jorndoe
1k
You get to the bus stop in the morning, wondering if you're late, so you ask someone already there.
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? Punshhh?) — jorndoe

Not sure of your point here.

What does your scenario have to do with what I have said?

OK , and welcome to the forums. So, what warrants dis/belief anyway? (Or some such preachery indoctrination proselytizing, for that matter?)

, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread.


_{(what to (not) believe, ..., The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps), solipsism, dream thought experiments, intangible hobs that can control the weather, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings, Last Thursdayism, ..., what about stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after his demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ...)}

↪Frank Apisa, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread. — jorndoe

What is there to misread?

Essentially, all I have said in this thread are variations of two things:

ONE:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...SO I DON'T.

That cannot be assailed or challenged in any way. I, Frank Apisa, do not know if any gods exist or not; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods CANNOT exist; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods MUST exist...and I, Frank Apisa, because I, Frank Apisa, do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...DON'T MAKE SUCH A GUESS.

TWO: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" "there are no gods" "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none"...is merely asserting a blind guess.

There is no way one can come to any of those conclusions via logic.

I challenge anyone who makes any of those assertions to show the logic via a syllogism.

Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in? — Hippyhead

I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging.

So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference?

That's not a useful comparison because it compares two scenarios, one of which is known to be encountered frequently in our world with one known to never happen in our world. However when it comes to details of our origins there is no way to determine if a proposed scenario is known to be the case, or known not to be the case. Such a determination may well be possible, but I can't see how we are in a position to determine it, philosophically, at this time.

I can't answer for claims made by theists. Personally I don't make claims, or hold beliefs, so your line of argument doesn't appear to address someone in my position.

I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging. — EricH

Agreed, but not what I was referring to. I'll try to be more clear....

1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....

2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...

3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...

4) Still is interested in god topics...

5) Then what?

Theism and atheism can both be reduced to rubble. As example, the question being asked "does god exist" can be shown to be useless by a simple examination of space, the vast majority of reality, which can not be clearly said either to exist or not-exist. A rational person who is at least a little bit serious will not expect a useful answer to arise from such a fatally flawed question.

Once theism and atheism are reduced to rubble some people will wash their hands of the entire subject and pursue other interests. Ok, that makes sense.

But what if after we've put theism and atheism in to their caskets, lowered them in to the ground, and shoveled dirt over them, we're still interested in the very largest of questions?

Then what?

:up:

:rofl:

Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief? — EricH

Indeed. Yet another form of religion; religious extremism gives [a] God a bad name.

On the other hand here in America, we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Meaning, our commitment to Christian philosophy and religious freedom overwhelmingly enhances our quality of life. In other words, practically speaking, or in a philosophical pragmatic way, the pluses continue to outweigh the minuses.

And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer. — EricH

But if Stalin had been a Catholic leading an explicitly Catholic regime, then you'd blame the slaughter on Catholicism. This is a very tired dodge, you can do better. No, I don't want to debate it, it doesn't rise to the level of meriting debate. Try again please.

Seems you want to refer to "the unknowable", ?
I don't think a whole lot denies that there are unknowns. Surely I'm not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.
Wanting to eff the ineffable and make it into a religion no less, is already striding too far from what was already asserted.
With reasoning ruled out, evidence ruled out, human abilities ruled out, ..., there isn't a whole lot left, not epistemic anyway.
Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion, yet that's about one self (not "otherworldly" sentient almighty super-beings).
Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter (the universe pales in comparison it seems). And, if I'm understanding your sentiment (which I probably don't), they also declare that you're wrong.

Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion — jorndoe

We could translate this idea in to atheist language if that helps.

Atheists believe in facing reality. The reality is that, on issues the vast scale of gods, we are ignorant. So it would be compliant with atheist culture to embrace this ignorance. It would be rational to accept this situation which we can currently do nothing about, and look for ways to benefit from it.

If a miner digs a mine looking for gold, but finds only coal, the rational miner will ask, "Where can I sell this coal?" Columbus hoped to find the Far East, but instead found the Americas. He could have turned back and given up in failure, or he could proceed to plunder the Americas.

We conducted an investigation hoping to find an answer, but instead found our ignorance. An irrational person will live in a wishful thinking fantasy by pretending that they have found an answer, while the rational person will accept the results of the investigation and work to put what has been discovered to good use. Did we find what we hoped to find? No. But we did find something. What can we do with what we have discovered?

Atheists base their world view on observation of reality. Observation of reality reveals that the overwhelmingly vast majority of reality is what we usually call nothing. Nothing is the absence of a physical something, whereas ignorance is the absence of an answer, a mental something. Both physical somethings and mental somethings are at heart just data. Ignorance bears a striking resemblance to most of reality.

Atheists believe in being rational. It is rational to worship reality, not because reality requires our worship, but because the emotional experience of worship enriches our lives. And reality is mostly nothing so we can worship nothing, both physical nothing, and it's partner mental nothing.

Many atheists will reject the word worship, the experience of worship, and emotion more generally. This is because they are still TRAPPED inside a holy war with religious culture which they aren't yet rational enough to realize they can never win, because like everyone else, they are ignorant. Rejecting positive emotions which can enrich our lives is not rational or manly, but is instead merely weak, fearful and cowardly.

There is plenty for any "spiritual" atheist to explore, discover and enjoy, should they be rational enough to surrender their fantasy knowings and embrace the overwhelming reality of nothing.

Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter — jorndoe

Agreed, but so what?

1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....

2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...

3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...

4) Still is interested in god topics... — Hippyhead

I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'?

If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests.

Perhaps I have not explained myself well.

When the topic of religious persecution comes up and non-believers (such as myself) point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism or agnosticism, religious folks will try to counter and say "Oh yeah? What about Stalin & Mao?"

I simply wanted to nip that line of "reasoning" in the bud. The depredations of Stalin & Mao had nothing to do with religion.

Getting back to religious persecution, of course things are much more complex than that. No one is ever murdered merely in the name of religion. Religious persecution is always tied in with politics, prejudice, and the desire to rule over and manipulate people. You might even want to make the claim that religion has merely provided a convenient fig leaf to conceal other motives. I won't argue that - but merely point out that it is a very powerful fig leaf capable of motivating entire nations to go to war and commit mass murder.

I simply wanted to nip that line of "reasoning" in the bud. — EricH

You haven't succeeded in that project, though I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on other topics.

I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'? — EricH

You're perhaps not following the logic because you are still stuck in the God debate. If we accept the reality of our ignorance then just as the claim "god exists" has no meaning, the statement "god doesn't exist" also has no meaning. Your position didn't just win, it is as defeated as the theist position.

If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests. — EricH

That is one option, yes, and I have no argument with anyone who chooses it. But as your own participation in such threads would seem to demonstrate, some of us don't wish to walk away. Which raises the question, now what?

My argument is that the investigation doesn't need to end just because we didn't find what we were looking for. I hope the following might help a bit.

The God debate is built upon some nearly universally agreed upon, but rarely examined, assumptions which can be inspected and challenged.

As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. This suggests that the question being asked may be so poor that no useful answer can emerge from it, ie. we are ignorant.

Another assumption blindly shared by both theists and atheists is that the point of the investigation should be to find an answer, some collection of symbols which accurately represent reality. Most people just accept this methodology as being the appropriate course of action without questioning it the least little bit. We can choose to question it.

Dropping an exploration we seem clearly interested in because we didn't find what we were looking for would be like Columbus giving up because he didn't find the Far East. Imagine him saying, "This isn't the Far East, so I give up, I quit, I'm going home, forget about the whole thing." And by doing so, leaving the Americas unexplored.

Rational?

You haven't succeeded in that project, though — Hippyhead

Aside from simply asserting it, you have given no explanation for for the lack of success.

, you're putting far too many words in atheism's mouth. :)

from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’ — define atheism

Jedi are supposedly atheists, albeit of a rather odd sort.

Agreed, but so what? — Hippyhead

'cuz no manner of human fabulation makes it so; rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.

As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. — Hippyhead

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).

Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.

I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.

But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism

- - - - - - - - - -

BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East.

Aside from simply asserting it, you have given no explanation for for the lack of success. — EricH

Already explained why. You're on your own with that one.

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. — EricH

Honestly, and no offense intended, I find this kind of dodging and weaving tiresome. 50 billion threads on the Internet, including countless threads on this forum alone, have argued whether a god exists or not, yes or no.

As to what religious people think, there are billions of them and they think all kinds of things, way too many to even big to list.

EricH
179
As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm.
— Hippyhead

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).

Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.

I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.

But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism

- - - - - - - - - -

BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East. — EricH

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.

I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.

And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.

"I do not know" makes lots of sense.

"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.

At least, as I see it.

Words have meaning & usages.

You - Frank Apisa - have your own unique definition/usage of the word "god(s)". Under your definition, "god(s)" refers a hypothetical entity or entities that is/are part of the material universe. However - much as an ant has no conception of what is happening when you step on it's nest - we human beings cannot perceive them. However, given that your "god(s)" are part of the material universe, then at least potentially they can be investigated, measured, etc.

Under this definition, your little "guessing" formula works, and I have the same opinion you have - no reason to guess one way or the other.

But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence.

It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth. — Frank Apisa

Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).

We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.

Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile:

But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence. — EricH

Not so at all. Certainly not through history. The many early gods were not that at all.

Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."

Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).

We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.

Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile: — EricH

Very jaded view there, Eric. I hope it is not the reality for you.

Are there other sentient beings in our universe? Are there other dimensions to our existence? Do unicorns exist? Does the dominant life form on most planets have the means to fly like birds...or are most land bound? Are there any gods...or are there none? Do thoughts have a physical component?

At best you might say, "These are things that do not interest me."

To say considerations about them are wasted time...goes a bit too far for me.

Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." — Frank Apisa

Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

And you have explicitly rejected this notion.

Very jaded view there — Frank Apisa

Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble.

I'm facing facts, accepting the fact that we are not equipped to answer the questions of our origins does not mean we are somehow giving up, lost, or trying to make something out of nothing. We still have the full cannon of human knowledge, science etc, to exercise our minds, to entertain, to stimulate us. I am interested in knowing what we don't know and identifying things that some profess to know, but in reality can't know. Also, identifying other means of knowing than via intellectual knowledge.

I'm not an atheist as any result of 'arguments'. I think though that you have to define which 'atheists' you're referring to: those who go "blah blah parrot celebrity quotes pretending I came up with them myself attack attack" or those who merely don't believe in gods.

EricH
181
Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."
— Frank Apisa

Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

And you have explicitly rejected this notion. — EricH

You are engaging in the "when the facts do not suit your argument, pretend the facts are wrong."

The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically.

If you want to pretend it doesn't...fine with me. Pretend away.

Very jaded view there
— Frank Apisa
Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble. — EricH

Nah. I think "jaded" works better here.

The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically. — Frank Apisa

Sorry Frank - you've got this wrong.

The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam resides in a spiritual realm. He can intervene in the physical world. After all, it's his creation - he can do any damn thing he pleases with it. But he existed (whatever that means) in his spiritual realm before he created the physical world - and our eternal souls go to this spiritual realm after we die. And after the final judgement the physical world will cease to exist (at least according to many interpretations).

The "existence" of a non-physical world/realm is the key distinguishing factor that makes a belief system a religion. I'm not talking about your interpretation of the word "god" here - I'm taking about what the billions of religious people believe.

Again - don't take my word for it - check with a religious person - or go to any of the religious web sites. They will confirm this.

Anyway - we've looped around this point enough. Last word is yours if you want it.

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric. — Frank Apisa

I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. If I understand correctly (i may not) he is agreeable to the validity of the question, so long as it is answered as he prefers.

It seems to me there is an important difference between being atheist to theist claims, and being "atheist" to the God debate itself.

This simply is not true. The Bible says God visited Mount Sinai and helped Moses write the commandment tablets. Moses asked if he could see God's face, and God said no because the man would die, but he allowed him to see or feel his hand pass over.

Also in that instance, God could be seen by the masses descending onto the mountain as a giant fiery cloud making noise with lights flashing around it.

God's voice walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and a voice requires physicality.

Jacob wrestled with God in the desert and said "I have seen the face of God and lived". Many Christians would argue that this was an angel or Jesus, but that's not what the book says and is speculation.

Jesus was God in human form, and the 3 aspects of God are inseparable. The Christians who argue that this is not true are a very, very small minority.

These are just a few examples.

Also...heaven is ascribed earthly measurements and qualities which are physical. It's like a giant cube with streets of gold, etc. Also...the new Jerusalem exists on Earth after God destroys the world, and this is where God resides in person forever with the chosen 144,000 Jews.