Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Copernicus]

Not all theisitic beliefs share your definition of a soul as a mind independent of a body. This only works if the belief system requires that souls are immaterial. Mine, on the other hand, says that "all spirit is matter," hence the transfer of a mind, while problemetic, could still be governed by the requirement of a material form.

I understand that LDS doctrine differs from other Abrahamic belief systems on this point as well as others, and I am not as familiar with it as some of the others. If LDS doctrine consistently denies a spiritual plane of existence, then it endorses philosophical materialism. Can you confirm this? At best, that means that LDS is one of the few theistic doctrines to which #1 may not apply, but it remains subject to the other points I made.

As above, no doctrinal conflict with evolution, insofar as LDS are not literal creationists. Personally, I prefer science as a means of exploring the natural world; the Bible is not a science textbook.

Reason #2 is not just about evolution and creationism. It is about a historical tendency to prefer natural over supernatural explanations. Scientific explanations always prevail over supernatural ones. The argument from design just happens to be one of the most powerful roles assigned to gods, but they have also been associated with natural events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning, swarms of locusts, etc.

Variety of religious belief cannot happen with an actual god? I don't see how this follows. Religion and spirituality are explorations of ephemeral, ineffable concepts, often stretching the boundaries of language. One way to make up the difference is with metaphors and analogies, which are often aimed at a particular time, place, and cultural context. Add in the human capacity for literalizing, misinterpreting and so on, and you've got LOTS of room for variety of religious belief.

What does any of this have to do with the historical failure of religious revelations? Revelation was the means by which God communicated with Joseph Smith. Or do you reject the claim that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints are able to receive revelations from God? Has every revelation that has been claimed by a Mormon turned out to come true?

That's a stretch, seriously. It presupposes that these people are praying for such temporal rewards AND that the deity is inclined to grant them. My god has seen fit to grant some of his followers long life, but has called others home early as a reward. It depends upon the individual request.

Are you claiming that Mormons do not use prayer to ask God for anything at all? People of faith are sometimes quick to deny that they pray to their gods for favors, because it makes the act sound selfish. But it is fairly obvious that that is one of the main functions of prayer--to seek to better one's present and future conditions by influencing the god to treat the supplicant favorably. That is why people engaging in prayer adopt the same postures of obeisance that they use when begging humans for favors.

Moreover, how would you notice if a group was healthier than another? I mean, for the sake of argument, are you aware of the genetic gold mine in Utah: long lives, few to no carcinogens, large families, well traced geneology? What about the health codes of other religions--I'm sure many traditional dietary restrictions have led to longer life, if the people live by them.

Dietary restrictions have nothing to do with prayers, and one does not need to appeal to divine intervention to explain their beneficial effects. However, I am not aware that Mormons are all that much better off than people of other religious persuasions, although I would expect that to be a popular belief among Mormons, as it is among members of other religions. People usually feel a need to believe that they derive advantage from their religious faith.

Once again, you overuse the privilege of defining the terms. I'd never classify a miracle as an event that contravened natural laws. Ever.

OK, then please offer an alternative definition.

All of the above are reasons for you to do a little more homework. They say more about you than about us.

I have openly admitted that these are reasons that I find convincing for rejecting belief in gods. I have submitted them here for critical review by others. However, do not wrap yourself in the banner of all religious belief. Don't forget that you have some sharp disagreements with the nature of reality than other people of faith (e.g. your professed materialism).

 

[Copernicus]

Fallacy? Not according to Webster's. An anology can also be used to explain a concept not fully understood. As I said, we consider the spiritual/divine to be merely another form of energy.

Google the keywords "analogy" and "fallacy". You will find that "false analogy" or its equivalent appear on most lists of common fallacies. You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?

We do, in fact, belief that the gods are thinking entities, created by the concentrated will of many human beings over time. However, you are attempting to attribute something to all deities that 1. we do not believe in, and 2. does not apply to all deities.

I stand by my definition as conforming with normal, everyday usage of the word "god". By "we", I assume that you are referring to yourself and a relatively small number of like-minded theists. Most theists do not believe what you claimed here.

Go back and read your responses.

I have reread them and thought about them quite a lot, and I do not see how you arrived at your conclusion. Moreover, you were unable to substantiate it by referring to anything that I actually said.

Please cite the reeearch that shows that intuition is a "physical event". As for Dreams, Shamans (loosly translated as Dreamers) have been utilizing Dreams for tens of thousands of years. Using the radio anology, our brains are merely the transceiver that can, at times, conenct to our spiritual aspects when the concious mind is removed from the equation.

I hardly know where to begin citing the scientific investigation of the relationship between brain activity and dreams. Look, I'll just point you to this Wikipedia page on Dream. Notice the section on "Neurology of Dreaming". But it really isn't hard to find further evidence in support of my claim, if you bother to investigate. You don't really need me to help you.

No struggling at all, I was clear and consice in my reply concerning Celtic mythology. We actually agree on "miracles", one of the Abrahamic mainstays you are attempting to attribute to all beliefs.

My experience of Celtic mythology is that it is full of gods, spirits, and miracles. Perhaps you could point me to some literature to back up your claim that pagan Celts did not believe in miracles. Like I said, they were Indo-Europeans. Their religion ultimately evolved from the same source as other Indo-European cultures.

Please read my reply again, I never claimed that "most" were theists.

Please read my reply to your reply. I never said that you did.

 

[AxisMundi]

Google the keywords "analogy" and "fallacy". You will find that "false analogy" or its equivalent appear on most lists of common fallacies. You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology synonyms see likeness

Fallacy isn't noted anywhere.

An anology is a useful tool of comparison to help explain one's ideas and ideals, and isn't intended to provide concrete proof in and of itself.

Now are we done with this asanine argument of semantics?

 

[AxisMundi]

..... You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?

How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.

I stand by my definition as conforming with normal, everyday usage of the word "god". By "we", I assume that you are referring to yourself and a relatively small number of like-minded theists. Most theists do not believe what you claimed here.

Argumentum ad numerum. Almost half of the world's theists look to the god of Abraham. Does that make the Abrahamics correct? There are some 2,000 recorded deities on this planet, they do not all share the same characteristics.

I have reread them and thought about them quite a lot, and I do not see how you arrived at your conclusion. Moreover, you were unable to substantiate it by referring to anything that I actually said.

It is quite plain.

I hardly know where to begin citing the scientific investigation of the relationship between brain activity and dreams. Look, I'll just point you to this Wikipedia page on Dream. Notice the section on "Neurology of Dreaming". But it really isn't hard to find further evidence in support of my claim, if you bother to investigate. You don't really need me to help you.

Sir, you are speaking to an Active Dreamer, someone who uses Dreams and has studied both the phsycial and none physical portions of Dreaming. I am quite aware of the physical aspects of dreams. I will not bother with ancedotal evidence which you will not believe anyways, but rest asured you are not speaking to some teenage noob.

My experience of Celtic mythology is that it is full of gods, spirits, and miracles. Perhaps you could point me to some literature to back up your claim that pagan Celts did not believe in miracles. Like I said, they were Indo-Europeans. Their religion ultimately evolved from the same source as other Indo-European cultures.

You are forgeting that many stories and myths have been degraded over time by Xtian influences, a concern to the Celtic Reconstructionist as we try and peel away those influences. Since you "have experience" and it is you making the claim, why don't you share some of these miracles with us.

Please read my reply to your reply. I never said that you did.

Again, re-read your reply.

 

[cottage]

How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.

Forgive me, but isn’t that to presuppose the existence of the very thing that you say can’t yet be measured? There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

 

[AxisMundi]

Forgive me, but isn’t that to presuppose the existence of the very thing that you say can’t yet be measured? There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

Clarify, please.

 

[Willamena]

There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

No significant difference. But the difference itself may be significant.

 

[Copernicus]

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
...
Fallacy isn't noted anywhere.

Why are you bothering with the internet "dictionary game"? Dictionaries are not encyclopedic, so they do not give you much information about the things that words denote. Their only function is to help users discover and distinguish word senses. (BTW, lexicography is part of what I do professionally, so you are not likely to impress me by pulling out a dictionary.) I defended my point by advising you to Google "analogy" and "fallacy". I also pointed you to the Wikipedia page on the subject of False Analogy. Instead, you went right back to your appeal to dictionary definitions. I would not expect a dictionary to inform you that analogies are a common type of fallacy in debates. If you continue on that path, then you are engaging in another fallacy--argumentum ad nauseam.

An anology is a useful tool of comparison to help explain one's ideas and ideals, and isn't intended to provide concrete proof in and of itself.

You and I are in violent agreement on this point. The fact that analogies do not prove anything is why they are called "informal fallacies". The analogy between a brain/mind and radio/music connection can lead to false conclusions about the nature of minds, because all analogies break down in the end.

Now are we done with this asanine argument of semantics?

One can only hope so.

How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.

True, but we also lack the tools to measure phlogiston. Scientists tried to find ways to measure it for a long time before they discovered oxygen. A mere claim that the mind is "energy" is not sufficient to establish plausibility, which is what we are interested in here. (Refer to the OP.) I am not interested in establishing impossibility, only implausibility.

Argumentum ad numerum. Almost half of the world's theists look to the god of Abraham. Does that make the Abrahamics correct? There are some 2,000 recorded deities on this planet, they do not all share the same characteristics.

You are fond of dictionaries, so maybe you'll understand this point. We were talking about what it means to call something a "god". I am perfectly within my rights to define the terms I use in my arguments, and I have done that. In this case, I think that my definition is pretty close to the way people normally use the word. If you want to assign an unusual meaning to the word based on the usage of a small number of speakers, I will not object--unless, of course, you insist on applying that meaning to the words I use in my arguments. Basing word definitions on usage is not an argument from popularity. It is standard procedure.

Sir, you are speaking to an Active Dreamer, someone who uses Dreams and has studied both the phsycial and none physical portions of Dreaming. I am quite aware of the physical aspects of dreams. I will not bother with ancedotal evidence which you will not believe anyways, but rest asured you are not speaking to some teenage noob.

Good. Then I think that I have made my point about the connection between brain activity and mental states known as "dreams".

You are forgeting that many stories and myths have been degraded over time by Xtian influences, a concern to the Celtic Reconstructionist as we try and peel away those influences. Since you "have experience" and it is you making the claim, why don't you share some of these miracles with us.

Let me get this straight. You appeared to claim that the pagan Celtic religion did not have gods and miracles in the conventional sense that I talked about in the OP. All well and good. That is your claim. Now, I said that my impression was different--that gods, spirits, and miracles were roughly the same as in other religions, especially since the Celts have always been an Indo-European culture. So I have disagreed with your claim. Now, as I understand it, you want me to prove that your claim is wrong. I feel no obligation to do that, and it really does take us off-topic. If you have some different understanding of Celtic gods and Celtic mythology that adds to the discussion, then I invite you to bring it. Otherwise, do not expect me to go off searching for ways to disprove your unsupported assertions.

 

[cottage]

Clarify, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus
..... You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.



Forgive me, but isn’t that to presuppose the existence of the very thing that you say can’t yet be measured? There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

To say an inability to measure a thing doesn’t negate its possibility is to presuppose the thing’s actuality. Electrical activity was observed to exist before it was measured. But what is ‘divine’? How does it exist?

 

[AxisMundi]

Why are you bothering with the internet "dictionary game"? Dictionaries are not encyclopedic, so they do not give you much information about the things that words denote. Their only function is to help users discover and distinguish word senses. (BTW, lexicography is part of what I do professionally, so you are not likely to impress me by pulling out a dictionary.) I defended my point by advising you to Google "analogy" and "fallacy". I also pointed you to the Wikipedia page on the subject of False Analogy. Instead, you went right back to your appeal to dictionary definitions. I would not expect a dictionary to inform you that analogies are a common type of fallacy in debates. If you continue on that path, then you are engaging in another fallacy--argumentum ad nauseam.


You and I are in violent agreement on this point. The fact that analogies do not prove anything is why they are called "informal fallacies". The analogy between a brain/mind and radio/music connection can lead to false conclusions about the nature of minds, because all analogies break down in the end.



One can only hope so. ....

Scuze me, but I cited Miriam-Webster's On line, not "Dictionary.com". Might I suggest you utilize recognized definitions instead of your own personal thesaurus?

 

[AxisMundi]

True, but we also lack the tools to measure phlogiston. Scientists tried to find ways to measure it for a long time before they discovered oxygen. A mere claim that the mind is "energy" is not sufficient to establish plausibility, which is what we are interested in here. (Refer to the OP.) I am not interested in establishing impossibility, only implausibility.

Thank you for making my point concerning science.

BTW, the brain works on bio-electrical impulses, and electricity is a form of <insert answer here>

You are fond of dictionaries, so maybe you'll understand this point. We were talking about what it means to call something a "god". I am perfectly within my rights to define the terms I use in my arguments, and I have done that. In this case, I think that my definition is pretty close to the way people normally use the word. If you want to assign an unusual meaning to the word based on the usage of a small number of speakers, I will not object--unless, of course, you insist on applying that meaning to the words I use in my arguments. Basing word definitions on usage is not an argument from popularity. It is standard procedure.

oh the irony, or hypocracy, depending on how one looks at things. First you use your own personal thesaurus in your rather childish argument about anologies, and then try and berate me for not using, again, your personal definition of "god".

Good. Then I think that I have made my point about the connection between brain activity and mental states known as "dreams".

You've only made the point that you have a surface knowlege of dreams, and no knowledge concerning other aspects of that state.

Let me get this straight. You appeared to claim that the pagan Celtic religion did not have gods and miracles in the conventional sense that I talked about in the OP. All well and good. That is your claim. Now, I said that my impression was different--that gods, spirits, and miracles were roughly the same as in other religions, especially since the Celts have always been an Indo-European culture. So I have disagreed with your claim. Now, as I understand it, you want me to prove that your claim is wrong. I feel no obligation to do that, and it really does take us off-topic. If you have some different understanding of Celtic gods and Celtic mythology that adds to the discussion, then I invite you to bring it. Otherwise, do not expect me to go off searching for ways to disprove your unsupported assertions.

Again you're lack of knowledge comes to the front.

Celts are not one culture, but an amalgamation of cultures that shared some language and religious basics, a group of cultures that spanned almost the entirety of Europe and the British Isles at it's height.

If you're going to comment on something, at elast take some time to read up on the subject.

Now, since you are the one insisting that the Celtic religions relied on miracles (ie direct divine manipulation of the physical world), it is up to you to prove your statment. It is not up to I to disprove your premise.

 

[AxisMundi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus
..... You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.



Forgive me, but isn’t that to presuppose the existence of the very thing that you say can’t yet be measured? There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

To say an inability to measure a thing doesn’t negate its possibility is to presuppose the thing’s actuality. Electrical activity was observed to exist before it was measured. But what is ‘divine’? How does it exist?

Again (if I am understanding your question correctly), the inability of early scientists to directly measure sunlight didn't mean it didn't exist. Same for electricity, radiation, etc. The inability of man to measure said energies in the past did not negate their existance in the least.

 

[Copernicus]

Scuze me, but I cited Miriam-Webster's On line, not "Dictionary.com". Might I suggest you utilize recognized definitions instead of your own personal thesaurus?

OK, I suppose that you are going for argumentum ad nauseam on this one. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to the question of whether or not an analogy is a fallacy. If you refuse to pay attention or bother to respond to my points, the least you could do is learn the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus. A dictionary is for looking up definitions. A thesaurus is for looking up synonyms.

Thank you for making my point concerning science.
BTW, the brain works on bio-electrical impulses, and electricity is a form of <insert answer here>

So what? What is the point that you think you are making here, and how does it contradict and/or support the position that I took in the OP? My position is that a mind cannot exist independently of a working brain. Destroy the brain, and you destroy the mind. The significance that that has for religion is that religious people typically hold minds or souls to be capable of existing independently of a physical substrate. (Note that I said "typically" and not "always", as there are some exceptions to the generalization.)

oh the irony, or hypocracy, depending on how one looks at things. First you use your own personal thesaurus in your rather childish argument about anologies, and then try and berate me for not using, again, your personal definition of "god".

I took a stand on how I was using the word and on the reasonableness of my definition. If you have some radically different concept that you want to call "god", that is fine with me. Just do not try to tell me that it is relevant to the concept of "god" that I have used in my argument for rejecting belief in gods, unless you can show that your concept is somehow more reasonable. When I asked you about your beliefs, all you did was tell me to look at the way you label yourself. That was an insufficient response.

You've only made the point that you have a surface knowlege of dreams, and no knowledge concerning other aspects of that state.

We are all ignorant on some level, so I'm not going to trade insults with you. If you want to make a point that will enlighten me, then please do. If you are trying to impress me with your expert knowledge on the subject of dreams by bragging about how much you know, then you are wasting your time and mine. Instead of telling me that I'm ignorant, just say what it is that you think is important for me to understand.

Celts are not one culture, but an amalgamation of cultures that shared some language and religious basics, a group of cultures that spanned almost the entirety of Europe and the British Isles at it's height.

Yes, indeed. And into Asia Minor, as well. This is not new information to me. BTW, my icon is that of a famous Breton bard from the 19th century. I have studied Breton and written papers on the syntax of Celtic languages. I have done fieldwork on the language and participated in ethnographic studies. I'm not exactly ignorant of Celtic culture.

If you're going to comment on something, at elast take some time to read up on the subject.

:sarcastic

Now, since you are the one insisting that the Celtic religions relied on miracles (ie direct divine manipulation of the physical world), it is up to you to prove your statment. It is not up to I to disprove your premise.

Yes, I claim that the Celts did not take a fundamentally different position from other so-called "pagan" religions in Europe and the Middle East in the Roman era. I have jumped to the wild conclusion that Celtic gods were just like other Indo-European gods in the minds of their worshipers, but I am happy to be persuaded otherwise. Do you want to try, or is it just going to be another internet squabble over our respective character flaws?

 

[AxisMundi]

OK, I suppose that you are going for argumentum ad nauseam on this one. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant to the question of whether or not an analogy is a fallacy. If you refuse to pay attention or bother to respond to my points, the least you could do is learn the difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus. A dictionary is for looking up definitions. A thesaurus is for looking up synonyms.
...

Your continued intellectual dishonesty has ended this conversation.

Good day sir.

 

[cottage]

Again (if I am understanding your question correctly), the inability of early scientists to directly measure sunlight didn't mean it didn't exist. Same for electricity, radiation, etc. The inability of man to measure said energies in the past did not negate their existance in the least.

And the reason it didn't negate their existence because those things actually existed! Something exists, we observe it or experience it and then we can measure it. But if God/spirits etc can't be demonstrated as existent, then there is no difference between an unmeasurable God/spirit and a non-existent God/spirit.

 

[footprints]

And the reason it didn't negate their existence because those things actually existed! Something exists, we observe it or experience it and then we can measure it. But if God/spirits etc can't be demonstrated as existent, then there is no difference between an unmeasurable God/spirit and a non-existent God/spirit.

Or it simply suggests, mankind doesn't have the knowledge or the technology to test and explain this yet.

 

[AxisMundi]

And the reason it didn't negate their existence because those things actually existed! Something exists, we observe it or experience it and then we can measure it. But if God/spirits etc can't be demonstrated as existent, then there is no difference between an unmeasurable God/spirit and a non-existent God/spirit.

Merely look at the history of electricity for your answer.

 

[Copernicus]

Or it simply suggests, mankind doesn't have the knowledge or the technology to test and explain this yet.

It suggests nothing of the kind. If you cannot establish reasonable evidence to back a claim, that suggests that you have no good reason to assert the claim. We are free to dismiss it. It is always possible that an unsupported claim is true, but possibility is not plausibility. You have consistently failed to distinguish between possibility and plausibility.

 

[Copernicus]

Your continued intellectual dishonesty has ended this conversation.

Good day sir.

If you feel up to serious discussion, I am happy to oblige. If you wish to trade insults, then I agree with your decision to end the conversation. I am happy to leave my last response to you as it stands.

 

[cottage]

Or it simply suggests, mankind doesn't have the knowledge or the technology to test and explain this yet.

Begging the question.

1) God/spirit exists as energy.
2) We haven't got knowledge or technology to explain this yet.

The truth of 1 is assumed but not demonstrated and so 2 doesn't follow as an objection, because it amounts to "Just because we can't see God/spirits doesn't mean they don't exist" , which is an argument from ignorance.