[Helmling]

Except me, of course.

We always squabble about religion on this board. It seems there's such a huge divide, that we must do something novel to bridge it. I would like to proceed with a simple attempt to understand the position of those who believe in God.

I hope this is a noncontroversial starting point: Why should we believe God exists?

[Ω]

How can you say, "Why should WE believe God exists?" when you are not allowing any other "nonbelievers" to participate?

Surely it should be, ""Why should I believe God exists?".....

[Kerrigan]

The main question that you have put forth, Helmling, reminds me of a Socratic dialogue (I think it was Socrates, I'll have to double check) in which a lawyer states that he has built a water-tight case for his plaintiff by explaining that the plaintiff has acted in exact accordance with the will of the gods.

Socrates, in his irritating way, pushes the lawyer to explain why something is good if it is in accordance with the gods. Is it good because the gods love it, or is it loved by the gods because it is good? Naturally this is a very tricky question and the lawyer runs off.

I feel that the question you've put forward, Why should we believe god exists, is in the same vain as this Socratic dilemma described above. For I think that if we are to answer this question as believers, we must reply that we believe because it is good to believe. But then this gets us caught up in what we mean by good . . . .

Is it good to believe because faith has positive effects on us and those around us? Certainly, if we all were to abide by the teachings of Jesus, we would see astonishing advances in wealth distribution, social justice, and peace and charity efforts. Is this why we believe, then? We believe in god because we feel that good things will arise from true faith?

Or is it good to believe in god simply because he is god, and we must believe in and worship him? Is god the primary object of belief, and what we think of as good only relative to god? Are we to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith and jump into belief in the unknown not because it is good but simply because it is an apparently absurd mystery which transcends human reason?

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of this. The ancients surely didn't, and I doubt we will in this thread.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The main question that you have put forth, Helmling, reminds me of a Socratic dialogue (I think it was Socrates, I'll have to double check) in which a lawyer states that he has built a water-tight case for his plaintiff by explaining that the plaintiff has acted in exact accordance with the will of the gods.

Socrates, in his irritating way, pushes the lawyer to explain why something is good if it is in accordance with the gods. Is it good because the gods love it, or is it loved by the gods because it is good? Naturally this is a very tricky question and the lawyer runs off.

I feel that the question you've put forward, Why should we believe god exists, is in the same vain as this Socratic dilemma described above. For I think that if we are to answer this question as believers, we must reply that we believe because it is good to believe. But then this gets us caught up in what we mean by good . . . .

Is it good to believe because faith has positive effects on us and those around us? Certainly, if we all were to abide by the teachings of Jesus, we would see astonishing advances in wealth distribution, social justice, and peace and charity efforts. Is this why we believe, then? We believe in god because we feel that good things will arise from true faith?

Or is it good to believe in god simply because he is god, and we must believe in and worship him? Is god the primary object of belief, and what we think of as good only relative to god? Are we to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith and jump into belief in the unknown not because it is good but simply because it is an apparently absurd mystery which transcends human reason?

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of this. The ancients surely didn't, and I doubt we will in this thread.

Surely not if we tried to address them all at once. Perhaps we could work with the response that you find most compelling. Which answer suits your temperament best?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why should we believe God exists?

See, I don't think that's really necessary. We all come into belief in our own way, and in our own time, IMO. If it doesn't happen this time around, it'll happen the next, or the next. There's no forcing when it comes to "God", no pushing. Eventually everyone will return to center, because it's part of who we are (and what God is). It's inevitable.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

See, I don't think that's really necessary. We all come into belief in our own way, and in our own time, IMO. If it doesn't happen this time around, it'll happen the next, or the next. There's no forcing when it comes to "God", no pushing. Eventually everyone will return to center, because it's part of who we are (and what God is). It's inevitable.

What if the opposite is true?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I think that if we are to answer this question as believers, we must reply that we believe because it is good to believe. But then this gets us caught up in what we mean by good . . . .

Believe in something because it is good? How ridiculous! Let me just remind you that Santa Claus is good. We should believe in something because we have good reason to believe it is true.

Is it good to believe because faith has positive effects on us and those around us? Certainly, if we all were to abide by the teachings of Jesus, we would see astonishing advances in wealth distribution, social justice, and peace and charity efforts. Is this why we believe, then? We believe in god because we feel that good things will arise from true faith?

You cannot argue the existence of something by pointing to the positive effects of believing it exists. Let me make your wobbly logic explicit:

A placebo works better if the patient believes it is a real pill. Therefore, the doctor should also believe it is a real pill, since such a belief obviously has positive effects.

Or is it good to believe in god simply because he is god, and we must believe in and worship him? Is god the primary object of belief, and what we think of as good only relative to god?

This argument is so circular I don't know where to start.

We should believe in the truth of A because A is true.

Fail!

Are we to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith and jump into belief in the unknown not because it is good but simply because it is an apparently absurd mystery which transcends human reason?

No. Nothing can be "believed" and "transcend human reason." Look carefully at your above argument and you will see why: It is still a reason (albeit a very bad and a very paradoxical one) for believing in God.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of this. The ancients surely didn't, and I doubt we will in this thread.

The ancients did not invent computers. Therefore... oh wait.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If it doesn't happen this time around, it'll happen the next, or the next. There's no forcing when it comes to "God", no pushing. Eventually everyone will return to center, because it's part of who we are (and what God is). It's inevitable.

How the hell do you know? You're just making sh!t up!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What if the opposite is true?

You mean, "what if God's a tyrant and if we don't toe the line we'll be destroyed"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

How the hell do you know? You're just making sh!t up!

Quit trying to bait me, that was just pitiful.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Helmling

NO nonbelievers need apply

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

(snip)

Well that didn't take long.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You mean, "what if God's a tyrant and if we don't toe the line we'll be destroyed"?

Actually, I meant what if the inevitability is that we all outgrow the notion of God...but that's really not where I'd hoped this would go, but that's alright. I've grown bored with the idea anyway.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Actually, I meant what if the inevitability is that we all outgrow the notion of God...but that's really not where I'd hoped this would go, but that's alright. I've grown bored with the idea anyway.

Well, then the alternative is that God will die, in humanity. Many Theologians call it "Hell".

I don't see this happening any time soon, however. Even the most ardent atheist will pray when life takes a turn for the worst, grasping for any straw as a last hope. The history of religion would need to be completely erased for mankind to completely "outgrow" the notion of God.

[Kerrigan]

Let me take this opportunity to say: Tiresias, don't you dare even try to throw your glib high-school-level refutations of my arguments back at me. I have written my thesis on Kierkegaard and I doubt, by the content of your response, that you have ever even taken a philosophy class. Tell me, how I am wrong in my analysis of Kierkegaard's taking of Hegelian dialectic and making it into a reverse-dialectic of unobtainable objectivity? Please, enlighten me, since you seem to be such a crass genius. (A word of caution: you can't Wikipedia your response on this matter, so you are out of luck)

Also, I would advise you not to lecture me on logic. Your diminishment of my so-called "circular logic" of Socratic dialogue is PRECISELY INTENDED to be paradoxical. You are evidently too retarded to catch even this. Do not lecture me on logic, you are evidently no match to even understand the premises of the argument, much less the argument itself. I have demonstrated my competency in logic by achieving a score within the very top of the top of the LSAT percentile, I think I know a thing or two about logical constructions. So why don't you exit this thread so that we can carry on with the potentially fertile discussion that Helmling had envisaged?

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Let me take this opportunity to say: Tiresias, don't you dare even try to throw your glib refutations of my arguments back at me. I have written my thesis on Kierkegaard and I doubt, by the content of your response, that you have ever even taken a philosophy class. Tell me, how I am wrong in my analysis of Kierkegaard's taking of Hegelian dialectic and making it into a reverse-dialectic of unobtainable objectivity? Please, enlighten me, since you seem to be such a crass genius.

Also, I would advise you not to lecture me on logic. Your diminishment of my so-called "circular logic" of Socratic dialogue is PRECISELY INTENDED to be paradoxical. You are evidently too retarded to catch even this. Do not lecture me on logic, you are evidently no match to even understand the premises of the argument, much less the argument itself. I have demonstrated my competency in logic by achieving a score within the very top of the top of the LSAT percentile, I think I know a thing or two about logical constructions. So why don't you exit this thread so that we can carry on with the potentially fertile discussion that Helmling had envisaged?

What a prize twit you are.

Don't tell me you're a genius after that slipshod demonstration of what constitutes an argument. Prove your soi-disant mastery of logic and philosophy by refuting even my first riposte.

For your convenience, you wrote:

Is it good to believe because faith has positive effects on us and those around us? Certainly, if we all were to abide by the teachings of Jesus, we would see astonishing advances in wealth distribution, social justice, and peace and charity efforts. Is this why we believe, then? We believe in god because we feel that good things will arise from true faith?

I replied:

You cannot argue the existence of something by pointing to the positive effects of believing it exists. Let me make your wobbly logic explicit:

A placebo works better if the patient believes it is a real pill. Therefore, the doctor should also believe it is a real pill, since such a belief obviously has positive effects.

This argument from positive effects of belief is addressed, and demolished, by Dawkins in the God Delusion.

And Kierkegaard was a religious quack.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Quit trying to bait me, that was just pitiful.

It is true. You have absolutely no f**king idea what you are talking about. Tell me: How the f**k do you know, "Eventually everyone will return to center," and what on earth does that mean anyway? It's mystical gobbledegook of the worst kind.

Go read some f**king books.

It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

This argument from positive effects of belief is addressed, and demolished, by Dawkins in the God Delusion.

And Kierkegaard was a religious quack.

Like I needed any further confirmation that you are clueless about this discussion...

I never put forward any argument for god in any point of my conversation. I have given two different reasons which represent, roughly, the two justifications for why people believe. If you cannot make the distinction, which evidently you can't, then you just need to leave.

Lastly, your reductive assessment of what you've gleaned on Kierkegaard from google does not represent a valid or accepted analysis of Kierkegaard's writings, which include perspectives from more than one philosophical standpoint (at different times he writes as one who leads the religious life, at others as one who leads an ethical life, at others an aesthetic life, and so on). His religious writings do not capture the entire significance of his philosophical repertoire, nor are they a clear indication as to what he actually believed. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain that question about his reverse dialectic . . .

Basically what irritates me the most is the harsh and unassailable tone of your ill-informed first response, and your attempt to throw in a few $5 words in your second response does not make me think you are any more learned than you think you are.

Also, quit cursing at Shaddim.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Lastly, your reductive assessment of what you've gleaned on Kierkegaard from google

I've been familiar with the man and his writings for many years.

Tell me, how I am wrong in my analysis of Kierkegaard's taking of Hegelian dialectic and making it into a reverse-dialectic of unobtainable objectivity?

This kind of philosophastic cant does not impress me, and nor does it compensate for the absence of an underlying argument. You referred to Kierkegaard's moronically sophistical "leap of faith". I am telling you—in plain English—that that does not constitute an argument for a belief in God. It is a failure of reason and argumentation, a "just believe anyway."

You really think you are intelligent, don't you? The only intelligent thing about you is that you have been able to conceal from yourself the fact of your own intellectual mediocrity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Except me, of course.

We always squabble about religion on this board. It seems there's such a huge divide, that we must do something novel to bridge it. I would like to proceed with a simple attempt to understand the position of those who believe in God.

I hope this is a noncontroversial starting point: Why should we believe God exists?

This is exactly why there is the divide IMHO. The notion that a believer would seek to convince a non-believer that God exists. For most, there is no problem with faith until it seeks to convince non-believers of its truths. I suspect you've already heard most of the means by which a believer would attempt to convince a non-believer. Why should you believe God exists could be asked; "why do you or don't you believe God exists?"

I do believe God exists. There is much that the empirical sciences can tell us about where we are today and in fact, a great many details about where we ("we" loosely, rather "all matter") came from and how. What they tell us is of course by nature of the scientific method, falsifiable pending more plausible mechanisms. What science cannot answer conclusively are those larger questions that still rage in many of us. Genesis. Inception. In this, the scientific method reaches its outermost limitations. We can examine evidence from the same scene and still come to varying conclusions of the truth as even science has shown us. What is without doubt is that "something happened". In other words, there is an absolute truth.

To believe in a god you have to be willing to suspend a priori rejection of the supernatural. After all, if you refuse to accept the possibility of a force greater than that which we can measure with the empirical sciences than you will never accept the premise of theism. You would simply assume that all is natural pending empirical means to establish it. This is where those of faith accuse non-believers of a faith their own and... enter "huge divide".

So, to answer your question; you should believe in a god if you're compelled to do so. You spend a lot of time thinking about it and are left unsatisfied by the limitations of man's knowledge.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What science cannot answer conclusively are those larger questions that still rage in many of us. Genesis. Inception.

Funny, I'm left with even more questions when looking at Christianity. Where, pray tell, did God come from? What was there before God? How did he create matter? Energy?

It all just leads to more questions. And that's the fundamental divide here: we atheists keep on asking the hard-hitting questions, and, at some level, the religious in the room start accepting the answers as final.

To believe in a god you have to be willing to suspend a priori rejection of the supernatural.

If there were even a single shred of evidence of the supernatural, I would leave the door open. However, this is a physical world with physical boundaries, and I see no reason to even think that an event outside of those boundaries has ever occurred or will ever occur.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, then the alternative is that God will die, in humanity. Many Theologians call it "Hell".

I don't see this happening any time soon, however. Even the most ardent atheist will pray when life takes a turn for the worst, grasping for any straw as a last hope. The history of religion would need to be completely erased for mankind to completely "outgrow" the notion of God.

It's the history of religion that makes many atheists fairly confident that a) God is a myth and that b) the myth doesn't actually make us any better to one another.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is exactly why there is the divide IMHO. The notion that a believer would seek to convince a non-believer that God exists. For most, there is no problem with faith until it seeks to convince non-believers of its truths. I suspect you've already heard most of the means by which a believer would attempt to convince a non-believer. Why should you believe God exists could be asked; "why do you or don't you believe God exists?"

I do believe God exists. There is much that the empirical sciences can tell us about where we are today and in fact, a great many details about where we ("we" loosely, rather "all matter") came from and how. What they tell us is of course by nature of the scientific method, falsifiable pending more plausible mechanisms. What science cannot answer conclusively are those larger questions that still rage in many of us. Genesis. Inception. In this, the scientific method reaches its outermost limitations. We can examine evidence from the same scene and still come to varying conclusions of the truth as even science has shown us. What is without doubt is that "something happened". In other words, there is an absolute truth.

To believe in a god you have to be willing to suspend a priori rejection of the supernatural. After all, if you refuse to accept the possibility of a force greater than that which we can measure with the empirical sciences than you will never accept the premise of theism. You would simply assume that all is natural pending empirical means to establish it. This is where those of faith accuse non-believers of a faith their own and... enter "huge divide".

So, to answer your question; you should believe in a god if you're compelled to do so. You spend a lot of time thinking about it and are left unsatisfied by the limitations of man's knowledge.

Well, let's see then...I certainly am not compelled to believe in a god. I only spend a lot of time wondering how others can engage in such flights of fancy, not about god itself. And I am filled with awe and wonder by the limitations of man's knowledge, but I feel no compunction to invent some figure to fill in those gaps just so I won't have to live with the uncertainty.

So, it is encouraging that at least one of the religious denizens of this board would accept that religion is really just fueling a personal need and has nothing to do with the larger reality and hence should not be shoved down anyone's throat, but sadly, most religious folks are not so open minded. Most wouldn't consider electing an atheist president, for example. Several think nonbelievers will be perpetually tortured in Hell by their "loving" but invisible god. You can see why these things would irk us nonbelievers.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

It is true. You have absolutely no f**king idea what you are talking about. Tell me: How the f**k do you know, "Eventually everyone will return to center," and what on earth does that mean anyway? It's mystical gobbledegook of the worst kind.

Go read some f**king books.

It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Honestly, I think your namesake would show the wisdom not to behave this way. There's no call for this.

[Tiresias]

He characterizes my challenge to defend his mystical bibble-babble as "baiting" so that he doesn't have to. Because he can't.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

See, I don't think that's really necessary. We all come into belief in our own way, and in our own time, IMO. If it doesn't happen this time around, it'll happen the next, or the next. There's no forcing when it comes to "God", no pushing. Eventually everyone will return to center, because it's part of who we are (and what God is). It's inevitable.

But all right, let me try again.

Shaddim, this is a very bold claim. I am very interested in seeing the evidence, or at least seeing the logical rungs on which you reached this lofty conclusion. Could you please explain it, or are you just making this sh!t up a prophet?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Well, let's see then...I certainly am not compelled to believe in a god.

Okay, then you shouldn't believe in one.

I only spend a lot of time wondering how others can engage in such flights of fancy, not about god itself.

There are many flights of fancy everywhere you look. This is not exclusive to religion. If your eyes continuously move to and fro looking for the ridiculous, you will be a very busy person.

And I am filled with awe and wonder by the limitations of man's knowledge, but I feel no compunction to invent some figure to fill in those gaps just so I won't have to live with the uncertainty.

I don't look to a deity to fill gaps in science. Science and faith are two entirely different disciplines. I just happen to enjoy both. One satisfies me to a point, the other satisfies me to a point. The painful fact of the matter is people could see the evidence and still not believe it. Evidences would still be subject to interpretation and conclusion often filtered by presupposition. There are people who believe the earth is flat and no amount of evidence would convince them otherwise. People believe we've not yet landed on the moon and no amount of evidence would convince them otherwise. People believe in aliens and while there is no empirical evidence of their existence, it doesn't matter to them. The evidence offered from science does not detract from theism because that is not what it seeks to do. People who are hostile to religion may interpret scientific evidence this way and no amount of scientists telling them otherwise could convince them.

So, it is encouraging that at least one of the religious denizens of this board would accept that religion is really just fueling a personal need and has nothing to do with the larger reality and hence should not be shoved down anyone's throat, but sadly, most religious folks are not so open minded.

I disagree. They are as open-minded as anyone else. Both sides of this particular issue have done a good job of illustrating this and to equal degree. The "shoving it down your throat" part is a little dramatic IMO. Can a religious person oppose or support an issue on purely logical terms or must it always be connected to their god and/or religion?

Most wouldn't consider electing an atheist president, for example.

Would it have to do with the platform of the individual? Maybe some examples of atheist candidates for President would help make your point. For all we know, we've already elected a dishonest atheist. After all, he would by nature of his candidacy be a politician. Can an atheist be pro-life for example, and not enjoy the support of the Church on that issue?

Several think nonbelievers will be perpetually tortured in Hell by their "loving" but invisible god. You can see why these things would irk us nonbelievers.

No I really can't. If someone told me Zeuss was going to strike me down with a rod of lightning and I would be rendered a small goat-man in Hades it wouldn't bother me a bit. Why? Because I don't believe in Zeuss or goat-men or Hades.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

It is true. You have absolutely no f**king idea what you are talking about. Tell me: How the f**k do you know, "Eventually everyone will return to center," and what on earth does that mean anyway? It's mystical gobbledegook of the worst kind.

Go read some f**king books.

It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.

peeb, peeb, is that you? Keep it up, with that attitude you won't be around much longer.


FWIW, I've probably read more books than you've ever actually seen.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

It's the history of religion that makes many atheists fairly confident that a) God is a myth and that b) the myth doesn't actually make us any better to one another.

I strongly agree with the first point, "God" is a myth. However, that doesn't mean that a supreme being doesn't exist. Either way, the narrative of these tales and accounts is of vast importance, because it shows us how previous generations perceived the world. We formed "God" in our image, much as our thoughts and wills have molded our lives.

The second point is arguable, the myth can make you a better person, if you choose to study the whole of what is taught, and then use common sense to shape your life with it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

peeb, peeb, is that you? Keep it up, with that attitude you won't be around much longer.


FWIW, I've probably read more books than you've ever actually seen.

Not to defend Tiresias' rudeness, but your post did kind of come across as metaphysical gobbledegook. Can you explain further what you were trying to say and what reason there is to believe it?

BTW, the Socratic dialogue Kerrigan mentioned earlier is Euthyphro. It's worth a read if anyone's interested in the topic.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

A placebo works better if the patient believes it is a real pill. Therefore, the doctor should also believe it is a real pill, since such a belief obviously has positive effects.

Here we have an example of someone who struggles with "logic"; so they twist an idea to conform to their idea of what's logical...it's ok it happens all the time.

A placebo works better if the patient believes it will work. Therefore, the doctor should also believe it will work, since such a belief obviously has positive effects.
corrected to how the idea really works. And by the way just because the patient doesn't know what's in the pill, doesn't make it an unreal pill. So your logic actually makes no sense. Few people know whats in any given pill anyway...


edit
oh I just saw something else that didn't make any sense.

You cannot argue the existence of something by pointing to the positive effects of believing it exists. Let me make your wobbly logic explicit:

He wasn't saying that. He said "if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus". Then things would be better. So are you arguing the teaching don't exist?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I strongly agree with the first point, "God" is a myth. However, that doesn't mean that a supreme being doesn't exist. Either way, the narrative of these tales and accounts is of vast importance, because it shows us how previous generations perceived the world. We formed "God" in our image, much as our thoughts and wills have molded our lives.

The second point is arguable, the myth can make you a better person, if you choose to study the whole of what is taught, and then use common sense to shape your life with it.

I can agree to that, but that's a far cry from pretending it's real. Me, I think there's great wisdom in Buddhism. It's the only religion that speaks to me, but that doesn't mean I would actually subscribe to reincarnation without any tangible reason to believe such a thing is possible.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I can agree to that, but that's a far cry from pretending it's real.

But it is real, we've made it real. It can shape our lives and we can change virtually anything we want with it. In my experience, the "God" that's been formed a very powerful egregore.

Me, I think there's great wisdom in Buddhism. It's the only religion that speaks to me, but that doesn't mean I would actually subscribe to reincarnation without any tangible reason to believe such a thing is possible.

You're looking for evidence that no person can show you, especially not online.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I can agree to that, but that's a far cry from pretending it's real. Me, I think there's great wisdom in Buddhism. It's the only religion that speaks to me, but that doesn't mean I would actually subscribe to reincarnation without any tangible reason to believe such a thing is possible.

Only Tibetan Buddhists believe in reincarnation. What Gotama taught was "rebirth," but I can't explain the difference.

Buddhists don't have to believe in anything. If you practice Buddhist mindfulness and meditation, you're a Buddhist.

/oh crap, I accidentally posted in the "no nonbelievers" thread. I guess I shouldn't have been lurking anyways.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

But it is real, we've made it real. It can shape our lives and we can change virtually anything we want with it. In my experience, the "God" that's been formed a very powerful egregore.

You're looking for evidence that no person can show you, especially not online.

Isn't it obvious? I'm not looking for evidence at all. I'm looking to refute some folk.

Nobody can show the evidence anywhere because it only exists inside an individual's mind. You know that they've triggered the feelings of "religious experience" by selectively stimulating brain centers, right?

Come on, people, it's all made up. If it makes you feel better, great. Do what you want. But you know some of us are above fooling ourselves to get through the day.

I take my reality straight up, thanks.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

It is true. You have absolutely no f**king idea what you are talking about. Tell me: How the f**k do you know, "Eventually everyone will return to center," and what on earth does that mean anyway? It's mystical gobbledegook of the worst kind.

Go read some f**king books.

It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.

You just provided proof of God.

Surely, a *&$#&*$% like you can't just evolve, it must have been created.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Isn't it obvious? I'm not looking for evidence at all. I'm looking to refute some folk.

Nobody can show the evidence anywhere because it only exists inside an individual's mind. You know that they've triggered the feelings of "religious experience" by selectively stimulating brain centers, right?

Come on, people, it's all made up. If it makes you feel better, great. Do what you want. But you know some of us are above fooling ourselves to get through the day.

I take my reality straight up, thanks.

Yep, your reality is what you've made of it, kudos.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Only Tibetan Buddhists believe in reincarnation. What Gotama taught was "rebirth," but I can't explain the difference.

Buddhists don't have to believe in anything. If you practice Buddhist mindfulness and meditation, you're a Buddhist.

/oh crap, I accidentally posted in the "no nonbelievers" thread. I guess I shouldn't have been lurking anyways.

And I have, at times, described myself as a secular Buddhist. I have refrained, of late, from saying that because I think it might be insulting to those whose discipline runs much deeper than my own. But I do believe in the four noble truths (well, first two especially) and walking the middle path.

I also think some of the ideas attributed to Jesus are fantastic...I only wish more Christians followed them. But agreeing with someone (who may or may not have said the aforementioned wise tidbits) and bowing down to worship him her as Horus--oh, sorry, I mean as the son of God--are two completely different things.

-erik-'s right...it's all a lost cause. All this "discussion" is doing is making damned sure that I'll never get elected president. You know, since no open atheist could be elected president on account of him not believing in Santa Claus--damn, sorry, Yaweh...er, Zues...whoever.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

Funny, I'm left with even more questions when looking at Christianity. Where, pray tell, did God come from? What was there before God? How did he create matter? Energy?

That's what I'm saying, you're left with the exact same questions regardless. So, it's God VS the Cosmos.

It all just leads to more questions. And that's the fundamental divide here: we atheists keep on asking the hard-hitting questions, and, at some level, the religious in the room start accepting the answers as final.

Your hard-hitting questions are not answerable. The guy driving around with the little lizard-fish on the back of his car may also have accepted answers as final when scientists would be the first to tell him they are not.

If there were even a single shred of evidence of the supernatural, I would leave the door open. However, this is a physical world with physical boundaries, and I see no reason to even think that an event outside of those boundaries has ever occurred or will ever occur.

Positive affects of prayer. Natural or Supernatural?
Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients

There are numerous studies that suggest a particular cluster of neurons comprise a god-module of sorts. The experiences related to this portion of the brain are exclusively spiritual in nature. This begs the question IMO, "god created our brain or our brain created god". If it were tribal in nature, why would "spirituality" be necessary? Why invoke tendencies or behaviors against the known nature of social development? How is this advantageous in an evolutionary sense?
Supernatural? Natural pending mechanism to establish it? Conclusions will naturally be filtered by presupposition. One more prone to belief may find the above an example of the supernatural. One prone to disbelief would find the above an example of something merely curious as yet defined by a natural mechanism.

Food for thought; we have evidence of a need or desire for faith. This phenomena is evident through centuries of research related to the most ancient of peoples. This need or desire demands a reality to fulfill it. If an atheist supposes that this reality is nothing more than a construct, he needs to establish how that is so. This burden would seem to include proof that the reality does not exist. There is little evidence to suggest a need or desire would consistently produce the imagination required to believe its existence. There might in fact be a reality behind the inherent need. Atheism itself is unprovable just as a god is unprovable. That one can pick apart aspects of a religious doctrine as questionable and point to holes in it does not discredit the "truth" of it any more than a creationist pointing to holes in evolution science and claiming the whole thing is junk.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I'm saying, you're left with the exact same questions regardless. So, it's God VS the Cosmos.


Your hard-hitting questions are not answerable. The guy driving around with the little lizard-fish on the back of his car may also have accepted answers as final when scientists would be the first to tell him they are not.


Positive affects of prayer. Natural or Supernatural?
Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients

There are numerous studies that suggest a particular cluster of neurons comprise a god-module of sorts. The experiences related to this portion of the brain are exclusively spiritual in nature. This begs the question IMO, "god created our brain or our brain created god". If it were tribal in nature, why would "spirituality" be necessary? Why invoke tendencies or behaviors against the known nature of social development? How is this advantageous in an evolutionary sense?
Supernatural? Natural pending mechanism to establish it? Conclusions will naturally be filtered by presupposition. One more prone to belief may find the above an example of the supernatural. One prone to disbelief would find the above an example of something merely curious as yet defined by a natural mechanism.

Food for thought; we have evidence of a need or desire for faith. This phenomena is evident through centuries of research related to the most ancient of peoples. This need or desire demands a reality to fulfill it. If an atheist supposes that this reality is nothing more than a construct, he needs to establish how that is so. This burden would seem to include proof that the reality does not exist. There is little evidence to suggest a need or desire would consistently produce the imagination required to believe its existence. There might in fact be a reality behind the inherent need. Atheism itself is unprovable just as a god is unprovable. That one can pick apart aspects of a religious doctrine as questionable and point to holes in it does not discredit the "truth" of it any more than a creationist pointing to holes in evolution science and claiming the whole thing is junk.

You know, I think I would find a God who would make decisions about an individual human being's health based on some popularity contest (Let's see who can get the most prayers!) beneath my contempt. Is that really how you believe your deity operates? I don't have time this morning to review these studies, and boy howdy would I want to look carefully at their methodology, but they wouldn't necessarily suggest a benevolent god to me, more likely some sort of psychic phenomenon.

[Tiresias]

Shaddim: How do you know that: "Eventually everyone will return to center" ?

Answer the question.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I'm saying, you're left with the exact same questions regardless. So, it's God VS the Cosmos.


Your hard-hitting questions are not answerable. The guy driving around with the little lizard-fish on the back of his car may also have accepted answers as final when scientists would be the first to tell him they are not.


Positive affects of prayer. Natural or Supernatural?
Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients

There are numerous studies that suggest a particular cluster of neurons comprise a god-module of sorts. The experiences related to this portion of the brain are exclusively spiritual in nature. This begs the question IMO, "god created our brain or our brain created god". If it were tribal in nature, why would "spirituality" be necessary? Why invoke tendencies or behaviors against the known nature of social development? How is this advantageous in an evolutionary sense?
Supernatural? Natural pending mechanism to establish it? Conclusions will naturally be filtered by presupposition. One more prone to belief may find the above an example of the supernatural. One prone to disbelief would find the above an example of something merely curious as yet defined by a natural mechanism.

Food for thought; we have evidence of a need or desire for faith. This phenomena is evident through centuries of research related to the most ancient of peoples. This need or desire demands a reality to fulfill it. If an atheist supposes that this reality is nothing more than a construct, he needs to establish how that is so. This burden would seem to include proof that the reality does not exist. There is little evidence to suggest a need or desire would consistently produce the imagination required to believe its existence. There might in fact be a reality behind the inherent need. Atheism itself is unprovable just as a god is unprovable. That one can pick apart aspects of a religious doctrine as questionable and point to holes in it does not discredit the "truth" of it any more than a creationist pointing to holes in evolution science and claiming the whole thing is junk.

You know, I'm a little embarrassed of myself right now. I'd started this thread as an invitation to civilized dialogue, but when things went south I too became flippant and negative. Thank you for your thoughtful response, ebuddy. If you'd pardon any missteps on my part, I'd like to return to my original intention for this thread.

Before, though, I want to make sure I fully understand this--the first real response to my question. Are you saying that the universal need for faith validates the existence of the object of that faith?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why should we believe God exists?

Why should we believe hope exists?

I hear so many Obama supporters talking about hope, yet they never show me evidence of this hope. Nothing I can touch, feel, photograph, measure, smell, taste... not a single one of these has been provided to me as evidence that hope exists.

I think Obama and his supporters are trying to pull a fast one on us.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Why should we believe hope exists?

I hear so many Obama supporters talking about hope, yet they never show me evidence of this hope. Nothing I can touch, feel, photograph, measure, smell, taste... not a single one of these has been provided to me as evidence that hope exists.

I think Obama and his supporters are trying to pull a fast one on us.

This is something that I addressed elsewhere when I said that everyone has some sort of faith. Hope is certainly an element of faith for me and I was more specific elsewhere on the board so I won't go into detail repeating myself.

Nevertheless, putting faith in a general emotion and choosing to believe in certain principles is a far cry from putting faith in a specific entity with claims of particular traits, will, and desire are two entirely different things.

And the ultimate point I made in that other thread was that I don't pretend there's some rational reason for me to have faith. I choose to.

That said, you--like most--haven't tried to answer my question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You know, I think I would find a God who would make decisions about an individual human being's health based on some popularity contest (Let's see who can get the most prayers!) beneath my contempt. Is that really how you believe your deity operates?

Yes, I do believe that's how our deity operates. You see, I don't believe our physical bodies are as meaningful to Him as He would have us regard them amongst ourselves. I'm guessing God would be more interested in our eternal being. This makes complete sense to me, it may not to someone else. I understand this. To be clear, I'm not saying I have some augmented understanding, just a different perspective.

I don't have time this morning to review these studies, and boy howdy would I want to look carefully at their methodology, but they wouldn't necessarily suggest a benevolent god to me, more likely some sort of psychic phenomenon.

Without evil I'm not sure how we'd define benevolence. Plus, it wouldn't really be freewill any other way. Interestingly, psychic phenomena are by definition supernatural.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Shaddim: How do you know that: "Eventually everyone will return to center" ?

Answer the question.

Let's see, you've been an ass, cursed at me, ridiculed everyone of faith, and tried to bait me into losing my temper with you. For the life of me, I can't see why I should dip my finger into cold water to administer a drop on your blistered tongue.

However, I'm feeling benevolent. Here's your drop. Oh, what the hell, I'll give you a whole cup.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Without evil I'm not sure how we'd define benevolence. Plus, it wouldn't really be freewill any other way. Interestingly, psychic phenomena are by definition supernatural.

I'm not really sure why you raise evil and free will right there. And if psychic phenomenon do exist--something I'm far from convinced of, but if the results of those studies were repeated then that would be the most proximal explanation in my book, not an additional entity that cannot be investigated--and they can be studied by science in this fashion then they would no longer be supernatural. I can only speculate on what could produce such phenomenon, but if they can be observed and studied by science, then that's a game changer.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you could find time to reply to the other response in this same thread. I think it could be interesting.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Let's see, you've been an ass, cursed at me, ridiculed everyone of faith, and tried to bait me into losing my temper with you. For the life of me, I can't see why I should dip my finger into cold water to administer a drop on your blistered tongue.

However, I'm feeling benevolent. Here's your drop. Oh, what the hell, I'll give you a whole cup.

Trendy Kabbalism? That's a cup of something alright...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Nevertheless, putting faith in a general emotion and choosing to believe in certain principles is a far cry from putting faith in a specific entity with claims of particular traits, will, and desire are two entirely different things.

You should believe in God if you wish to take a path that billions of people have taken before you - a path that has provided many with serenity, and the guidance to help your psyche as you encounter life's numerous hurdles.

I'm not really a religious guy, but I've always thought of the Bible as the premier guide to dealing with life. Some people I know go through self-help books like water. Others who are religious... the Bible is all they seem to need, no matter their age or situation.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

You should believe in God if you wish to take a path that billions of people have taken before you - a path that has provided many with serenity, and the guidance to help your psyche as you encounter life's numerous hurdles.

I'm not really a religious guy, but I've always thought of the Bible as the premier guide to dealing with life. Some people I know go through self-help books like water. Others who are religious... the Bible is all they seem to need, no matter their age or situation.

I'm not really sure that's the truth. Just because you grew up in a place where Christianity is the default doesn't make the Bible particularly great at helping people deal with life. If anything, the inconsistency that's built around the Bible will just lead to confusion or dogmatism.

Does it help my life to know two different genealogies for Jesus? To hear about how Saul slew some other ancient dude? To discover the general measurements of a water basin that doesn't exist anymore? Or more importantly, do any of these help more than any other religion or philosophy to which I might dedicate my life? It doesn't seem so to me. Many people these days are increasingly dissatisfied with Christianity, which seems to indicate that the Bible is not all they need. For some people, sure. But not all of the billions who have practiced it have necessarily been radically improved by it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm not really sure that's the truth. Just because you grew up in a place where Christianity is the default doesn't make the Bible particularly great at helping people deal with life. If anything, the inconsistency that's built around the Bible will just lead to confusion or dogmatism.

Does it help my life to know two different genealogies for Jesus? To hear about how Saul slew some other ancient dude? To discover the general measurements of a water basin that doesn't exist anymore? Or more importantly, do any of these help more than any other religion or philosophy to which I might dedicate my life? It doesn't seem so to me. Many people these days are increasingly dissatisfied with Christianity, which seems to indicate that the Bible is not all they need. For some people, sure. But not all of the billions who have practiced it have necessarily been radically improved by it.

I'd be willing to bet that the Bible is the world's top recommended life guide. As with any book or philosophy, the benefits will not be universal.

"Increasingly dissatisfied".... do you have some large survey numbers, and what are the variables? I ask because I have seen that people are "increasingly dissatisfied" with Apple products, yet any objective analysis of the numbers indicates exactly the opposite.