The God Poll

[Krilons Resa]

Existence defies logic, so using logic is completely futile.

I dont think Thanatopsis is a "believer", based on previous posts from him but I may be confusing him with someone else. If I remember correctly, his views, or lackthereof, are around the same as mine. But, yet again, I may be wrong.

 

[spaffe]

But back on topic, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. For the self proclaimed atheists on the board, how can you expect proof for something illogical? How can you expect proof for a being that can do illogical things? Can the human mind comprehend the illogical? God can make a round triangle. Can we even wrap our minds around that one thing?

To me, the problem is more or less that we all are stuck in a scientific way of looking at things. That's how we are brought up and that's what we get presented to us throughout our lives. That's very hard to get out of for obvious reasons.

The intellectual giants of our times are (almost exclusively) secular scientists and we therefore have none to explain and interpret the religions for us in an intellectually satisfying way. Hence, most intellectuals and seriously reflecting people turn their backs on religion, since the devotional practice of common men just isn't enough for them. We are left with only one aspect of religion. That is one of the, if not the biggest, problems.

Moreover I believe that, just as is the case with science, you need a religious worldview to truly understand religion, something that is completely absent in the west, and also in most other parts of the world today.

 

[General Zod]

Existence defies logic, so using logic is completely futile.

From what Dawkins wrote, existence is not only logical, but mathematically probable.

Zod

 

[Krilons Resa]

From what Dawkins wrote, existence is not only logical, but mathematically probable.

Zod

You know what that's called? Insanity.

 

[J.]

You can't prove that gravity is permanent or that the sun will rise tomorrow either.

Yet most people in this world will take both of those happening on blind faith.

 

[Hell Mike]

You can't prove that gravity is permanent or that the sun will rise tomorrow either.

Sure you can, except the sun will probably have risen tomorrow and a good many more times before satisfactory proof is unveiled. And about gravity, I do believe that's been done a million times. As always when we talk about proving things though it depends on who you have to prove it to. Truth lies in the eye of the beholder, but personally I am a fan of the scientifical approach that stuff has to be proven to be accepted, and even then it's mostly not the whole truth and we know that. Science doesn't (or shouldn't) dismiss stuff with "jsut because", it needs evidence and good hard solid evidence too at that. Good enough to last several hundred years' worth of research by the sharpest minds mankind has spawned.

 

[grazim]

You know what that's called? Insanity.

 

[skeptik]

Moreover I believe that, just as is the case with science, you need a religious worldview to truly understand religion, something that is completely absent in the west, and also in most other parts of the world today.

LOL really?

You know what that's called? Insanity.

Nah.

Yet most people in this world will take both of those happening on blind faith.

Which is my point.

Sure you can, except the sun will probably have risen tomorrow and a good many more times before satisfactory proof is unveiled. And about gravity, I do believe that's been done a million times. As always when we talk about proving things though it depends on who you have to prove it to. Truth lies in the eye of the beholder, but personally I am a fan of the scientifical approach that stuff has to be proven to be accepted, and even then it's mostly not the whole truth and we know that. Science doesn't (or shouldn't) dismiss stuff with "jsut because", it needs evidence and good hard solid evidence too at that. Good enough to last several hundred years' worth of research by the sharpest minds mankind has spawned.

No, you can't. You cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so ten billion times before. You cannot prove that gravity will function 15 minutes from now because it never hasn't. These premises are illogical and based on assumptions from observation. HOWEVER, these are the assumptions that we have always made throughout human history that are necessary to continue to advance in the sciences, let alone to live normally. Which is the point that I was making. Hume has written a bit on this subject about the necessity of illogical assumptions, I can't remember the title of the book at the time but I recommend anyone interested in it taking a look at it.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Sweet.

 

[spaffe]

LOL really?

Don't be rude

What I mean is that the scientific outlook is deeply rooted and has permeated all thought, so much that it has become impossible to imagine any other way of looking at the world, and thus to understand religion. Atheism will then logically appear as the only alternative.
Looking at religion from the scientific perspective just doesn't work. They represent two different modes of perceiving reality.

 

[spikes77]

Moreover I believe that, just as is the case with science, you need a religious worldview to truly understand religion, something that is completely absent in the west, and also in most other parts of the world today.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, but you do realize that in the U.S besides the coastal cities and a few pockets here and there, pretty much everyone has a very religious worldview. They fill STADIUMS in the south for services...:zombie: It takes a whole other form than Christianity that is in Europe (Is it like the above in any country?).

edit: not really the case as well, when something like 60% of our population believe the earth is 5000 years old, scientific thought, not so much..

 

[spaffe]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, but you do realize that in the U.S besides the coastal cities and a few pockets here and there, pretty much everyone has a very religious worldview. They fill STADIUMS in the south for services...:zombie: It takes a whole other form than Christianity that is in Europe (Is it like the above in any country?).

Yes, that is not what I mean. I mean a thoroughly religious worldview, that's why I compared it to our scientific one.

Their religion is what I referred to as devotional, which really isn't bad, it's just that they get to voice their opinions too much.

I have the impression that the american christians is something of a breed apart, but that's just a feeling

 

[skeptik]

Don't be rude

What I mean is that the scientific outlook is deeply rooted and has permeated all thought, so much that it has become impossible to imagine any other way of looking at the world, and thus to understand religion. Atheism will then logically appear as the only alternative.
Looking at religion from the scientific perspective just doesn't work. They represent two different modes of perceiving reality.

This only really applies to the educated classes. There are many people who have a great mistrust of science in the US, largely from backgrounds with less education and rural, religious, small town upbringing.

 

[mjpersinger2]

Here's a good definition of faith, from Ambrose Bierce:

"Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel"

The "without parallel" part is what distinguishes this from the assumption that your car will start, the sun will rise, etc. You and plenty of others have observed the sun rising plenty of times; it is not as controversial to suppose that the sun will rise tomorrow as it is to suppose that (since I'm already in a quoting mood) "there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money." (Carlin)

One more from Ambrose:

"Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy"

 

[skeptik]

Well I think the debunking of specific Gods is pretty well understood, but there is more discontent with rebuking the concept of any higher power at all. Of course the God of the Bible doesn't exist, but there are many people who believe that there is some type of higher power out there, and that they don't really know what it is. This can't really be refuted, unfortunately.

 

[mjpersinger2]

Of course the God of the Bible doesn't exist, but there are many people who believe that there is some type of higher power out there, and that they don't really know what it is. This can't really be refuted, unfortunately.

Right, but would you agree that it isn't nearly as controversial to assert without conclusive evidence that your car will start in the morning as it is to assert without conclusive evidence that the Universe has a conscious creator?

 

[skeptik]

Well, of course, but it still highlights an important truth.

BTW, I missed the auction, I was working.

 

[mjpersinger2]

Ildjarn-Nidhogg? Too bad. $45 would have won. It only sold at $31 or something.

Which reminds me, I was planning to go back and knock a couple bucks off everything left in my sale thread...

 

[Hell Mike]

No, you can't. You cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done so ten billion times before. You cannot prove that gravity will function 15 minutes from now because it never hasn't. These premises are illogical and based on assumptions from observation. HOWEVER, these are the assumptions that we have always made throughout human history that are necessary to continue to advance in the sciences, let alone to live normally. Which is the point that I was making. Hume has written a bit on this subject about the necessity of illogical assumptions, I can't remember the title of the book at the time but I recommend anyone interested in it taking a look at it.

Sure you can. Is the only way to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow to point out that it has done so for a very long time? How about explaining why it has done so for a very long time, and including in that why it simply cannot stop all of a sudden? How about talking about our planet's rotation around its own axis and orbit around the sun? The effect of gravity? And, if necessary, explaining how gravity works? That's more than jsut saying 'well duh, it always worked before'.
All premises are based on assumptions from observation, but that does not always make them wrong or false.

The worth of evidence lies in the eyes of the beholder, which is why some people can deny the existance of dinosaurs and such, and noone will ever be able to prove anything well enough to convice everyone. Remember that some people think life is a dream, others that we'll be born as a cow next time, and yet others may believe we are actually poop. And many think shit is just plain whack while on dope yo. That does not always make it so, but I personally find much of the evidence proper modern sience puts forward to be sufficient, because it is based on good hard FACT as I see it, but nothing is fact to everyone. It is debated and discussed and tried until deemed correct and (near) flawless though, unlike religion. And it allows room for corrections and improvement.

Looking at things from a different angle is good, behaving a stubborn five-year old is not.

 

[skeptik]

Even with all of that, it still does not prove absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that to be positive that it will is illogical. I'm only mentioning this to point out the absurdity of the claim regarding higher powers. OF COURSE the sun is going to rise tomorrow. We know this as well as we can know pretty much anything. But in that tiny decimeter of wiggle room is thrown in the idea of a higher power. It is essentially illogical to be positive that any time-based thing will occur, but it is necessary to accept immense probability over absolute certainty in order to function properly in a society.

You've piqued my interest, I'm going to look up what Hume says on the matter to make sure that I'm presenting his argument properly later on after I finish this paper.