicism; it was literally forced upon me, I had no other way but to learn of the teachings and scriptures of that religion. Then I thought: if I had not grown up with this religion so strongly influencing me, had I gone to a public school and not gone to church every Sunday, would I have naturally gravitated to Catholicism? I mean maybe it would've been the "right" thing for me, maybe I would've actually gotten something from it. Unfortunately it was too aggressively driven at me and I always found it to cause a lot of unhappiness in my life. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that anything of a spiritual nature should be left to the individual to discover.
Right, but we're not talking about the decision making process of day to day life and the cognitive dissonance of being on a diet and buying a chocolate bar.
We were talking specifically about a certainty as it pertains to an intimate understanding of 'God'.
But what you are failing to grasp in this is that for a vast number of theists their intimate understanding of God is inseparable from the decision making process of day to day life. In a religiously saturated environment like mine, people perceive God's activity at every point in daily life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Generally, we refer to these people as zealots. I don't think it's any kind of leap in logic to associate religious zealotry with a deficiency in the mental/reasoning makeup of an individual.
Who is "we"? In an environment in which it is socially acceptable to communicate with an invisible being or beings, this is not even close to the same thing as zealotry. There is nothing mentally wrong with the vast majority of these kinds of people; it may be laziness or passivity, but it is unequivocally incorrect to declare that gnostic theists suffer from some sort of mental deficiency. Even if you consider it delusional behaviour, it is a flaw of perception that is really no different than our many other intuitive flaws that are the topic of this book
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
This has bothered me overnight, so I am going to belabor a point I tried to make yesterday.
I don't understand how it is possible that god exists.
The "agnostic" (?) arguments in this thread seemed to be based on the supposition that:
1) There is no current evidence to prove the existence of god.
2) The universe is a big place, so although there is no evidence of god here, somewhere way out there there could be a god.
Therefore it would be shortsighted of us to discount the possibility of there being a god based on the vastness of the universe, and the knowledge that we understand so very little of it.
Do I have that correct? I'm not a smart man, so feel free (anyone) to chime in if you disagree with the above statement.
I view the above as willfull blindness for the following reason:
If you replace the word "god" with any other creature or being for which there is no evidence (Santa Claus), the argument seems absurd.
In the vastness of the universe is there even the slightest possibility that a man with flying reindeer delivers toys once a year to every child (on a planet just like earth that isn't earth)? To me there isn't.
So, explain to me how can you argue for god, but not Santa? Is it simply because of the word "God" has more gravitas?
I think it's because of the social stigma attached to being an atheist. It is easier by far to say "I don't think so, but I don't know" than say "No, Santa doesn't exist (anywhere), he doesn't care if you are good or bad, he's not watching all of the time, and you're irrational if you believe otherwise."
Those with deep religious faith are comforted by it. It helps ease the difficulties of life. I recognize that. Those struggling with the disconnect between faith and rational thought, find it incrementally easier to take a step back from full disbelief - despite the argument being absurd when using any word other than "god".
I think that the distinction is in the vagaries of the term God (this was touched on by several posters yesterday.) For example, I would consider myself gnostic with respect to well-defined, personal, interventionist Gods such as are described in the holy books of the Abrahamic religions. There is very compelling evidence that these Gods do not exist (just as there is compelling evidence that Santa Clause does not exist.) Perhaps I should say it like this: there is a an abundance of evidenc that is inconsistent with the sort of evidence that we would expect based on the descriptions of those Gods (and Santa Clause) and therefore it is perfectly rational to conlude that those descriptions must be incorrect. However, for other types of God (or even, I suppose, variations on the Abrahamic Gods), ones that have not yet been described, so we have no such expectations and therefore, no such inconsistent evidence.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I think it's because of the social stigma attached to being an atheist. It is easier by far to say "I don't think so, but I don't know" than say "No, Santa doesn't exist (anywhere), he doesn't care if you are good or bad, he's not watching all of the time, and you're irrational if you believe otherwise."
I think it's more because of our familiarity with the geographic area. Santa Claus was specifically relevant as an earth bound myth. He's the man who lives at the geographic North Pole of earth and flys to deliver presents on Christmas Eve. We're able to search for him an conclusively find no evidence of his existance in the specific area.
God of whatever form doesn't explicitly state (well most of the time) that it is directly tied to earth in the same manner Santa is. Rarely is a location given either. We haven't explored enough to find out if a god exists within the realm of the universe.
This has bothered me overnight, so I am going to belabor a point I tried to make yesterday.
I don't understand how it is possible that god exists.
The "agnostic" (?) arguments in this thread seemed to be based on the supposition that:
1) There is no current evidence to prove the existence of god.
2) The universe is a big place, so although there is no evidence of god here, somewhere way out there there could be a god.
Therefore it would be shortsighted of us to discount the possibility of there being a god based on the vastness of the universe, and the knowledge that we understand so very little of it.
This is only part of the theistic argument, and I would argue that it is but a small component. I have been attempting to make the point throughout this thread, that most theists simply do not arrive at and maintain their belief on the basis of philosophically rigorous canons of evidence. Religion thrives because of the circumstantial and anecdotal connections that people practically cannot help but draw between their experiences relative to "spiritual" phenomena. Because it is personal, emotive and primarily experiential, it will almost always trump reason and good experimentation.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
But what you are failing to grasp in this is that for a vast number of theists their intimate understanding of God is inseparable from the decision making process of day to day life. In a religiously saturated environment like mine, people perceive God's activity at every point in daily life.
This is disingenous and not at all what we are talking about.
People who possess a certainty of their belief in God are operating on a deficient mental state from the rest of us. This affects all aspects of their life, how they communicate with others and interact with society in general.
I'm not talking about my mom here who sees beauty and love and god in all of nature's wonderful bounty. I'm talking about zealots who use their self-assured belief in their own religious existential omnipotence to pressure the belief systems and social structure of others. This can be forceful in an example of a religious terrorist or suicide bomber, or it can gentle (but just as destructive) in the example of someone like Jerry Falwell.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 04-26-2012 at 11:10 AM.
This is disingenous and not at all what we are talking about.
How so disingenuous? I am simply pointing out that a strong sense of conviction is a matter of certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
People who possess a certainty of their belief in God are operating on a deficient mental state from the rest of us. This affects all aspects of their life, how they communicate with others and interact with society in general.
How many of these people do you know? And how are you convinced that their certainty is symptomatic of a deficient mental state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
I'm not talking about my mom here who sees beauty and love and god in all of nature's wonderful bounty. I'm talking about zealots who use their self-assured belief in their own religious existential omnipotence to pressure the belief systems and social structure of others.
I agree with your characterization of zealots, but in all of your posts you have fairly consistently implied that all zealots are gnostic theists and atheists, and that all gnostic atheists and theists are zealots. This is categorically not true, at least insofar as this discussion has employed those terms. I think that a real clear distinction needs to be made between degrees of knowledge—people do not arrive at certainty through identical means, and their certainty in God's existence or nonexistence does not produce the same behaviours. Do you really believe that you can measure the strength or quality of ones convictions directly from his or her actions? This presumes that actions are always representative of the same sorts of processes of thought, and I have very serious doubts about that. Were the 9/11 hijackers more certain about the existence of their God than my friends who can "sense" God's presence or absence?
Quote:
This can be forceful in an example of a religious terrorist or suicide bomber, or it can gentle (but just as destructive) in the example of someone like Jerry Falwell.
Do you honestly believe that Jerry Falwell was mentally deficient?
My mother-in-law speaks to and "hears" God every day. She has participated in exorcisms in which she has communicated with demons. She has "sensed" the presence of angels and experienced their influence in her day-to-day behaviour. And yet, she experiences no problems communicating with others, or in her social interactions. Her beliefs are not exclusively "self-assured", as they are affirmed regularly by dozens of members in her "tribe" who all hold very closely to the same sets of beliefs. She is not in any way compelled to forcefully influence the belief systems and social practices of others. In short, she is not by any conventional measure "mentally deficient"; she does not even conform to your description of what constitutes "mental deficiency. She is unconditionally certain about the existence of God. She very clearly fits the definition of a gnostic theist.
I have no problem with your characterization of zealots, but stop making this one-to-one correlation between zealots and gnostics.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
My mother-in-law speaks to and "hears" God every day. She has participated in exorcisms in which she has communicated with demons. She has "sensed" the presence of angels and experienced their influence in her day-to-day behaviour. And yet, she experiences no problems communicating with others, or in her social interactions. Her beliefs are not exclusively "self-assured", as they are affirmed regularly by dozens of members in her "tribe" who all hold very closely to the same sets of beliefs. She is not in any way compelled to forcefully influence the belief systems and social practices of others. In short, she is not by any conventional measure "mentally deficient"; she does not even conform to your description of what constitutes "mental deficiency. She is unconditionally certain about the existence of God. She very clearly fits the definition of a gnostic theist.
I can't believe in one sentence you can say she has two-way conversations with an invisible man and communicates with demons, then follow it up with saying she's not "mentally deficient" just because other people do as well. Guy, that's as mentally deficient as it gets.
Last edited by Sliver; 04-26-2012 at 12:49 PM.
Reason: sp
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I can't believe in one sentence you can say she has two-way conversation with an invisible man and communicates with demons, then follow it up with saying she's not "mentally deficient" just because other people do as well. Guy, that's as mentally deficient as it gets.
Is this a clinical diagnoses? I am not just talking about a handful of "other people", as I think that you will find millions upon millions of people around the world would report similar sorts of experiences. Are they all mentally deficient? The term suggests the absence of some sort of essential quality for proper mental function. What quality is it that all these sorts of people lack?
There are valid explanations for the sorts of thoughts, experiences and behaviours that I have described without appealing to some kind of psychological disfunction. I will repeat: for the vast majority of people who have these experiences they do not suffer from any sort of brain damage or mental or social deficiency. Their behaviour is best characterized as intuitive. The fact that many of us have come to both recognize the limitations of our intuitions and are in turn no longer so dependent upon them in no way suggests a higher level of mental or social function. Furthermore, the implication that it is, is exceedingly arrogant.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I am not just talking about a handful of "other people", as I think that you will find millions upon millions of people around the world would report similar sorts of experiences. Are they all mentally deficient?
I have a hard time with those numbers.
Millions upon millions talking "to" a god is called faith, millions upon millions "hearing" a god/demons voice back is delusional.
Yes. Deities are defined as immortal, supernatural beings. It's a definitional thing that pulls them into atheism as they don't believe in a diety. Omnipotent beings are still possible, but immortal ones not (if I recall correctly).
Yes, it is taught that the Gods and/or Titans may have long lifespans (such as 50,000 years or something like that) but are still finite, though they man have great power(s), and still stuck in the cycle of Samsara. But if you take that definition of Deity that you posted above to try and group Buddhism into a label of Atheistic, then would not theoretically many polytheistic religions could also be lumped into that as many polytheistic gods have been known to be killed/eaten/destroyed (Ragnarok is a good example) thus not truly immortal?
Well I guess it doesn't really matter as labels are defined by humans, and different humans can assign different definitions to those labels.
It's human nature to hear or see things that aren't really there but it's usually a momentary occurrence ie. things that go bump in the night. You would be nothing but skeptical if someone claimed to be repeatedly having conversations/experiences with spirits/ghosts etc. I'm not going to deny it ever having happened but a lack of evidence will certainly not help your cause.
Halucinations are a fairly common reaction to stress and malnutrion, it is hardly suprising that people saw or heard God quite commonly in our malnourished past, especially when fasting and scrouging were common ways to show faith.
Halucinations are a fairly common reaction to stress and malnutrion, it is hardly suprising that people saw or heard God quite commonly in our malnourished past, especially when fasting and scrouging were common ways to show faith.
Jerry Falwell ain't never fasted.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Is this a clinical diagnoses? I am not just talking about a handful of "other people", as I think that you will find millions upon millions of people around the world would report similar sorts of experiences. Are they all mentally deficient? The term suggests the absence of some sort of essential quality for proper mental function. What quality is it that all these sorts of people lack?
There are valid explanations for the sorts of thoughts, experiences and behaviours that I have described without appealing to some kind of psychological disfunction. I will repeat: for the vast majority of people who have these experiences they do not suffer from any sort of brain damage or mental or social deficiency. Their behaviour is best characterized as intuitive. The fact that many of us have come to both recognize the limitations of our intuitions and are in turn no longer so dependent upon them in no way suggests a higher level of mental or social function. Furthermore, the implication that it is, is exceedingly arrogant.
lol, so you're seriously pretending talking to demons is not crazy? Textcritic, step back from Christianity for a little bit and live in the real world. If one of my friends told me they conversed with god and talked to demons I would think they were absolutely nuts. Because they would be.
I can't believe in one sentence you can say she has two-way conversations with an invisible man and communicates with demons, then follow it up with saying she's not "mentally deficient" just because other people do as well. Guy, that's as mentally deficient as it gets.
Yep. I agree.
It's what makes you special. The majority of humans that have existed on the planet, they tend towards the mentally deficient. You, however, and the small group of like minded people who agree with you, you are not. You're smarter, more rational, not broken. In short, your better.
That was sarcasm, btw.
By the way, you answered HP Lovecraft's question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
Amongst other things. These threads are in general pretty hostile places for those that believe in God(s). I am sure many people just skip over them.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
It's what makes you special. The majority of humans that have existed on the planet, they tend towards the mentally deficient. You, however, and the small group of like minded people who agree with you, you are not. You're smarter, more rational, not broken. In short, your better.
That was sarcasm, btw.
By the way, you answered HP Lovecraft's question.
Any educated person with half a brain knows you can't talk to demons because there is no such thing as a demon. Don't try to make me seem like an a-hole for saying something so obviously true it's inarguable. Unless you want to prove to me that demons exist, in which case I'll revisit my position.
Any educated person with half a brain knows you can't talk to demons because there is no such thing as a demon. Don't try to make me seem like an a-hole for saying something so obviously true it's inarguable. Unless you want to prove to me that demons exist, in which case I'll revisit my position.
You still don't understand what you sound like, do you? You still don't get how incredibly arrogant this sort of talk sounds like. I don't need to make you seem like anything, you are doing a grand job of it yourself.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
