BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 01:39 PM

"what is bothering people"

If 'bothering' were spelled 'boring', then you'd be spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 02:57 PM

So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated.

Only if you conceive of God as a (potentially) scientifically-detectable entity. As I have been at pains to say, the existence of God is not a scientific question at all. Science can only deal with the spacetime continuum. Saying that nothing that science cannot deal with exists is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement, and cannot be deduced scientifically. Thinking that the existence of God is a scientific question leads to silliness, like the famous kosmonaut who said he had been in space and didn't find God there.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:03 PM

On Unwin: The problem with his (to me, cutesy) equation is precisely what value you give to D, as he himself admits, "this number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence." It seems an exercise in silliness. It creates an entirely an arbitrary number (Why multiply by D? Why not D squared?) based on the beliefs of the person who uses it. It's like one of those online tests where you say what you think about God and it tells you what religion/denomination you should join, only it pretends a greater "accuracy" level than the online tests.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

Unwin? Only Unwin I know about is Stanley

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:28 PM

You can't measure (in external units) an opinion, or a thought, or a spiritual insight. You would be trying to lift the measuring device from the wrong universe of discourse. Not to repeat myself, or anything, but the error persists in many places if trying to force the subjective discovery of "God" (or whatever else it may be labeled) into the framework of shared commons experience where measurements based on agreements about forms and common spaces can occur. This is like trying to a speedometer to measure weight--you can't get theah from heah.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

"... the existence of God is not a scientific question at all.

That's correct. Such a question can not be dealt with by 'science' unless there is added in some element that also make some sort of scientific claim. "God lives atop Mt. Everest"

But, if not scientific, what kind of question is it?

*I* have been at pains to say, the very question, as stated, makes certain embedded assumptions and is 'loaded' by positing an entity and 'naming' it, THEN asking whether 'it' exists. Persons who are, for whatever reason, already inclined toward some sort of internalization of the concept referenced BY the word 'god' (especially if capitalized) will be predisposed to answer 'yes'.

It is hard to even construct any short, semi-neutral way of asking a question about the possibility of an omnipotent 'being' (already loaded) or 'entity' which was here before there WAS any 'here', and which 'decided' (a human process) to 'create' 'everything', including certain beings, in 'his' own image.

There are long, involved technical, philosophical ways of explaining the status OF such questions, but they tend to make the brain hurt without previous study of the required terms.

The point I try to make is: There is some doubt whether certain questions, while grammatically coherent, can even be asked in such a way as to elicit meaningful responses from an average set of people.
(The famous question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" falls into this category... it make assumptions in its very construction and asks for speculation about metaphysics that strain the imagination)

One can ask relevant questions about personal attitudes, such as: "Do you adhere to various beliefs and moral imperatives that you understand to be supported and promulgated by the [insert one religious denomination here], based on your best guess that they have the insight and subjective coherence to justify your trust?"

Even that has weaknesses, and is not exactly something you'd see on a survey...*wry smile*

I say it this way... just because "Is there a god?" is clearly NOT a scientific question, it does not follow that it is, in that form, a meaningful question at all. Once asked, people INSERT meaning when trying to answer it, and obviously there are many varieties OF meaning, gleaned from different sources as well as from linguistic context and deeply personal concepts.
When the question(s) "Is there a god?" or "Do you believe in God?" is asked, we learn something about people, but little or nothing about 'god'......

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:05 PM

When the question(s) "Is there a god?" or "Do you believe in God?" is asked, we learn something about people, but little or nothing about 'god'......

True, because essentially what you're asking is about people: their belief or lack thereof in God.

A question about God, such as, "what is God like?" is a horse of a different colour. That said, the problem with that question is that its answer depends on a host of underlying assumptions that are not universally shared. Add to this the fact that most people don't even realize the underlying assumptions they hold that give rise to their answer to that question, and it does look very subjective indeed. I would not deny this. Further the type of evidence (there's that word again) which underlies most people's belief in God (those that have belief in God), is largely (but usually not entirely) of a subjective nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM

You don't get anywhere in discourse without a definition of terms; and asking a Goddie for a definition is likely to come up with something on the line of "He is the undefinable". Well, it is possible there may be unbounded consciousness transcending all dimensionality and all definition. If so, it probably surpasses labeling and can't be used easily as a "term", anyway.

Let us scrut the inscrutable, eff the ineffable, ponder the imponderable, and speak the unspeakable. At the very least it's just the thing to pass the time away while we are trapped inside the time stream.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:34 PM

Willie WOOF
it bears repeatin
"Religion is like a dog. When it is yours, it is warm and cuddly. When it is someone else's, it is dangerous and threatening. In either event, children need protecting from it."




Have you ever noticed...

Religions that have multiple gods or have the unknowable mystery as a primary tenent are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well. Mono theisitic religions which are touted to be an "improvement" have proven very bloody.

Monotheistic rants I have heard; The one and only, the one true God, the path that others must take or die.




Now as I promised earlier...



HOW TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

There once was a skin cell on the forskin of Sir Issac Newton. IT knew virtually nothing of the man it was attached to. However it did know of times of great rigidity and times of sustained wet. It knew of dark sleeping times and rigorous rubbing until one day it dried up and fell off. Despite having a nerveous system connection to mr. Newton, it knew nothing of questions of gravity or orbital velocities. It knew there was somthing more. It knew when its needs were met and when they weren't. It knew of an urge to exist, but it never knew the entireity of the man named Newton.

People have an inkling that they are like a cell on a larger being and they are indeed correct. They are part of an eco system which is part of a cosmological system which is part of a larger dimensional system. In the other direction the molecules are part of an electro dynamic system which are part of vibratory atomic systems harmonicly obeying the same laws, fractally ad infinitum down to the strings and waves of energy at the Plank baseline.

None of these systems exist on their own. They are a response, no they are indeed a harmony to something else, like the note C is a vibration of many things but combine that C with an E and you have a harmony that conveys a certain feeling to Issac Newton or yourself.
Add a G and you feel a larger harmony. etc.

No cell is an island. No being is an Island. No religion is an Island. No science is an Island. Interdisciplinary systems are more revealing than one branch of science alone.

To know this deeply is alin to falling in love as two people both see a fucntionsing oof a larger harmony in their lives.

This state of everything existing in response to and because of the interlacing harmonies of all energies is called God by some people. Make god a religion outside of ANYTHING else, make a religion exclusive or special outside of ANYTHING else, then you will lose the entire universe. You will have lost the point.

The harmonic continuem will exist but your exclusive idea of a singular god of a single religion, will kill the wisdom of shared harmony.

To a scientist it is like a grand split beam quantum experiment.
Leave the electrons to their own devices and they will behave in a beautiful spread BUT when you observe just one outside the context of everything YOU WILL CHANGE ITS PATH. Yes just by looking at one thing seperate from its context, you will have seperated it behavior from the norm.

Do so with an inclusive religion and you have changee the harmony. Do so with a vengEful religion and you have changed harmony to dissonance.

ergo

God exists best when you don't try to find it.
By not looking you will find it by experiencing it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:43 PM

Religions with multiple gods "are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well".

For example the Romans...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 04:51 PM

hOW'S THAT FOR "EFFING" "SCRUTING" AND "PONDERING"?

It doesn't go beyond the norm, It is the norm.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:05 PM

I 'scrut', we have 'scrot', they will 'screet'?

I dunno, Amos...I think I'd better stick to 'pondering effing'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

Religions that have multiple gods or have the unknowable mystery as a primary tenent are peaceful religions that treat their diverse neighbors very well.

Oh yeah, those Hindus are so kind to the Muslims in their midst. You might want to re-think this maxim. I see somebody already mentioned the ancient Romans. I might also mention Alexander the Great.

This dog just will not hunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

"All generalizations are suspect" ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:48 PM

" 'So there is objective evidence/reasoning for the non-existence of God. He's up against all the science and maths that we've objectively accumulated.'

Only if you conceive of God as a (potentially) scientifically-detectable entity. As I have been at pains to say, the existence of God is not a scientific question at all. Science can only deal with the spacetime continuum. Saying that nothing that science cannot deal with exists is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophical statement, and cannot be deduced scientifically. Thinking that the existence of God is a scientific question leads to silliness, like the famous kosmonaut who said he had been in space and didn't find God there."

You asked for objective evidence. Now it's you that won't accept evidence that don't fit your view. Scientific evidence can be uncomfortably strong at times, I admit. And I actually think that the cosmonaut was very wise. After all, an awful lot of believers think that God's up there in the sky.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:50 PM

There once was a skin cell on the foreskin of Sir Issac Newton. IT knew virtually nothing of the man it was attached to. However it did know of times of great rigidity and times of sustained wet. (...). It knew of an urge to exist, but it never knew the entireity of the man named Newton.

Crap. It knew balls all, it was a cell, not a sentient organism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

"All generalizations are suspect"

Apart perhaps from that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

But that exception means it is false...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:39 PM

Obviously nobody can know 'private thoughts'. (Ron D)

Exactly - so you don't know for sure which composers believed in God, only what they said.

This poster also, it seems, needs a course in reading English. I've said more than once that it bothers me not in the least if an atheist writes a Christian piece, as long as the composer is respectful of the tradition.

Patronising though it is, that isn't the point I was addressing.

By the way, I'd be curious to know the poster's own view on Mussourgsky and Baba Yaga.

The point of my comment was that I haven't a clue whether he believed in Baba Yaga and neither do you - but I do know you don't spell Mussorgsky like that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

You asked for objective evidence. Now it's you that won't accept evidence that don't fit your view.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But you're right. I won't accept framing the existence of God as a scientific question. I've made that pretty plain, I think.

I do know you don't spell Mussorgsky like that.

On the contrary, it's quite obvious he does.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 06:55 PM

"Spect he knows best ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:03 PM

"I won't accept framing the existence of God as a scientific question."

I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality. Eyes tight shut, hands clasped, face raised to heaven...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:30 PM

If believers don't need 'scientific evidence' for their belief, why should they bother about it? Ardent non-believers don't believe anyway, so why should they bother about it either? It all seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.. Let the scientists keep looking, and wake me up if they find anything. Meanwhile, live and let live.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:38 PM

I was willing to overlook the Romans with an artist's prerogative but I beg to differ with any assertion that Hinduism today is a violent religion. It is far more individualistic in interpretation and has little or no dogma. Being pitted against Islamic angst continually has brought about a certain amount of defensiveness. At any rate the premise at its foundation is that MONTHEISM is not an improvement over other religions by any means.
-wait a minute-
-got an itch-
Ouch, was that a foreskin cell sending me a message?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:50 PM

I think you've just defined faith, and you appear to have defined it as something totally insulated from the world of reality.

Rather, you have defined scientifically-detectable reality as the only reality. Which, as I said above, you cannot do via science. You believe this independent of scientific evidence, for "science" is a scientific entity.

If believers don't need 'scientific evidence' for their belief, why should they bother about it?

Because there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your science.

I was willing to overlook the Romans with an artist's prerogative but I beg to differ with any assertion that Hinduism today is a violent religion.

Whoa, where did "today" come from? You're moving the goalposts. What about Alexander the Great?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM

It wasn't meant as an insult, Mousethief. I meant that non-believers have no right to insist that believers should require scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

"But that exception means it is false..."

The exception proves the rule.


Consequently, the more exceptions,the better the rule...

Isn't language fun? We can, and do, bewilder ourselves with our own thought patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

Hindus isn't "a violent religion" any more than Christianity, Judaism or for that matter Islam - but there have been many horrifying examples of mass violence carried out in the name of Hinduism, just as bad as anything done in the name of the monotheistic religions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:04 PM

McGrath of Harlow

Unwin? Only Unwin I know about is Stanley

I suspect Professor Stanley may make more sense than Dr Stephen (who may have had his tongue poked just a little way into his cheek).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:06 PM

All we require evidence for is IF they are going to claim that their faith is *rational*. We have no issue at all with believers who know full well that that their faith is faith-based. And nobody requires data for faith, not the theists nor the atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:09 PM

BTW
The reason I followed this thread at all was due to mousethief's exceptional essays and answers. He is by no means a muse thief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:18 PM

Evidence for rationality? What sort of evidence? Of course faith is faith based - what else?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:49 PM

As I see it, faith is bound to seem rational to those who have faith, and irrational to those who haven't. However, I doubt very much that there is such an animal as a completely rational human being.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:52 PM

The reason I followed this thread at all was due to mousethief's exceptional essays and answers. He is by no means a muse thief.

Thank you for your kind words. At least, I hope I may take them that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

Smokey, I have many friends of faith who say I have no *reason* to believe, I just do. That is what I meant.

Mousethief, it is true your writing shows you to be a gem.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:01 PM

Then we are in agreement, Mrrzy, and I am also appreciating Mousethief's input.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:11 PM

"...lumping people together"

Bingo.

My heart truly bleeds for Mudcat atheists if they feel I am lumping people together.

Now when will they realize that this is exactly how quite a few Mudcat atheists' posts read when they discuss Christians?   There is no attempt to look for shades of gray.

If all Mudcat atheists refrain from the black/white approach, smearing all Christians with the deeds of a crackpot few, I will also stop the Manichean style.

And it is obvious to anybody who reads that many Mudcat atheists have in fact been doing this.

So, do we have a deal?

(And not just on this thread--which now is in fact just the ghost of a dead horse.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM

Faith, guided imagery, hypnosis, pscho neural linguistics, realxation response directives, prayer etc etc

The phenomenon is remarkable no matter what you call it.
I've seen it. You've seen it. I've done it, You've done it.

The act does not require a God to work. It does not require a religion. But you can add them both to the process if you want.

All I would ask is that it is done for good and not evil.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:16 PM

Ah yes, also no stupid needlessly incendiary language like "imaginary friend".

That has to be part of the deal also.

Otherwise no deal.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM

Incendiary language requires combustible people to be effective..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

Incendiary language requires combustible people to be effective..

But not to be ill-intended.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM

True, but I don't think one should encourage further ill intent as a result of it. The phrase 'turn the other cheek' comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 09:48 PM

How to get a wife according to the bible:
1.Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. - (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
2.Find a prostitute and marry her. - (Hosea 1:1-3)
3.Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. - Moses (Ex 2:16-21)
4.Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. - Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
5.Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. - Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
6.Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you. - Adam (Gen 2:19-24)
7.Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman's hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That's right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife. - Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30)
8.Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife - David (I Samuel 18:27)
9.Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone. (It's all relative, of course.) - Cain (Genesis 4:16-17)
10.Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. - Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
11.When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, "I have seen a ... woman; now get her for me." If your parents question your decision, simply say, "Get her for me. She's the one for me." - Samson (Judges 14:1-3)
12.Kill any husband and take HIS wife (Prepare to lose four sons, though). - David (2 Samuel 11)
13.Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It's not just a good idea; it's the law.) - Onana and Boaz (Deuteronomy or Leviticus, example in Ruth)
14.Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity. - Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
15.A wife?...NOT? - Paul (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)

bad bible advice

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:29 PM

True, but I don't think one should encourage further ill intent as a result of it. The phrase 'turn the other cheek' comes to mind.

Sadly that is often used by abusive atheists as an excuse for their abuse, and yet challenging the Christians to "take it" because they are commanded to, ya-da. The Christian doormat. It's really disingenuous to pull such a stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:45 PM

Yes, I appreciate that, but if intended abuse just hits a brick wall and seems to have no effect, it's less likely to encourage the abuser, who is no doubt looking for a dramatic result. Just less trouble all round, I suppose.

My own policy on 'offence' is that it has to be both given and taken to be anything more than just a misunderstanding. Not taking offence renders the would-be offender impotent. Anything for a quiet life :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

Besides, I usually find contentment in the fact that those sort of offensive jibes say far more about the giver than the receiver.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:43 PM

Point is:   if atheists can't take jibes, they shouldn't give them out.

Somebody who complains about "lumping together" is invited to look in the mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM

To Smokey.: Point taken. We try to teach our kids not to respond to bullying. Same principle.

To Ron Davies: Point is:   if atheists can't take jibes, they shouldn't give them out.

Some of them can be awfully delicate. And few of them are really terribly logical for all their bluster. But then I have two earned degrees in Philosophy (not to brag or anything) and have put a lot of time into studying logic (both formal and informal) and analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM

Would that be atheists in general, or 'Mudcat atheists'?

Not that you aren't right, on both counts, but there are two sides to every mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM

Not that you aren't right, on both counts, but there are two sides to every mirror.

True but one of them is generally non-reflective and not much use as a mirror.