Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[Heyo]

We don’t, really. We observe phenomena which require other, unobserved phenomena to explain them. In other words, we see what we suppose to be the gravitational effects of dark matter and energy, and hypothesise their existence based on this indirect observation. To fill in the gaps, as it were.

Religious people see the effects of God everywhere around them, in much the same way.

If you were ever near the coast, you could have watched a phenomenon. The water rises and falls about twice a day.
Poseidon has a pet serpent, a real giant serpent that sleeps under the sea, and she breathes water in and out about twice a day. The serpent is called Tide.
That's an example of how to conflate the cause with the phenomenon. For what phenomenon is "god" the word?
Dark Matter is the phenomenon, stars on the outskirts of galaxies move too fast to be explained by Newtonian gravity.
WIMPs, MAChOs, Axions and MoND are the hypothetical explanations.
We all agree that the phenomenon exists, but we don't know the cause.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you were ever near the coast, you could have watched a phenomenon. The water rises and falls about twice a day.
Poseidon has a pet serpent, a real giant serpent that sleeps under the sea, and she breathes water in and out about twice a day. The serpent is called Tide.
That's an example of how to conflate the cause with the phenomenon. For what phenomenon is "god" the word?
Dark Matter is the phenomenon, stars on the outskirts of galaxies move too fast to be explained by Newtonian gravity.
WIMPs, MAChOs, Axions and MoND are the hypothetical explanations.
We all agree that the phenomenon exists, but we don't know the cause.

It’s universally accepted that gravity is the cause of the observable phenomena, both with the tide, and with the formation and motion of spiral galaxies. What we understand about gravity is still very limited, though thanks to Newton and Einstein, we can quantify, predict and define it’s effects with great accuracy. That’s how we know that something is required to reconcile what we observe with spiral galaxies, with what Einstein’s equations predict.

Gravity is an unseen force*. Dark matter is not a force; it is a material entity hypothesised in order to reconcile what we know about gravity, with what we observe of the behaviour of baryonic matter.

Not one particle of dark matter has yet been observed. Millions of people across cultures and across centuries, claim to have seen or heard the voice of God. That’s actually quite a body of first hand evidence, but perhaps all those people were misguided or otherwise mistaken. As perhaps all but a few cosmologists may be mistaken about dark matter. It’s interesting and imo far from fruitless to speculate.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) is an attempt to reconcile the disparity between what we observe and what Newtonian physics and GR tell us we should observe, without the need for dark matter. Which suggests the scientific community does not as yet universally accept the phenomenon.

* Or a function of the geometry of spacetime. Or something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

If someone has a handful of negative experiences with dogs and no positive ones, why would you expect them to go get a dog?

Their opinion of dogs might be based on incomplete information, but so what? Having a dog is a completely optional thing.

How high do you think the bar should be for someone to declare that they aren't a dog person. Would they need to experience every breed? Every individual dog?

 

[PureX]

Is the chihuahua business meant to compare one dog bite leading to the dismissal of all canines with the idea of disgruntled apostates dismissal of ze gods?

That suggests an irrational and hasty reaction to something unpleasant rather than a non-violent process in the mental machinery that delivers a deity free model of reality.

The rejection is of the existence of something that hinges on our belief. And can be similarly exhilarating and as liberating as the feelings described above.

It's just a matter of perception.

Perception is also conception.

Yes, like the perception that all dogs bite because one dog bit, and so all are therefor bad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perception is also conception.

Yes, like the perception that all dogs bite because one dog bit, and so all are therefor bad.

For a proper analogy, the perception wouldn't be "all dogs bite;" it would be "I don't want to get a dog."

 

[PureX]

That's why I identify as an Agnostic. I let others contemplate about the existence of gods. There is enough evidence for me to know that nobody even knows what a god is. No need to ponder the existence of something nobody knows anything about.

Is existence as we experience it really the only valid subject worth pondering? How did you decide this?

I think a lot of people become atheists because they are angry that they CAN'T understand God, and therefor can't figure out how to manipulate it. The longer I live, the more I can see that we humans are absolutely obsessed with control. And that theism and theology and religion are all very much about our trying to resolve ths intense discomfort we feel with our lack of control. It's fueling both our obsession with religiosity AND with scientism.

 

[PureX]

If someone has a handful of negative experiences with dogs and no positive ones, why would you expect them to go get a dog?

Nevertheless, their presumption that all dogs are bad would be very illogical. And untrue.

Their opinion of dogs might be based on incomplete information, but so what? Having a dog is a completely optional thing.

Having a dog can be a very positive experience, and IS a very positive experience for a great many humans. Yet based on a highly irrational presumption, this particular fellow is denying himself that positivity, AND he is trying to dissuade others from engaging with dogs every time he proclaims his irrational presumption that dogs are bad to be wise and true.

How high do you think the bar should be for someone to declare that they aren't a dog person.

But that's not what is being declared. What is being declared is that all dogs are bad.

Nearly every atheist that responded to that other thread declared that they had a negative or false experience God as God was depicted by some religion or other, and so they now believe that all god depictions are false and result in negative experiences.

Would they need to experience every breed? Every individual dog?

All they would need to do is use their own brain's logic to see that they have adopted an irrational bias. And that dogs can provide many different experiences when we interact with them, both good and bad. But clearly good for the vast majority of humans. That doesn't mean we all have to have a dog in our lives. But it does mean that it's logical that most humans would want one.

But this is not how atheists feel about God, is it. Instead, most atheists are angry and resentful that the God depiction they were handed by some religion or other turned out to be a lie, and they were hurt by this as a result. And so now they believe and proclaim that all gods are false and hurtful in spite of the fact that a vast majority of humans gain a positive experience from their faith in their various gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nevertheless, their presumption that all dogs are bad would be very illogical. And untrue.

That's not a fair or reasonable aspect of your analogy.

Having a dog can be a very positive experience, and IS a very positive experience for a great many humans.

The same can be said about all sorts of optional activities that you don't engage in. Why should your values dictate the actions of others?

Yet based on a highly irrational presumption, thisparticular fellow is denying himself that positivity, AND he is trying to dissuade others from engaging with dogs every time he proclaims his irrational presumption that dogs are bad to be wise and true.

But that's not what is being declared. What is being declared is that all dogs are bad.

You don't get it. That's okay.

Instead of your simplistic dog analogy, think of things in terms of wine:

- some people love wine and will spend thousands of dollars for the right bottle.

- some people dislike like wine and don't understand the appeal. To be fair, some of these people are basing their dislike on a handful of experiences with cheap wine that a lot of wine-lovers also dislike.

- people on both sides should be able to recognize the significant social harm caused by alcohol.

- some of the wine-lovers try to argue that the social harms of alcohol don't have anything to do with them.


... and you're here, shouting about how our real problem is with commercial wineries, not with whatever specific homemade wine you've made.

I would say that this is a fairer analogy. Wine-lovers are justified in loving wine, teetotallers are justified in avoiding it and even in arguing that other people should avoid it, too.

 

[Mock Turtle]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

Not really, but we have to deal with probabilities in life all too often, and given that some of us just don't tend to see much in religions other than human projection, and not seeing any evidence of life being a result of any God in actuality - if one isn't gullible enough and did actually look properly as to what life entails for the majority of such, and as to the many dangers facing life rather than any benign state existing for such - then we make our guesses appropriately. Hence why so many are mostly atheists rather than 100% atheists, given we do respect probability.

And as proof - a Chow bit me as a six-year-old once (me being quite innocent) but I don't hate all or any dogs. (True)

 

[PureX]

Instead of your simplistic dog analogy, think of things in terms of wine:

- some people love wine and will spend thousands of dollars for the right bottle.

- some people dislike like wine and don't understand the appeal. To be fair, some of these people are basing their dislike on a handful of experiences with cheap wine that a lot of wine-lovers also dislike.

- people on both sides should be able to recognize the significant social harm caused by alcohol.

- some of the wine-lovers try to argue that the social harms of alcohol don't have anything to do with them.


... and you're here, shouting about how our real problem is with commercial wineries, not with whatever specific homemade wine you've made.

I would say that this is a fairer analogy. Wine-lovers are justified in loving wine, teetotallers are justified in avoiding it and even in arguing that other people should avoid it, too.

Just as the atheist does with God, you blindly and falsely assume that alcohol only causes society harm because it harms a small number of people that become addicted to it and they in turn can harm others. But most humans can and do use alcohol to great positive benefit without hurting anyone. Just as most people do with their faith in their gods.

Your own analogy bears out the irrational and untrue bias that fuels most atheism. And that bias is being created by using one's personal experience as proof of some otherwise false 'universal truth'. "It's bad for some so it's bad for all."

 

[Heyo]

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) is an attempt to reconcile the disparity between what we observe and what Newtonian physics and GR tell us we should observe, without the need for dark matter. Which suggests the scientific community does not as yet universally accept the phenomenon.

The phenomenon is the unexpected speed of the stars. Dark Matter is the name, though it is a misnomer as the explanation to the phenomenon doesn't have to be a form of matter, MoND could also explain it. And the scientific community agrees that the stars move.

 

[Revoltingest]

You misunderstand.

Not again!

If we haven't heard of them we have no reason to think about them at all because we have nothing to think about. Once someone makes some claim about a god then we have heard about it. Then your statement is correct.

I've considered kinds of gods that people
could believe in, but that I don't know of.

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative is neither to believe nor disbelieve. A binary mindset won’t see this, of course.

I see dis-belief as broader than consciously
saying "Pbbbtttt!" at a particular god. I also
include the broader not believing due to
not knowing of.

 

[Alien826]

Not again!

I've considered kinds of gods that people
could believe in, but that I don't know of.

I hadn't thought if that one. So you sit and daydream about gods? I prefer sexual fantasies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hadn't thought if that one. So you sit and daydream about gods?

Such thought experiments come to
mind when discussing philosophy.

I prefer sexual fantasies.

As long as I'm not in them, no objection.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The alternative is neither to believe nor disbelieve. A binary mindset won’t see this, of course.

This ^^^^

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative is neither to believe nor disbelieve. A binary mindset won’t see this, of course.

Or we see "disbelieve" more broadly than you do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Or we see "disbelieve" more broadly than you do.

Maybe. While also perhaps seeing “believe” more narrowly.

However, the middle option may be a sort of Schrodinger’s God. Simultaneously everything and nothing, until it interacts either with a conscious observer, or with the dimensions the observer operates in.

 

[Alien826]

Maybe. While also perhaps seeing “believe” more narrowly.

However, the middle option may be a sort of Schrodinger’s God. Simultaneously everything and nothing, until it interacts either with a conscious observer, or with the dimensions the observer operates in.

Like Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, where gods are literally created by belief in them and their divine powers wax and wane based on how many believers they have? It was intended to be humorous of course.

 

[Koldo]

On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.

And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The rejection of all other God concepts (which is not quite how I would phrase it, but I digress...) didn't come along with becoming an atheist. Rather it came along much earlier than that, it came along with becoming a [insert a religion here].

It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".

I simply have no interest in the many ways that people might choose to define or conceptualize God.