The irrelevance of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,726
    This is the argument of "just because that supernatural being isn't right for you maybe there's another supernatural being out there that you will find evidence for".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    If I told you that I find Bigfoot to be a myth, would you advise me to reserve judgment on the Yeti?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Bells! Can you hear me Bells?

    I am posting to you from the RELIGION subforum.

    You mean the realities that have been discovered so far. According to dark matter research, only 26% of all matter in the universe has been identified as part of the standard model. The other 74% can of course be anything.

    Quite frankly, I don't want to be brain washed by the insanity of a scientific community that can only account for 26% of the matter in the universe. But more to the point, I don't want to be brainwashed by a scientific community that incorrectly assumes that we don't have a soul. I would say, keep looking, it's there. I also don't want to be brainwashed by an insane scientific community that is based upon the premise of pessimism. It is a big mistake to become brainwashed by an ideology that tells you that everything good in the world, doesn't exist.
    I am posting in the RELIGION subforum. What you call "woo woo crap" is really about a God that is relevant to billions of human beings around the world.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,726
    Mazulu, science isn't the problem. It's just a tool. If it has only accounted for 26% of matter then that's all it has accounted for. You wouldn't want it to say that it has accounted for more than it has would you?

    It's not being pessimistic. That's all that it can account for with evidence. It hasn't stopped looking. There is no "brainwashing". There is more mass or something similar to that that is needed to account for the way galaxies stay together. The mass that has been accounted for isn't likely to be "God" however.

    You can be religious and still accept the information that science is able to account for. Just don't take old religious books in a literal sense and there will be no conflict. If you like the moral teaching of your particular religion ...great! Science doesn't stop you from doing that.

    Science isn't the problem.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Ah, this bloody universe with all those pesky people in it - it keeps acting against your wishes, even though are are - that's, right !- God!
     
  9. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Nobody called the thread novel, that was quite obvious sarcasm.
    Kicking up dust around the dead war of empiricism, fideism, faith etc. , but it never ceases to provide ideas for what can be an interesting conversation.
    I will tell you what I have a lack of faith in, and that is finding a true empiricist who functions in a normal secular capacity. Like a Buddhist monk, the true empiricist would have to purposefully limit their experiences to maintain their distance ( in the empiricist's case, from the confusion of all the massive amounts of "unproven" data that is being used all day long by everyone in the world, including, most likely, sam harris and everyone else proclaiming the ridiculous nature of religion).
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,496
    If I told you that dragging a different subjext into a discussion was irrelevant, would you find it boring?
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Given that empiricism is a matter of knowledge, not of assumption for practical purposes, I'm not sure you're expecting the right behaviour from an empiricist.

    An empiricist might not know X but that might not stop him assuming X is true for the purpose of deciding his next action.
    So I'm not sure why you think the empiricist would not be able to function properly? What is it about saying "I don't know, but let's assume it for the sake of practice" that would necessarily meant hey are not an empiricist and/or would enable to function properly?
    It is not as though they are only able to operate on knowledge, on what they know, but they can also operate with assumptions just as anyone else can.
    It is merely when it comes down to establishing what it is that one actually "knows" (or at least claims to know) that the empiricist will restrict himself to the tenets of their philosophy.
     
  12. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Deleted.
     
  13. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    I am talking about the empiricist who insists that they are basing all their ideas on verifiable knowledge, which I think is not a sensible claim for humans to make. Normal humans living normal lives, that is. I am sure there could be exceptions, real people that actually hold all their beliefs in conjunction with empirical data, but most of the people who ridicule religion are not actually supporting all of their ideas only with empirical data and are therefore being disingenuous. To point out a lack of data on metaphysical and religious ideas is sensible of course, but to speak this way while insisting they don't also operate on a lot of questionable data is ignorant of reality. Of course, a person saying, "I refuse to believe in x because there is no scientific data", is perfectly reasonable, but nobody should pretend that this need for data carries over into all areas of their philosophy or life, and therefore should be a lot more reticent to condemn another person's use of non-verifiable 'evidence' to support ideas.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You either don't know how the game is played, or you've mastered it.
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Apologies, I thought you were referring to a true empiricist, rather than the one you are defining here.
    Empiricism is a matter of knowledge, and it is quite possible to operate in the absence of knowledge on a matter, and in the absence of belief (beyond an assessment of probability which, for an empiricist, would be based on experience).
    Your issue here is in insisting that such people hold beliefs, or consider anything as knowledge rather than as being along the lines of "an acceptable understanding for practical purposes".
    Can you provide an example, perhaps, so as to explain your point better?
    Empiricism does not require the philosophy to carry over in to all areas of their life. Only in to areas of knowledge, and what one deems oneself to know.
    One does not need to know something before one act upon it from a practical point of view.

    And from an empiricist point of view, as long as the other person does not claim to know then there is no issue, other than discussions of what one might consider the evidence to rationally point to.
    It is only when people claim "I know X, Y and Z..." that the empiricist raises issue.
     
  16. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    How the hell do you know, there are a group of people that have posted some IR. photo of it.
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Odd, you are using a computer, internet connection and these forums to spew your hypocrisy at science when it was science that provided them all for you. It looks like you've already succumbed to the brainwashing, else you would be living in a cave. :roflmao:
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Nope, it's just you, dude. YOU and your brain doing it all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I suppose you don't know that many scientists are believer in God
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    And, I understand you don't know many scientists do not believe in gods.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,495
    How many versions of a "magical invisible being who sits in the sky and who wants me to obey him" do I really need to go thru? What did I miss while thoroughly buying into the Christian version? Is there some piece of information about theism Christianity overlooked that would suddenly win me back over to this ludicrous delusion? I find that hard to believe..

    I mean the theism I once personally believed in and tried to apply to my life. Yes..All theists experience theism as a particular version. But this doesn't invalidate their experience of theism. Should we say that since one is christian, or hindu, or muslim, or pagan, or Whiteheadian panexperientialist, that one is not really in a position to judge theism because they haven't explored all other possible versions of it? That's ridiculous. That's basically saying nobody experiences true theism because they are always experiencing only one version of it.

    How many more versions of a delusion would I need to explore before being justified in calling it a delusion? The premise of theism is quite simple. There's an invisible magical person watching over me and demanding worship from me as well as my obedience to his will usually codified as a set of rules in some venerated book of scriptures. Christianity exemplified this concept perfectly for me. I fail to see what could be added to this premise that would suddenly make it believable and worth my time reconsidering. Perhaps you can suggest something?
     
  22. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    What is the driving force that propels you to criticize our believe ? do you get paid by the atheist society ?
     
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Where do I sign up?
     

Share This Page