The Roman Catholic Church is preparing to abolish limbo, the place between heaven and hell reserved for the souls of children who die before they have been baptised.

The Church's 30-member International Theological Commission yesterday began a week-long meeting to draw up a text for Pope Benedict XVI, which is expected to recommend dropping the concept from Church doctrine.

Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in literary works such as Dante's Divine Comedy.
advertisement

The commission was first asked to study the after-life fate of the non-baptised by the late Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict is expected to approve the findings. In 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the head of the Vatican's doctrinal department, he called limbo "a theological hypothesis".

"It is linked to the cause of original sin, but many babies die because they are victims," he said.

Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, Theologian of the Pontifical Household, yesterday told La Stampa: "We need to consider it and take into account the fact that many children die victims of modern evils - hunger in the world, for example, and many ills coming from huge social disorder and misery, let alone the fruits of abortion and such things."

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

The most decisive modern Catholic text on the issue dates back to 1905 when Pope Pius X stated: "Children who die without being baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either, because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory."

Catholics also believe that because fertilised ovum and aborted foetuses have human souls they, too, go to limbo.


Any views to share?

A "belief" being laid to rest on the grounds that "the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts"???

I am just gob-smacked, to be honest, if this is true.

Where next? Getting rid of the "There is a God" belief? :D

I thought I heard on the news today that 'limbo' - according to the Pope - was just a "hypothesis".

I thought this omittance also rang true for the rest of his ridiculous religion.

Most of Catholic doctrine is just that. There's no "what if...?" attached to any of it.

I just found it funny how he was implyingthat limbo was just 'hypothesis' but heaven somehow wasn't.

Not in the field of Catholic theology it isn't.

Neither in science, which really has nothing to say about the subject.

The Roman Catholic Church is preparing to abolish limbo, the place between heaven and hell reserved for the souls of children who die before they have been baptised.

The Church's 30-member International Theological Commission yesterday began a week-long meeting to draw up a text for Pope Benedict XVI, which is expected to recommend dropping the concept from Church doctrine.

Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in literary works such as Dante's Divine Comedy.
advertisement

The commission was first asked to study the after-life fate of the non-baptised by the late Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict is expected to approve the findings. In 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the head of the Vatican's doctrinal department, he called limbo "a theological hypothesis".

"It is linked to the cause of original sin, but many babies die because they are victims," he said.

Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, Theologian of the Pontifical Household, yesterday told La Stampa: "We need to consider it and take into account the fact that many children die victims of modern evils - hunger in the world, for example, and many ills coming from huge social disorder and misery, let alone the fruits of abortion and such things."

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

The most decisive modern Catholic text on the issue dates back to 1905 when Pope Pius X stated: "Children who die without being baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either, because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory."

Catholics also believe that because fertilised ovum and aborted foetuses have human souls they, too, go to limbo.

Any views to share?

*************
M*W: No surprise here. Like every other business out there, they need to reinvent themselves every so often. Madonna does it. Beyonce does it. For god's sake, even Paul McCartney does it. Retail business is no different. Target wants to pull in more customers. Walmart and Sears hope to acquire a fancier image. Public appeal -- that's the name of the game. Jesus saves! At today's prices, that's a miracle!

Not in the field of Catholic theology it isn't.

Neither in science, which really has nothing to say about the subject.

I'm talking about the field of common sense. When someone states confidently that something is just a guess whilst things such as 'heaven' are accepted fact, now that's funny.

LOL!

What I would LOVE to see is how quickly the RC theists I know stop believing in "Limbo" after fervently believing in it correct as part of Roman Catholicism for between 5 years to 3 odd decades.

I remember reading about this a few months ago. I find it utterly humerous that an entire dimension is being wiped from existence because it isn't marketable. Perhaps they should add "Candyland" to their doctrine in the absence of Limbo. Now that's an after-life I can sink my teeth into.

This is really weird stuff and I am shocked that the church can even talk about this, as if the Pope can do anything about 'Limbo' even if it is real, weird.

Also lets think of all the RC parents who have lost a child and believed it was in 'Limbo' res they hoping and prays that limbo is no more? Will they be pleased if Limbo is no more? This is really deranged thinking!

M*W nice reply I think you hit the nail on the head.

The Roman Catholic Church is dying.

The Roman Catholic Church is dying.

Praise the lord!

Praise the lord!
Indeed.

Praise the lord!

*************
M*W: You're right. It's been dying for some 1,700 years. Good riddance.

The Pope's dying too...

The Pope's dying too...

There'll be another one I'm afraid. A new celibate man in a dress telling us how to have sex...

Maybe a RC Poet had a kid that died and he called the kid Jimbo. Has the Pope given people like this any thought? I don't think so.

The Pope's dying too...

*************
M*W: We're all dying. If we're not busy being born, we're busy dying.

The Roman Catholic Church is dying.

*************
M*W: Tis true, tis true. Except in the barrios of Brasil and in the bowels of
Afrika, where the Christian evanglical conversion rate and the mortality rate are statistically significant. Fill 'em full of the holy spirit while they starve to death. Somehow, that doesn't make death come easier.

Praise the lord!
no ..,praise logic,and reason!and people who use it!

What will they do with all the souls currently held in limbo? Something of a logistical problem, it seems.

Limbo is full of souls, Allah ran out of virgins, heaven is a cube click (http://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm) and after this damn war it's bout to burst of souls!! :( where the hell are we going to go? OOooops did I say Hell? :confused: LOL.. It's apparently full of souls too!!

Do you all realize that the trinity was also invented by committee.

If truths were really organized this way then in science we could form a committee to decide how gravity should really behave, etc. Or perhaps more usuefully decide that hyperspace exists so we can have faster than light travel.

How can catholicsm be taken seriously when procedures like this are considered meaningful?

Followers of the faith and the figures of authority who force it on children don't look at it that way Cris. They should, for the sake of us all...

Personally I think it's disgusting that grown humans can be quite so stupid.

Do you all realize that the trinity was also invented by committee.


Any reference?

Any reference?

LOL! I can't believe the infected mind of a theists who still doesn't realize that all religious notions are invented by man... 'The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit', yes, that poetic (and most importantly catchy) notion was in no way invented by man, but revealed through an angel. Yes that is more likely!

A "belief" being laid to rest on the grounds that "the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts"???

I am just gob-smacked, to be honest, if this is true.

Where next? Getting rid of the "There is a God" belief? :D

Where do you think a good deal of Catholic Doctrine, pretty much all the holidays and most of the saints come from?
They are concessions to converts.
This is nothing new.
The "There is a God belief" isn't going anywhere, however, because it isn't simply Doctrine, it is spelled out in the Bible (see below).

I thought I heard on the news today that 'limbo' - according to the Pope - was just a "hypothesis".

I thought this omittance also rang true for the rest of his ridiculous religion.
In this sense of the word anything that was not spelled out specifically in the Bible is hypothesis.
Limbo, in addition to many other church hypotheses, was borne of the church leaders trying to "fill in the blanks" of the Bible.

Where do you think a good deal of Catholic Doctrine, pretty much all the holidays and most of the saints come from?
They are concessions to converts.
This is nothing new.
The "There is a God belief" isn't going anywhere, however, because it isn't simply Doctrine, it is spelled out in the Bible (see below).True - I hadn't really thought of it like that.
I guess 'cos most of the concessions happened a long time ago, when Catholicism came to the Pagan people - and I'd probably thought that the church was no longer as obvious as that.
Shame on me for thinking that way! :D

LOL! I can't believe the infected mind of a theists who still doesn't realize that all religious notions are invented by man... 'The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit', yes, that poetic (and most importantly catchy) notion was in no way invented by man, but revealed through an angel. Yes that is more likely!

And you were being asked what are the premises for your realisations ..... and you didn't reveal them ......
:rolleyes:

Well if someone says that god is a kangaroo I can't well prove that it is a manmade notion can I? Perhaps it was 'divinely' revealed to him, just like the silly notion of the 'Trinity'. Although despite the fact I can't prove that god being a kangaroo is definitely a manmade fantasy, I can use somthing called common sense to judge that it is manmade.

Theists are continually saying God is unknowable, yet how they came accross the idea of the 'trinity' is more realistically rooted in fiction, just like most of the Bible.

Well if someone says that god is a kangaroo I can't well prove that it is a manmade notion can I? Perhaps it was 'divinely' revealed to him, just like the silly notion of the 'Trinity'. Although despite the fact I can't prove that god being a kangaroo is definitely a manmade fantasy, I can use somthing called common sense to judge that it is manmade.

Theists are continually saying God is unknowable, yet how they came accross the idea of the 'trinity' is more realistically rooted in fiction, just like most of the Bible.

Once again - you are still not revealing premises for a logical argument - all you are saying is that because something appears to be wrong in one circumstance it is obviously wrong in another - kind of weak since I am not aware of any religion that advocates that god is a kangaroo - try again

Logically, considering the lack of any evidence of a personal God, the probability of God existing is about equal to the idea that God exists and is a Kangaroo.

Logically, considering the lack of any evidence of a personal God, the probability of God existing is about equal to the idea that God exists and is a Kangaroo.

Well this is where theists like lightgigantic fail to see the idiocy of it all. Evidence of intelligent creator/personal god = 0, zero, ziltch, zip. So with that rather enormous fact in mind, I think it is very well safe to say that the trinity is entirely manmade. Just another motive/concept added to the unperceivable creator of the universe. Just as all religions donate their own personalised motives and concepts to thousands of other imaginary gods.

Logically, considering the lack of any evidence of a personal God, the probability of God existing is about equal to the idea that God exists and is a Kangaroo.

Your statement could be acceptable if there was a complete absence of theological philosophy that gives many arguments for the nature of god's existence (BTW - none of which I am aware of specifically mention a kangaroo as the summum bonum of creation - not even the aborigines of australia) - so from here I guess you have two options -
1) continue with your strawman kangaroo argument
2) Explain why it is thatthings that are not perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively false

Well this is where theists like lightgigantic fail to see the idiocy of it all. Evidence of intelligent creator/personal god = 0, zero, ziltch, zip. So with that rather enormous fact in mind, I think it is very well safe to say that the trinity is entirely manmade. Just another motive/concept added to the unperceivable creator of the universe. Just as all religions donate their own personalised motives and concepts to thousands of other imaginary gods.

Problem is that it is not an enormous fact - if you could come up with some premises or declarations of the general principles you apply to come to your conclusions perhaps this discussion could go somewhere but as it stands you are just playing on a battle of wills by boldly stating your opinions and venting your frustration when others have different opinions - a kind of predictable scenario for an atheist hanging out on a religious forum

2) Explain why it is thatthings that are not perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively false
Explain why it is that things that are perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively true?

Explain why it is that things that are perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively true?

Generally you can understand objectivity by being the medium that everyone interacts in - of course this is a general definition and you can find a few cracks (which I may or may not have the patience to clarify unless you give specific examples), but its logically impossible to prove that there is no objectivity since if you say there is no objectivity then that statement becomes the only objective reality

Your statement could be acceptable if there was a complete absence of theological philosophy that gives many arguments for the nature of god's existence (BTW - none of which I am aware of specifically mention a kangaroo as the summum bonum of creation - not even the aborigines of australia) - so from here I guess you have two options -
1) continue with your strawman kangaroo argument
2) Explain why it is thatthings that are not perceptable to you specifically and individually must be objectively false
Good point, lightgigantic. I find it humorous that someone can just shine their little flashlight into the vastness of the universe and conclude: "Well, since I haven't seen it, it surely mustn't exist!"

Generally you can understand objectivity by being the medium that everyone interacts in - of course this is a general definition and you can find a few cracks (which I may or may not have the patience to clarify unless you give specific examples), but its logically impossible to prove that there is no objectivity since if you say there is no objectivity then that statement becomes the only objective reality
Was this a response to my question? You are a complete waste of my already short attention span.

Good point, lightgigantic. I find it humorous that someone can just shine their little flashlight into the vastness of the universe and conclude: "Well, since I haven't seen it, it surely mustn't exist!"
And who here does this? Do you think that any lunacy you think of exists by this logic? Does it ever cross your fevered mind to consider evidence when making claims for the existence of things?

(BTW - none of which I am aware of specifically mention a kangaroo as the summum bonum of creation - not even the aborigines of australia)

The Kangaroo is just a deity, like many of the other equally laughable deities invented by man. Just because no organised religion or body or worship has invented it yet, does not mean it has less merit than that of the ones (thousands of them) that have already been invented or worshipped in some way.

There are literally millions of morals, motives, concepts, stories etc which all cultures have tagged their different gods with, that it remains rather obvious that all of them are manmade at the root.

Problem is that it is not an enormous fact - if you could come up with some premises or declarations of the general principles you apply to come to your conclusions perhaps this discussion could go somewhere but as it stands you are just playing on a battle of wills by boldly stating your opinions and venting your frustration when others have different opinions - a kind of predictable scenario for an atheist hanging out on a religious forum

Well, I'm afraid it is a fact until you have something other than faith to give.

And who here does this? Do you think that any lunacy you think of exists by this logic? Does it ever cross your fevered mind to consider evidence when making claims for the existence of things?

who said anything about "any lunancy" - there are very specific guidelines for determing what is religion and what is not religion - and from my experience on sciforums, none of which is tangible to an atheist who cannot distinguish between what constitutes a principle and what constitutes a detail in religion.

As for evidence - there are many ways to determine the nature of something's existence - as for understanding god, the "flashlight" method is not reccommended - actually if you want to accept the flashlight method then it fall sback on the problems and issues of who is wielding the flashlight - like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight

The Kangaroo is just a deity, like many of the other equally laughable deities invented by man. Just because no organised religion or body or worship has invented it yet, does not mean it has less merit than that of the ones (thousands of them) that have already been invented or worshipped in some way.

There are literally millions of morals, motives, concepts, stories etc which all cultures have tagged their different gods with, that it remains rather obvious that all of them are manmade at the root.



Well, I'm afraid it is a fact until you have something other than faith to give.

Well actually you are the one who has the ball in your court - you are the one stating that god is false, in very brave words, yet when you are asked to reveal your logic and premises you become shy - all you have to tell us is why all scriptures in all times and places are quite obviously fabricated stories

who said anything about "any lunancy" - there are very specific guidelines for determing what is religion and what is not religion - and from my experience on sciforums, none of which is tangible to an atheist who cannot distinguish between what constitutes a principle and what constitutes a detail in religion.

As for evidence - there are many ways to determine the nature of something's existence - as for understanding god, the "flashlight" method is not reccommended - actually if you want to accept the flashlight method then it fall sback on the problems and issues of who is wielding the flashlight - like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about god by wielding his flashlight
Fortunately, I happen to be a well educated adult with much life experience and many interests. You talk about understanding god as if a god exists. All you ever do is talk about how unqualified we all are to see that god exists. We don't have the right epistemology. That's philosophically bankrupt and you know it. No matter who wields the flashlight, the earth exists. Atoms exist. Clouds exist. Nothing that any human currently accepts as "existing" got that way without evidence and proof. Except for god. How silly.

Well actually you are the one who has the ball in your court - you are the one stating that god is false, in very brave words, yet when you are asked to reveal your logic and premises you become shy - all you have to tell us is why all scriptures in all times and places are quite obviously fabricated stories
Because we are adults who could recognize tall tales since grade school. The content is ambiguous, open to wild interpretation, and self contradictory. It's childish in its naievete. That's why.

Fortunately, I happen to be a well educated adult with much life experience and many interests. You talk about understanding god as if a god exists. All you ever do is talk about how unqualified we all are to see that god exists. We don't have the right epistemology. That's philosophically bankrupt and you know it. No matter who wields the flashlight, the earth exists. Atoms exist. Clouds exist. Nothing that any human currently accepts as "existing" got that way without evidence and proof. Except for god. How silly.

These things exist but the knowledge of their existence has not been current in all times, places and circumstances - in other words for a person to know ANYTHING (particularly interms of direct perception, which is a methodology you hold particularly close to your heart) they must first come to the platform of qualification - the more elevated the knowledge, the more distinguished the qualification - if a person is not enthused to come to that platform, what can be expected ...?

(BTW - I never said "we all are unqualified")

Because we are adults who could recognize tall tales since grade school. The content is ambiguous, open to wild interpretation, and self contradictory. It's childish in its naievete. That's why.

So in other words your premise is that because you have heard stories that did not appear to match up with your current world view that were obviously fictional creations, therefore all narrations about incidents that don'e tally with your world view are equally fictious ..... do you want to clarify this premise or expand it before we analyize it?

These things exist but the knowledge of their existence has not been current in all times, places and circumstances - in other words for a person to know ANYTHING (particularly interms of direct perception, which is a methodology you hold particularly close to your heart) they must first come to the platform of qualification - the more elevated the knowledge, the more distinguished the qualification - if a person is not enthused to come to that platform, what can be expected ...?

(BTW - I never said "we all are unqualified")

This does not change the fact that the entities I mentioned are either observable or cause an observable effect that begs a question. "Why is this desktop so hard? What is it made of?" Leads directly to the discovery of atoms. What phenomena are you trying to explain with your god hypothesis?

Well actually you are the one who has the ball in your court - you are the one stating that god is false, in very brave words, yet when you are asked to reveal your logic and premises you become shy - all you have to tell us is why all scriptures in all times and places are quite obviously fabricated stories

I'm stating that religion is false, not necessarily wether or not there is a god. The universe remains a mystery which means that god can't be completely ruled out. I have a feeling that the true nature of how the universe came to be is beyond our guess, which means I pretty much rule out a sentient creator. Besides, for humans to guess correctely based on our first guess, would truly be amazing.

But your reliance on scripture is something I am pretty certain has lead you towards delusion. Nevermind the contradictions and obvious forced attempts at self-fulfilling prophecy, but what about the scriptures left out? There are many other gospels that were left out pressumably because they were even more embarrassingly filled with silliness. Like the one that tells the story of Jesus abusing his powers as a child, turning a ball of mud into a small animal etc... Pure fantasy.

This does not change the fact that the entities I mentioned are either observable or cause an observable effect that begs a question. "Why is this desktop so hard? What is it made of?" Leads directly to the discovery of atoms. What phenomena are you trying to explain with your god hypothesis?
Observable to whom?

So in other words your premise is that because you have heard stories that did not appear to match up with your current world view that were obviously fictional creations, therefore all narrations about incidents that don'e tally with your world view are equally fictious ..... do you want to clarify this premise or expand it before we analyize it?

We're not going to analyze such a blatant twisting of my words into a strawman that you can beat on. Sorry. The premise is that inconsistent, selfcontradictory, wildly unspecific, and factually incorrect (re natural phenomena) documents are not to be considered as worth basing a philosophy on.

[QUOTE=superluminal;1172634]We're not going to analyze such a blatant twisting of my words into a strawman that you can beat on. Sorry. The premise is that inconsistent, selfcontradictory, wildly unspecific, and factually incorrect (re natural phenomena) documents are not to be considered as worth basing a philosophy on.[/QUOTE

Then we are back to trying to determine what are the premises you use to arrive at the above mentioned words in bold - please tell

Observable to whom?

A child can see clouds. A child can feel a desktop. What are you getting at? And don't play stupid by saying "well, I cant see atoms". I never said that. I said they certainly have an observable aspect (desktops) that beg the "what is it made of" question that leads humanity to the discovery of atoms.

[QUOTE=superluminal;1172634]We're not going to analyze such a blatant twisting of my words into a strawman that you can beat on. Sorry. The premise is that inconsistent, selfcontradictory, wildly unspecific, and factually incorrect (re natural phenomena) documents are not to be considered as worth basing a philosophy on.[/QUOTE

Then we are back to trying to determine what are the premises you use to arrive at the above mentioned words in bold - please tell

There is an abundance of documentation on the web to support my assertions. I'm not interested in discussing such trivialities.

Fire

I'm stating that religion is false, not necessarily wether or not there is a god. The universe remains a mystery which means that god can't be completely ruled out. I have a feeling that the true nature of how the universe came to be is beyond our guess, which means I pretty much rule out a sentient creator. Besides, for humans to guess correctely based on our first guess, would truly be amazing.

Maybe you should clarify this statement - you say that its beyond us to determine whether god exists and yet you conclude by saying there is no sentient creator

But your reliance on scripture is something I am pretty certain has lead you towards delusion. Nevermind the contradictions and obvious forced attempts at self-fulfilling prophecy, but what about the scriptures left out? There are many other gospels that were left out pressumably because they were even more embarrassingly filled with silliness. Like the one that tells the story of Jesus abusing his powers as a child, turning a ball of mud into a small animal etc... Pure fantasy.
Actually I have never read the bible in full - I operat e out of vedic scriptures which are a lot more comprehensive than xtian texts - but you still need to clarify the points in your opening before we can proceed because you are determining what god is capable of according to your limited senses but you determine earlier that the senses are too limited to be accurate in the first place

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1172638]

There is an abundance of documentation on the web to support my assertions. I'm not interested in discussing such trivialities.

Actually they are the essential ingredients of your argument - surprised you write them off as trivial

A child can see clouds. A child can feel a desktop. What are you getting at? And don't play stupid by saying "well, I cant see atoms". I never said that. I said they certainly have an observable aspect (desktops) that beg the "what is it made of" question that leads humanity to the discovery of atoms.

Can a child see saturn's moon?

Can a child see saturn's moon?
Does a child calim that a "moon" of something called "saturn" has a profound effect on their lives and should be worshipped? And if they did, you can guess what my next statement would be.

Does a child calim that a "moon" of something called "saturn" has a profound effect on their lives and should be worshipped? And if they did, you can guess what my next statement would be.

We are just discussing perception at the moment - if you want to discuss function and effect we could switch to "does a child understand the functional processes of a polio vaccination"

We are just discussing perception at the moment - if you want to discuss function and effect we could switch to "does a child understand the functional processes of a polio vaccination"
Coward. The point is that while a child (or anyone without a telescope) cannot see a moon of saturn, he can wonder if that light in the sky called saturn has a moon. He can then grow up and use a telescope to see if it does or not.

Without telescopes, the idea of moons around little lights in the sky is as tenuous as the god idea. Why even postulate such a thing? If there was an effect like the light (saturn) blinking on and off regularly you might postulate something periodically blocking it. Maybe a big moon. Then you could develop tools to help with the investigation.

What unexplainable phenomena do you postulate and attribute to a god simply because you have no currently better explanation?

Thunder? Lightning? Storms? Swarms of locusts? Earthquakes? Solar eclipses? Drought? Floods? Comets? Planets? Disease (mental or physica)? Meteors?

All at one time attributed to god, some even into the 21st century. I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.

What is evidence for some is not evidence for all.

That's the second time I've said that. It was ignored the first time.

Fire



Maybe you should clarify this statement - you say that its beyond us to determine whether god exists and yet you conclude by saying there is no sentient creator

What I am saying is that we simply don't know how or why (if there is a why) the universe came into existence. This means that religion is all false from the start since god (if one exists) is completely unknowable. I rule out a sentient creator because I think it is both unlikely and at the same time too obvious. I know that is a contradiction, but I used the word 'obvious' on purpose. Obvious is always our first assumption, and closer inspection usually gives us a completely different view, as science has constantly showed us in history. Evolution is a good example of what I mean, although I should have used a less emotive (for a theist) example such as gravity.

What is evidence for some is not evidence for all.

That's the second time I've said that. It was ignored the first time.
Evidence is evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's important.

A tree is evidence of something. For some, it's evidence for the intricate biological formation of structure. For others, it's evidence of god.

All I ask is what explanation has more support from all areas of human investigation (physics, biology, genetics) and more explanatory and predictive power.

Simple.

Evidence is evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's important.

A tree is evidence of something. For some, it's evidence for the intricate biological formation of structure. For others, it's evidence of god.

All I ask is what explanation has more support from all areas of human investigation (physics, biology, genetics) and more explanatory and predictive power.

Simple.
Then the only disagreement I see here is in where we assign interpretive authority when examining evidence. You're right, of course, in that scientific thought has more predictive power. It's useful because it's simple. I like simplicity.

All I'm saying is that, ultimately speaking, every person's interpretation of evidence is equal in terms of truthfulness. Some models work better than others at teaching you how to do stuff, but they are all models nonetheless. Hence, one position is not more true than another. It can only be more useful. We are in agreement on which is the more useful idea.

For me, though, an idea of less use does not make it less interesting or compelling.

For me, though, an idea of less use does not make it less interesting or compelling.
Maybe not less interesting, but why not less compelling? The idea of a universal creator is very interesting as a model, but is about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle.

I just find such a blatant disregard for the models that do work in favor of the interesting but useless ones to be disturbing.

Maybe not less interesting, but why not less compelling? The idea of a universal creator is very interesting as a model, but is about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle.
Well, I think that's a rather crude comparison, but ok. I don't find it to be about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle. I like to discuss it in the same manner that I discuss great works of literature, and that's not just cocktail party-talk either. It has real implications for the way people live their lives.
I just find such a blatant disregard for the models that do work in favor of the interesting but useless ones to be disturbing.
Well, useless for predicting nature, but you can use it for other things. I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't very useful, is it? Religious ideas are beautiful, which is why they persist, and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.

I guess my point is that it's really just life as art. It doesn't seem to bother me because I don't think that there is any inherently proper way for people to live. A religiously focused life, to me, is as fruitful as a secularly focused life.

like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight


With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!:p :(

With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!:p :(
Nah, I bet LG is mostly self-educated, having largely ignored public schooling because he probably doesn't have much respect for it. It seems obvious sometimes that he is misusing terminology, but his intentions and ideas are certainly in the intellectual sphere. Most people who speak in this area, whether they are correct or not, are usually people who have learned far more from their own studies than from public education. LG isn't stupid, I just think he's largely misguided.

Oh yea, quite knocking High School dropouts. You're all offending baumgarten.

Oh yea, quite knocking High School dropouts. You're all offending baumgarten.

Jaster, I can offend any high school dropouts I feel like, specially since I'm one of them ;) :p LOL

I'm mostly self educated as well, however there seems to be a minor difference in actually realizing our capacity to understand things, I guess a rational, logical mind does have a better prespective on things. :cool:

Jaster, I can offend any high school dropouts I feel like, specially since I'm one of them

I'm mostly self educated as well, however there seems to be a minor difference in actually realizing our capacity to understand things, I guess a rational, logical mind does have a better prespective on things.
Most people have rational, logical minds. That doesn't mean they don't behave irrationally at times, or believe irrational things. :p

like for instance a highschool drop out who considers all professors eggheads and the books they write full of crap could not be expected to determine much about an electron by wielding his flashlight


With this we can determine why Americans are loosing grip on education, a senior high school kid here has the equivalent education as a fith grader in Japan. My sources? The American School Board Association. Education here sucks and people like these idiots making statements such as above are the direct result of lack of understanding directly do to "lack of education" I get the feeling that LG is the idiot highshcool dropout he keeps talking about!:p :(

Actually I am using it as an absurdism - if the term highschool drop out seems to rub people the wrong or not in line with the ASBA maybe we could just switch it to a japanese 5th grader or whatever - either way you haven't addressed how truths, even important and fundamental truths, can be invisible to people, particularly if they exhibit problems of attitude

Actually I am using it as an absurdism - if the term highschool drop out seems to rub people the wrong or not in line with the ASBA maybe we could just switch it to a japanese 5th grader or whatever - either way you haven't addressed how truths, even important and fundamental truths, can be invisible to people, particularly if they exhibit problems of attitude
I think they just are sometimes. I wrack my brain whenever someone doesn't seem to accept something patently obvious. And I don't mean abstract ideas like God or whatever, I mean stuff that you can go out and look at on a Saturday morning. I need to stop doing that.

superluminal

Evidence is evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that's important.

A further complication is whether you have the ability to gather the evidence in the first place


All I ask is what explanation has more support from all areas of human investigation (physics, biology, genetics) and more explanatory and predictive power.

Simple.
What are you saying? Truth is dependant on votes?

Usually I don't take the side of superluminal, but here goes...

A further complication is whether you have the ability to gather the evidence in the first place
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.


What are you saying? Truth is dependant on votes?
No, he's asking which model is more useful.

What I am saying is that we simply don't know how or why (if there is a why) the universe came into existence. This means that religion is all false from the start since god (if one exists) is completely unknowable. I rule out a sentient creator because I think it is both unlikely and at the same time too obvious. I know that is a contradiction, but I used the word 'obvious' on purpose. Obvious is always our first assumption, and closer inspection usually gives us a completely different view, as science has constantly showed us in history. Evolution is a good example of what I mean, although I should have used a less emotive (for a theist) example such as gravity.

The only way for your statement to be true would be if you are currently omniscient and could fathom what is eternally knowable and unknowable in all time places and circumstances - for instance if there is a god with omnipotent potencies, don't you think it would be possible for him to empower anyone with any level of knowledge? (Of course you being an atheist I am only asking you theoretically)

Jaster Mereel

]Usually I don't take the side of superluminal, but here goes...
you must be bored then ;)

Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
So why did einstein discover something that newton did not? Was it because he had a better sense of sight, touch or taste?



No, he's asking which model is more useful.
He's determining the relative success of such models by vox populi or hoi polloi

Jaster Mereel


you must be bored then ;)
Yea, something like that. Also, I figured I should even up my talk so that I don't look like I'm on anyone's side.


So why did einstein discover something that newton did not? Was it because he had a better sense of sight, touch or taste?
Simple. He had a moment of insight.


He's determining the relative success of such models by vox populi or hoi polloi
He's determining the relative success of such models by the usefulness of the fields in which they are used.

Jaster Meree

Yea, something like that. Also, I figured I should even up my talk so that I don't look like I'm on anyone's side.
Rather than giving the illusional of impartiality you should just advoacte those things that you perceive as truthful - the world has a greater variety than you have magnanimity - you will just end up falling short by neglecting norweigien lesbian pro anti neo post modern fascists or something



Simple. He had a moment of insight.
So in other words perceiving evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise



He's determining the relative success of such models by the usefulness of the fields in which they are used.
That doesn't appear to be what he is saying - he appeasr to be saying that empirical science ( which is currently lead by reductionists) is the most popular method therefore it is the best in all matters - if however he is saying something more in line with what you are suggesting, then I wouldn't disagree, since it would suggest that theistic truths are dependant on theistic processes to perceive them

Rather than giving the illusional of impartiality you should just advoacte those things that you perceive as truthful - the world has a greater variety than you have magnanimity - you will just end up falling short by neglecting norweigien lesbian pro anti neo post modern fascists or something
Actually, I was trying to be fair by defending theists from rampant militant atheism. I am an atheist, although I do not consider religion to be a mind virus/stupid/illogical/irrational/dangerous/delusional, etc... Now I'm allowing myself common ground with atheists around here.

So in other words perceiving evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise
No, interpreting evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise. Nice try, though.

That doesn't appear to be what he is saying - he appeasr to be saying that empirical science ( which is currently lead by reductionists) is the most popular method therefore it is the best in all matters - if however he is saying something more in line with what you are suggesting, then I wouldn't disagree, since it would suggest that theistic truths are dependant on theistic processes to perceive them
Alright, we'll wait for him to clarify for us.

Although, I would like to you define "theistic processes".

Jaster Mereel


No, interpreting evidence is more than just a sense gathering exercise. Nice try, though.
do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?


Although, I would like to you define "theistic processes".
Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness - so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries

Jaster Mereel

Actually, I was trying to be fair by defending theists from rampant militant atheism. I am an atheist, although I do not consider religion to be a mind virus/stupid/illogical/irrational/dangerous/delusional, etc... Now I'm allowing myself common ground with atheists around here.

Save yourself the headache and just go with what you understand - even the UN can do nothing but add more flags out the front of its embassies as things fragment further
;)

for instance if there is a god with omnipotent potencies, don't you think it would be possible for him to empower anyone with any level of knowledge? (Of course you being an atheist I am only asking you theoretically)

You're basically saying (since there is no evidence of god) that theists know there is one because it is divinely revealed and not because they are being delusional and wishfulthinkers. Well this is just silly for so many reasons.

do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?
Certainly. Your senses are designed to give you a suitable picture of reality in order to function properly in the real world. They have no other purpose. How you perceive the world is how you were meant to perceive it. Although, obviously, what you sense isn't what is real, but it is a good enough approximation to be useful. To distrust the senses wholesale in perceiving the world around you is silly, since they wouldn't be there unless they had a practical function. That function is, as I have said, to give you a coherent, useful picture of the world.

Evidence does not define truth, it alludes to it. It supports it. We gather evidence through the senses, and that evidence is interpreted by us and turned into a picture of what the world consists of so that we may use it to give ourselves understanding, and through understanding, advantage. If you need more from me on this, feel free to ask. I don't feel quite finished, but I've run out of steam on this particular subject line.

Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness -
Sort of. I guess if you want to use the word "consciousness" in this manner, it would work, but I tend to shy away from such usage since it gives this portion of the argument a "New Age" feel.

Aside from the needless tangent, I'd say you're close but not quite there. Science deals with what things are made of, and how all of these components interract with one another. I don't think that your characterization of what theism deals with is quite correct. You seem to be saying that "consciousness" is just another kind of matter with different properties. That may not be what you're thinking, but the way you're phrasing the idea makes it sound like that, and I think that sells short the beauty of religion by turning it into another kind of naturalist philosophy, when it's not.

Theism deals with the subjective (which doesn't imply a lack of reality, which seems to be the way that some of you treat the word). In this way, you are right. "Consciousness", or the mind (forgive the momentary dualism, but I find it necessary to illustrate my point), is what you perceive the world with. Because you are not omni-experiencing, or for the sake of simplicity we'll say omniscient, you have a perspective. A very narrow perspective. It's natural, because the "size", or amount of experience which the mind is capable of undergoing, is quite limited in relation to the rest of existence as a whole, and because of this you are individually incapable of any kind of truly objective knowledge.

This may sound silly for some, but think about it for a moment. You might say that scientific inquiry finds objective knowledge, and it does. But no one is capable of knowing these things in an objective way themselves. They take this vision of reality that the scientific method comes up with, which is of the objective part of reality, and it gets filtered through their own perspective. What was objective has now become subjective because that knowledge is now filtered through the mind of a person. As I said before, if you'd like me to continue, feel free to ask.

so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries
I'm going to say that your usage of the adjective "dull" to describe matter is unnecessary.

As to the rest, if this is indeed the case (and you may be right that it is), then why are we discussing this at all? What's the point of debate if you can't know the answers without permission? If that's what you believe, then you should stop trying to discuss the topic, because right now all you're doing is telling people that there is no way that they can understand without first accepting the doctrines laid down by authorities.

Well, I think that's a rather crude comparison, but ok. I don't find it to be about as compelling as the idea of eating an african dung beetle. I like to discuss it in the same manner that I discuss great works of literature, and that's not just cocktail party-talk either. It has real implications for the way people live their lives.

Well, useless for predicting nature, but you can use it for other things. I mean, the Mona Lisa isn't very useful, is it? Religious ideas are beautiful, which is why they persist, and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.

I guess my point is that it's really just life as art. It doesn't seem to bother me because I don't think that there is any inherently proper way for people to live. A religiously focused life, to me, is as fruitful as a secularly focused life.
Very rational and compelling. Unfortunately, I don't find religious ideas beautiful in the least. One thing I'm certain of is that they don't persist because of their beauty.

I would be interested in what you classify as religious tendencies.

and moreso they are obviously the result of inherent human tendencies, since it has happened everywhere without exception, and even non-religious people show religious tendencies.
I completely agree.

JM,

Thanks for supporting me, but taking sides is a bit silly.

LG,

O ye great of warping words, intentions, and implications.

Jaster Mereel



do you want to clarify your earlier statement
Everyone has the ability to gather evidence about reality. That's what the senses are for.
before we proceed any further?



Basically it boils down to this : in reductionist science you are dealing with matter while in theism you are dealing with consciousness - so understanding god is dependant not on the ability to examine dull matter with one's senses (since we cannot even perceive what we are seeing with by such processes) but on coming to a position of correct behaviour attitude etc where we are suitable candidates for seeing god - just like for instance the ability to directly perceive the president isnot dependant on one's own will but on the will of the president to grant us his direct audience - you cannot demand to see the president -you have to appeal to his common interests and qualify yourself to make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries
All of these words. What do you undertand of god? Can you share? Or do you refuse on grounds of epistemological unpreparedness on the part of your audience?

I claim that you are completely epistemologically unprepared to see the truth of the absence of god(s). I may be able to help you.

Very rational and compelling. Unfortunately, I don't find religious ideas beautiful in the least. One thing I'm certain of is that they don't persist because of their beauty.
Well, perhaps you don't fine traditional religious ideas to be beautiful, or maybe it's mythology? I bet the problem that most people who are hostile towards religion have is mythology, because they see fanatics taking it literally and doing insane stuff over whatever is written in what is, essentially, a book of poetry, or a set of oral traditions. Even if that is what atheists have a problem with, it doesn't really bother me. As I said, I don't think that there is any one proper way for people to live, so living it based off of a really well written, well composed song seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And you may be right about religious ideas not persisting because of their beauty, at least for the majority of people. I guess I was just talking about intellectuals. The reason why so many intellectuals are still religious is because they find the ideas attractive in an artistic way (not consciously, of course).

I would be interested in what you classify as religious tendencies.
Drawing causal connections where none exist (superstitious behavior), becoming emotional when core belief systems are challenged, ritual behavior (which is just regimented living), etc... basically, I consider human behavior in general to be religious behavior. All people are religious. This is why I created the Secular Humanism thread. Atheists are just rejecting traditional religion, because that's always what they cite when you ask them what religion is.


I completely agree.
I thought you would. You're a reasonable guy, and you missing something so obvious would surprise the hell out of me.

You're basically saying (since there is no evidence of god) that theists know there is one because it is divinely revealed and not because they are being delusional and wishfulthinkers. Well this is just silly for so many reasons.

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president - if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified - like for instance suppose a militiant islamic fundamentalist wanted to take direct audience of the president of the USA - do you think it would be possible? It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

All of these words. What do you undertand of god? Can you share? Or do you refuse on grounds of epistemological unpreparedness on the part of your audience?

I claim that you are completely epistemologically unprepared to see the truth of the absence of god(s). I may be able to help you.

Before there can be any serious discussion of god all atheistic arguments have to be exhausted - so if you don't have anything further evidence why god does not exist I guess we could proceed ......
:p

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president - if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified - like for instance suppose a militiant islamic fundamentalist wanted to take direct audience of the president of the USA - do you think it would be possible? It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean?

The only evidence of the president is anecdote. We suppose there is a president, but it can't be proven.

baumgarten

Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean?
Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

The only evidence of the president is anecdote. We suppose there is a president, but it can't be proven.

So you are saying that it is reasonable to suppose that the president doesn't exist?

baumgarten


Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

Good enough. I'll agree to that for this thread.

So you are saying that it is reasonable to suppose that the president doesn't exist?

Do I find any evidence that the president doesn't exist? No. But if you find the lack of evidence for the president's existence to be the same as evidence for the lack of his existence, then the reasonable thing to do would be to believe he doesn't exist. The real question is what constitutes evidence.

There is evidence of god - just like there is evidence of the president

Evidence of people believing in god? Or evidence of the actual existence of god?

if you insist on coming to the platform of direct perception there is no avoiding of coming to the platform of being properly qualified

Again, nobody is 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of something that is beyond us all. Religion has a reputation for being wrong in what can be perceived and so enjoy trying to fill gaps of genuine knowledge with god. Which raises the question of how good they are at judging what can't be perceived.

Being 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of god, is just another one of your frail copouts. I could turn the copout around on your ass and say that judging gods non-existence is something you must be qualified in too. However, I have a little more sense than that. Richard Dawkins for example, is no more qualified to state god doesn't exist than anyone is to state god does exist.

It raises the question of attitude, shared interests etc - this is distinct from materialistic pursuits in science which revolve around the observation of phenomena that is inferior to us

Inferior to us... heh... does that not just sum up the attitude of a theist who states with confidence what is inferior and what is not? There is no rank in this universe, what you always purposely call 'dull matter' is what you are. It's a system to be respected and is no way 'inferior'... let alone to us.

Good enough. I'll agree to that for this thread.



Do I find any evidence that the president doesn't exist? No. But if you find the lack of evidence for the president's existence to be the same as evidence for the lack of his existence, then the reasonable thing to do would be to believe he doesn't exist. The real question is what constitutes evidence.

agreed - so there is the idea of things being evident in principle because there are many things we do not directly perceive

agreed - so there is the idea of things being evident in principle because there are many things we do not directly perceive

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

Fire

Evidence of people believing in god? Or evidence of the actual existence of god?

Both - just like the president



Again, nobody is 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of something that is beyond us all.
the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate

Religion has a reputation for being wrong in what can be perceived and so enjoy trying to fill gaps of genuine knowledge with god.

Not sure of that reputation, however anyway it requires an analysis of what constitutes real religion - BTW it appears that you use the terms "religion" and "xtianity" synonomously - be aware that the xtianity is a sub catergory of religion


Which raises the question of how good they are at judging what can't be perceived.
Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society?

Being 'properly qualified' to judge the existence of god, is just another one of your frail copouts. I could turn the copout around on your ass and say that judging gods non-existence is something you must be qualified in too.

However, I have a little more sense than that. Richard Dawkins for example, is no more qualified to state god doesn't exist than anyone is to state god does exist.

The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone



Inferior to us... heh... does that not just sum up the attitude of a theist who states with confidence what is inferior and what is not? There is no rank in this universe, what you always purposely call 'dull matter' is what you are. It's a system to be respected and is no way 'inferior'... let alone to us.

actually this is what I replied to baum when he inquired intelligently (in the post beneath yours) why I was using these words

“ Inferior? Superior? What do these words mean? ”

Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

at the risk of using the word ontology, just because we may be in england we would not give a greater ontological status to england over china, just because we don't see china at the moment

I'm really starting to doubt your intelligence, or at least, your honesty... Which I guess, genereally speaking rings true for theists anyway.

Fire

Both - just like the president

the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate

Anybody who has had access to a form of media over the past 6 years has directly percieved the existence of Bush. Since this is your latest strawman argument, I look forward to you putting George W Bush on an equal footing with god, so if you have any media footage of god stepping off Airforce 1 and walking through the pearly gates, I would dearly love to see that footage.

Not sure of that reputation....

You know, when theists (including those that wrote scripture) made claims they were confident would not be proven false? Oh, now all of a sudden Adam and Eve are allegory :rolleyes:

Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society?

Whoever it is you claim (falsely) are 'qualified' to judge gods existence.

The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone

Well this is very thinly related to the specific subject we were talking about.

Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him)

But we've already established we don't need the president to be in a petri dish to establish his existence. Your analogies are equally as bad as yoru arguments.

Drawing causal connections where none exist (superstitious behavior), becoming emotional when core belief systems are challenged, ritual behavior (which is just regimented living), etc... basically, I consider human behavior in general to be religious behavior. All people are religious.
I suppose for me the connotations of the word religious are very specific and seperate from other human behaviors, e.g. belief in god(s), belief in a "soul" or essence that survives death, and faith in general. The idea of faith is no stranger to atheists as you already know. Faith in a loved one for example. But as we've discussed before, the subjective faith that atheists admit to (I have faith in my wife...) is quite different from the faith in an objective entity known as "god" for which there is no objective evidence. Now I'm rambling.

I thought you would. You're a reasonable guy, and you missing something so obvious would surprise the hell out of me.
Thanks JM.

Before there can be any serious discussion of god all atheistic arguments have to be exhausted - so if you don't have anything further evidence why god does not exist I guess we could proceed ......
:p
I submit the dual of this statement right back atcha LG.

I'm really starting to doubt your intelligence, or at least, your honesty... Which I guess, genereally speaking rings true for theists anyway.

In my experience its best to try and avoid giving approximations of people's intelligence on debate forums - it just reduces the discussion to a battle of wills


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Fire

Both - just like the president

the president is also beyond us all (in one sense) but nonetheless there ar epersons who have directly perceived him - if revolutionaries in theism actually thought that god was beyond us all they would have nothing to advocate ”

Anybody who has had access to a form of media over the past 6 years has directly percieved the existence of Bush. Since this is your latest strawman argument, I look forward to you putting George W Bush on an equal footing with god, so if you have any media footage of god stepping off Airforce 1 and walking through the pearly gates, I would dearly love to see that footage.

These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility

“ Not sure of that reputation.... ”

You know, when theists (including those that wrote scripture) made claims they were confident would not be proven false? Oh, now all of a sudden Adam and Eve are allegory

I am no expert in xtianity but I have respect for the bible as a means for approaching the path for knowing god - given the social environment that it was developed in I think it was more in to making a barbaric community more civil rather than illuminating universal truths


“ Who is "they" - scripture? Saintly people? Political persons who are situated in a religious medium of society? ”

Whoever it is you claim (falsely) are 'qualified' to judge gods existence.

I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with


“ The moment you try and seperate qualification from knowledge you are just left with standard animal propensities (sleeping eating mating defending etc) to discuss which are more or less uniform to everyone ”

Well this is very thinly related to the specific subject we were talking about.

If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views?


“ Inferior in this sense means that we can submit the article in question (like a water molecule for eg) to a controlled environment for observation - superior means that we cannot do this (like we cannot demand that the president of the USA come to our personal office just to prove he exists - on the contrary he only comes to such places where his functional capacity is required or appreciated or where he has personal relationships with people who not only think he really exists but actually interact with him) ”

But we've already established we don't need the president to be in a petri dish to establish his existence. Your analogies are equally as bad as yoru arguments.

You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem

I submit the dual of this statement right back atcha LG.


But atheism has no advanced topics for discussion - like for instance if one accepts that god exists then the advanced topics of what is god, what is our relationship with god, what is god's relationship with the material world, by what processes can one understand god etc etc are revealed - what do atheists discuss when they get together that they cannot discuss in the association of a theist?

at the risk of using the word ontology, just because we may be in england we would not give a greater ontological status to england over china, just because we don't see china at the moment
Wouldn't we? Would a medieval Englishman with no knowledge of China give it an equal ontological sense? Would it be reasonable for someone with no knowledge of China to believe in such a land? Men on Mars? FSM? Emmanuel Goldstein? God? We are the same as the medieval Englishman, except we take the existence of one or more of these for granted as an act of faith in our teachers and public consensus. With no definitive knowledge of these things, however, the question of their existence is a legitimate one, regardless of how ridiculous it seems.

You may find it reasonable to believe in God because you believe you have evidence. But, as Jaster Mereel is so fond of saying, evidence for some is not evidence for others. Ignorance of something is not evidence of its existence for me. You can try to offer a convincing argument on other grounds, but offering to beat the same dead horse for people who are obviously unreceptive to your justification is futility. It is time for a different approach, one more sensitive to your target audience.

Wouldn't we? Would a medieval Englishman with no knowledge of China give it an equal ontological sense? Would it be reasonable for someone with no knowledge of China to believe in such a land? Men on Mars? FSM? Emmanuel Goldstein? God? We are the same as the medieval Englishman, except we take the existence of one or more of these for granted as an act of faith in our teachers and public consensus. With no definitive knowledge of these things, however, the question of their existence is a legitimate one, regardless of how ridiculous it seems.

You may find it reasonable to believe in God because you believe you have evidence. But, as Jaster Mereel is so fond of saying, evidence for some is not evidence for others. Ignorance of something is not evidence of its existence for me. You can try to offer a convincing argument on other grounds, but offering to beat the same dead horse for people who are obviously unreceptive to your justification is futility. It is time for a different approach, one more sensitive to your target audience.

There is the example of the frog of the well - one day his friend comes back and says he has just seen a huge body of water (the pacific ocean) - the frog asks how big is it? Is it as big as the water in the bottom of his well? 3 times bigger? 10 times?

The problem is that you have persons who are not in ignorance of china but feel that they are sufficiently provincial enough to determine that china does not exist - in other words they assume that they are properly qualified to work with what they consider evidence of god

There is the example of the frog of the well - one day his friend comes back and says he has just seen a huge body of water (the pacific ocean) - the frog asks how big is it? Is it as big as the water in the bottom of his well? 3 times bigger? 10 times?

The problem is that you have persons who are not in ignorance of china but feel that they have sufficiently provincial enough to determine that china does not exist - in other words they assume that they are properly qualified to work with what they consider evidence of god
This is an interesting proposition. Rather than simply claim it, however, you should use reason to support it. Explain why this must currently be the case.

These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility

You see? This is the kind of silly argument that comes from furiously trying to prove the existence of god - it's funny. I could at some length, provide you with a mountain of evidence for the existence of George W bush, but I would find it embarrassing to lower myself to that extreme.

I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with

Sweeping generalizations are apt for religions since they all suffer the same problems of superstition, far-fetched tales, imaginary notions, failure to demonstrate evidence. Religion claims 'truth' without ever needing to justify how they came about their assumptions. Theists know only too well that they need to prove their beliefs, which is why you heard the sound of the bottom of a barrell when it looks like rational and scientific study could turn up something to support their beliefs. I have no doubt if there was a significant strand of evidence that theists would go to painstaking measures to find it, and despite what you may think, secular investigation would not dismiss it if it had weight.

If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views?

He is a brilliant scientist, intellect, author and has a great ability to detail his thoughts and gather sources... but for all that, is he really any closer to proving that god doesn't exist? No. And this is my point, someone who shares all his skills and was a theist who tried to prove gods existence would also hit a dead end.

You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem

Right, this is just so silly, I don't even know where to start. Even if I have not directly perceived the president (which I did just 10 minutes ago on TV), I would be satisfied with the evidence on hand that he does exist. Now we come to god and all of a sudden enter a vacuum. God and invisible unicorns however, are entirely on an equal footing. The president and god.... hmmm. No. Go back to sleep.

I suppose for me the connotations of the word religious are very specific and seperate from other human behaviors, e.g. belief in god(s), belief in a "soul" or essence that survives death, and faith in general. The idea of faith is no stranger to atheists as you already know. Faith in a loved one for example. But as we've discussed before, the subjective faith that atheists admit to (I have faith in my wife...) is quite different from the faith in an objective entity known as "god" for which there is no objective evidence. Now I'm rambling.
Well, I think that's just too specific a definition since just about everyone displays behaviors which one would normally associate with such beliefs, even if they themselves do not hold such a belief. I suppose I have dropped the idea that religiosity is defined by belief, and now I'm going on behavior. If you do it that way, then everyone is religious.

Thanks JM.
No problem.

Fire

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
These media representations are not direct perecption of the president - their credibility as representations rests on the authority of the bodies doing the representing - in the same way there are representations of god in scripture and saintly persons with similar means for determining their credibility ”

You see? This is the kind of silly argument that comes from furiously trying to prove the existence of god - it's funny. I could at some length, provide you with a mountain of evidence for the existence of George W bush, but I would find it embarrassing to lower myself to that extreme.

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion


“ I think your gripes are more with xtianity than religion as a whole since it seems you are satisfied to use the historical problems of the xtian model as a means to make sweeping generalizations about practioners and representatives of religion (including the good the bad and the ugly) that you are not even familiar with ”



Sweeping generalizations (I am surprised you can start like this and continue with ) are apt for religions since they all suffer the same problems of superstition, far-fetched tales, imaginary notions, failure to demonstrate evidence.

seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to

Religion claims 'truth' without ever needing to justify how they came about their assumptions. Theists know only too well that they need to prove their beliefs, which is why you heard the sound of the bottom of a barrell when it looks like rational and scientific study could turn up something to support their beliefs. I have no doubt if there was a significant strand of evidence that theists would go to painstaking measures to find it, and despite what you may think, secular investigation would not dismiss it if it had weight.

In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to.




“ If dawkins doesn't have any superior qualifications than yourself to determine whetehr god doesn't exist why does his books sell in the hundereds of thousands and you are left on an anonymous net forum to air your views? ”

He is a brilliant scientist, intellect, author and has a great ability to detail his thoughts and gather sources

and these aren't qualifications
:confused:


“ You established that direct perception was not necessary to know the president exists, yet you require that direct perception for god - thats the problem ”

Right, this is just so silly, I don't even know where to start. Even if I have not directly perceived the president (which I did just 10 minutes ago on TV), I would be satisfied with the evidence on hand that he does exist.
My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception


Now we come to god and all of a sudden enter a vacuum.
Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god

God and invisible unicorns however, are entirely on an equal footing.
I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns


The president and god.... hmmm. No. Go back to sleep.

If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god?

This is an interesting proposition. Rather than simply claim it, however, you should use reason to support it. Explain why this must currently be the case.

well its not so easy since
- they reject the existence of god
- they reject the persons who claimed some direct experience of god
- they reject the processes advocated by such persons to perceive god
- they reject the institutions, even if the said instituitions ar e merely dabbling in mundane altruism, that are accredited with propagating such processes

If you or anyone can offer how a highschool drop out (or japanese 5th grader ... whatever doesn't irk you) can perceive an atom if they are adverse to professors and science text books perhaps I would have a different avenue to take.

Fire

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion

Yes, but it's actually nothing like the premises in theism. It's rather obvious the president exists and I'm not going to explain why, because that sets up your strawman beautifully when comparing him to an invisible god. At least 'directly perceiving' the president is not a subjective phenomena, whereas god totally is.

seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to

Since, as I've said, nobody has a clue about the origin of the universe, that sort of makes religion false already. I barely qualify religion as philisophical musings either since it is dogmatic. You certainly don't appear to show any doubt about the existence of god, at least not that you let on. An atheist appears to be more rational and even dares to question the existence of such a god. Theists have a bad rep because they never question the non-existence of such a thing, which is when I call them delusional.

In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to.

I don't need to. I could study all religions man has ever made, but since it would be a secular study, I would be without faith, thereby meaning I have no conclusion at the end of a big waste of time. If there was a religion with anything other than imaginary assertions, it would be headline news at some point, forcing secular intellects to take notice. If there ever is evidence of god, science will find it first, however.

and these aren't qualifications
:confused:

Not qualifications to decide wether or not god exists. There is no such person who has ever lived.

My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception

Lets go to your electron you keep talking about. I have not directly perceived an electron, but am more than satisfied that science - being as impartial and rational as it is - has sufficiently provided more evidence than they need to. If however, science had thousands of varying descriptions of electrons (as religions do with 'god') then I would then have to question why this is. Rather like one day the president is George Bush and the next day he is someone completely different etc.

Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god

None of it is credible, thats why. Religions effectively don't describe anything, since what they are describing is non-physical which is why it won't be accepted by anybody without faith.

I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns

They might as well... afterall American's believe in angels more than they do evolution. This is why theists have somewhat of a bad reputation for their intellect.

If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god?

This is just a mind numbingly stupid argument. I've already explained why no human being will ever possibly be qualified to perceive god and rather than give these offensively stupid analogies, could you actually detail what makes a person qualified to perceive this non-physical/imagined entity? Because I look forward to using it as a means to become qualified in perceiving the celestial teapot.

well its not so easy since
- they reject the existence of god
- they reject the persons who claimed some direct experience of god
- they reject the processes advocated by such persons to perceive god
- they reject the institutions, even if the said instituitions ar e merely dabbling in mundane altruism, that are accredited with propagating such processes

If you or anyone can offer how a highschool drop out (or japanese 5th grader ... whatever doesn't irk you) can perceive an atom if they are adverse to professors and science text books perhaps I would have a different avenue to take.
The high school drop out thing doesn't irk anyone; I think those of us who have commented on it just find it funny that you use the exact same analogy every time you want to point it out. :D

I cannot reject any of those things until I have a good reason to, but neither can I accept them without reason. For what it's worth, I will listen openmindedly to whatever support for them you have, as will anyone here who's interested in the philosophy of religion, rather than mindless religious politicking. (Didn't someone in here say that religion doesn't belong in politics anyway?)

Yea, it's kind of annoying when people reject the experiences of millions of people as simple delusions, since personal accounts are the only evidence that anyone claims is available for the existence of God. If you reject the only kind of evidence that is claimed to be available, of course you're not going to find any evidence.

I understand why LG is frustrated. It has been stated repeatedly that evidence for God/gods/the supernatural, etc can only come from personal experiences, and it seems to be ignored. You don't dismiss personal experiences (especially when it comes from so many people) as non-existent. Obviously something is happening, it's just not capable of being examined in the usual, rigid manner.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Fire

I am not trying to present the idea that george bush doesn't exist - I am just presenting how over 99.999999% of the world's population believe that george bush exists - It works on similar epistemological premises in theism - if you don't feel like examining the general principles you utilize to determine reality thats okay but it greatly limits discussion ”

Yes, but it's actually nothing like the premises in theism. It's rather obvious the president exists and I'm not going to explain why, because that sets up your strawman beautifully when comparing him to an invisible god. At least 'directly perceiving' the president is not a subjective phenomena, whereas god totally is.

Its not clear how directly perceiving the president is not a subjective experience


“ seems like you are saying it is not appropriate for religion to make sweeping generalizations but it is okay for you to ”

Since, as I've said, nobody has a clue about the origin of the universe, that sort of makes religion false already.

The only way you can make this statement is if you are currently omniscient and know everything that can and cannot be known in all time places and circumstances - either that or you are using your own limited self as a yardstick for determining the perimeters of knowledge


I barely qualify religion as philisophical musings either since it is dogmatic.
rather than trying to avoid the issue of philosophy with cop outs like this you should frame your opinions in premises - at the very least it seems that there is a substantial body of philosophical work in religion and to bypass it because you find religion challenges your personal value system certainly doesn't make for any sort of grand discussion


You certainly don't appear to show any doubt about the existence of god, at least not that you let on. An atheist appears to be more rational and even dares to question the existence of such a god. Theists have a bad rep because they never question the non-existence of such a thing, which is when I call them delusional.

So in otherwords the only correct answer is that god does not exist - how convenient:rolleyes:


“ In an effort to help you avoid making this blunder I pointed out earlier that xtianity is a mere singular aspect of religion - but since you've blathered this out the only way you can save face is if you provide an extensive list of how ALL religions fit this bill ..... I don't think you have examined a range of religious scriptures and practioners ..... nor do I think you are likely to. ”

I don't need to.
so in other words it is sufficient to judge a genre by its worst stereotype?


I could study all religions man has ever made, but since it would be a secular study, I would be without faith, thereby meaning I have no conclusion at the end of a big waste of time.
you also have the ability to determine your conclusion before you investigate it? - sounds like you are already pivoting on faith


If there was a religion with anything other than imaginary assertions, it would be headline news at some point, forcing secular intellects to take notice. If there ever is evidence of god, science will find it first, however.
well it kind of has been in the headlines for the past several thousand years ..... won't find anyone more famous than god ;)


“ and these aren't qualifications
”

Not qualifications to decide wether or not god exists. There is no such person who has ever lived.

If that is true why would dawkins write a book at all?


“ My point is that you accept via mediums as evidence of the president and not direct perception ”

Lets go to your electron you keep talking about. I have not directly perceived an electron, but am more than satisfied that science - being as impartial and rational as it is - has sufficiently provided more evidence than they need to. If however, science had thousands of varying descriptions of electrons (as religions do with 'god') then I would then have to question why this is. Rather like one day the president is George Bush and the next day he is someone completely different etc.

Actually there are controversies with electrons - if you get in to advanced quantum physics you will find several conflicting theories - they all however agree that electrons exist - in the same way the purpose or function of god and the living entity may vary amongst religions but they essentially agree on principle


“ Actually we come to a point where you reject all the via mediums for perceiving god ”

None of it is credible, thats why. Religions effectively don't describe anything, since what they are describing is non-physical which is why it won't be accepted by anybody without faith.
you are also accepting an electron on faith (based on the credible via mediums in science) - hence my original point above - you think knowledge of god is a void because you reject the via mediums and are not willing to apply the processes reccommended for direct perception


“ I wasn't aware that over 75% of the world's population believe in unicorns ”

They might as well... afterall American's believe in angels more than they do evolution. This is why theists have somewhat of a bad reputation for their intellect.

When you don't depart from your conclusion in order to present premises for an argument its called begging the question




“ If you are not qualified to directly perceive the president how do you expect to overide the notion that one must be suitably qualified to perceive god? ”

This is just a mind numbingly stupid argument.

Actually it deals with the epistemology for your statements


I've already explained why no human being will ever possibly be qualified to perceive god

which so far seems to be that you are somehow on an omniscient platform of knowledge and can therefore dictate what can be known or unknown in all time places and circumstances


and rather than give these offensively stupid analogies, could you actually detail what makes a person qualified to perceive this non-physical/imagined entity?

The mechanics of an analogy is that it enables a person to understand something that is unknown by presenting something that is known - that is why I mentioned the president - you get to know him directly by sharing his needs interests and concerns


Because I look forward to using it as a means to become qualified in perceiving the celestial teapot.

Then you will have to determine the needs interests and concerns of celestial teapots :p

baumgarten

The high school drop out thing doesn't irk anyone; I think those of us who have commented on it just find it funny that you use the exact same analogy every time you want to point it out. :D

Maybe I could call the High school drop out the HSD to stand along the FSM ;)

I cannot reject any of those things until I have a good reason to, but neither can I accept them without reason. For what it's worth, I will listen openmindedly to whatever support for them you have, as will anyone here who's interested in the philosophy of religion, rather than mindless religious politicking. (Didn't someone in here say that religion doesn't belong in politics anyway?)

So such theistic discussion is made up of Q's and A's - what's your specific Q regarding reasons for not accepting a theistic conclusion?

Yea, it's kind of annoying when people reject the experiences of millions of people as simple delusions, since personal accounts are the only evidence that anyone claims is available for the existence of God. If you reject the only kind of evidence that is claimed to be available, of course you're not going to find any evidence.

I understand why LG is frustrated. It has been stated repeatedly that evidence for God/gods/the supernatural, etc can only come from personal experiences, and it seems to be ignored. You don't dismiss personal experiences (especially when it comes from so many people) as non-existent. Obviously something is happening, it's just not capable of being examined in the usual, rigid manner.

When there are uniform qualities of the perception of god that surmount boundaries of time, geography, language etc it tends to suggest that god (or alternatively whatever people are responding to that gives rise tot he notion of god) is objective

When there are uniform qualities of the perception of god that surmount boundaries of time, geography, language etc it tends to suggest that god (or alternatively whatever people are responding to that gives rise tot he notion of god) is objective
Whatever gives rise to all experiences is objective. We cannot know objective reality because all of our experiences are subjective. We know reality through experience.

Whatever gives rise to all experiences is objective. We cannot know objective reality because all of our experiences are subjective. We know reality through experience.

So a subjective experience can also be objective

So a subjective experience can also be objective
No, the experience cannot be objective. That which gives rise to our experiences is objective.

No, the experience cannot be objective. That which gives rise to our experiences is objective.
ok then - so its not beyond us to subjectively accurately experience an objective phenomena?

ok then - so its not beyond us to subjectively accurately experience an objective phenomena?
Look... I think you're missing my point. Something which is objective is the same for everyone. Something which is subjective is different for everyone. Experiences are subjective. We understand reality through our experiences, and thus, we cannot know reality objectively. Yes, there is an objective reality, but we can only know it subjectively. This means that every interpretation of reality which we come up with can only amount to an approximation.

Objective reality can only be inferred, which is why science (which attempts to understand objective reality) talks about models. Science works through creating useful models of objective reality, but it's not actually showing you what gives rise to your experiences. It's only giving you a useful way of looking at it so