How can one reasonably go from deism to theism and religion?

[George-ananda]

You believe in God and you're a hindu? So you've also invented your own religion almost--just like good old elron. Perhaps you should start a church and attempt to see life enhancing packages with a sprinkle of voodoo magic. But hinduism is a fundamentally polythestic religion while Christianity or Islam is a monothiest religion, unless you consider the trinity to be polytheism, which has always been a weird aspect. So if you believe in God then hinduism is basically irrelevant. You sound more like a non denominational christian.

<sigh> You are just coming across as a hater of religion. Do you understand what Advaita is?

 

[serp777]

First of all,. I think miracles have occurred in all the world's major religious traditions. Are you thinking that only one tradition is 'correct' and can have miracles? I consider at all the evidence for a miracle claim before forming my opinion. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that miracles do occur.

All these major religions are mutually exclusive in many ways. Miracles do not occur---there are simply logical explanations you don't understand. But Im glad you have an argument from credulity--if you're convinced it must be true!

 

[Thana]

Yes and plenty of people lie and deceive themselves to believe something with no evidence where millions of others believe mutually exclusive things on the same basis. Just because you propose an argument of popularity that most theists are satisfied, it doesn't really mean that any of their beliefs are true.

Of course, I was just making sure you didn't think you had some kind of special revelation.
Theists generally do actually analyze their beliefs, why they believe them and their state of mind.

 

[serp777]

<sigh> You are just coming across as a hater of religion. Do you understand what Advaita is?

No, you're coming across as a hater of reason and good evidence. I dont hate religion--i just find it extremely illogical and totally worthless.

But Advaita is NOT really hinduism in any sense. Hinduism is strongly polytheistic whereas Advaita developed as a kind of pseudo hinduism that strongly codeveloped with Jainism, Buddhism, and Shaivism. Its really a blend of different philosophies and ideas although it does partially adopt Brahman and focuses on the idea of the release of the soul from the shackles of preconceived notions of reality. Furthermore Advaita resembles more of a philosophy where the idea of a God is tossed around lossely and represents more of an ultimate force or the fabric of reality combined with the personal soul rather than an intervening deity that cares about sexual positions. In that sense its closer to Buddhism especially with the soul release stuff--its clearly a plagiarism of nirvana. I find that God is frequently adopted by Advaita to seem more spiritual and religious but is somewhat deceptive because it does not resemble the God of Christianity or Islam that sends down revelations and communicates with prophets or has children which are sacrificed to save humanity.

 

[serp777]

Of course, I was just making sure you didn't think you had some kind of special revelation.
Theists generally do actually analyze their beliefs, why they believe them and their state of mind.

Yes unforuntately I have not had any special revelations, although I would say I have a strong faith on the belief that nobody knows the mind or characteristics of God. That's my one faith based claim even though I could never prove it--its based on the fact that we are very fallacious primates that evolved with superstition as an evolutionary advantage. I also think that it is completely illogical that God goes about this arbitrary and random way of enlightening people of his existence by whispering to poorly educated peasants in the middle east; usually inside a cave or out in a desert where no one could witness it. GOd could simply re arrange the stars to enlighten us of his existence if he was interested in having us believe in him. So he either doesn't care or doesn't exist or else he likes trolling and toying with humans. I basically accept the truth of the fact that anybody who says they know the mind of God is wrong in some way.

 

[Thana]

Yes unforuntately I have not had any special revelations, although I would say I have a strong faith on the belief that nobody knows the mind or characteristics of God. That's my one faith based claim even though I could never prove it--its based on the fact that we are very fallacious primates that evolved with superstition as an evolutionary advantage. I also think that it is completely illogical that God goes about this arbitrary and random way of enlightening people of his existence by whispering to poorly educated peasants in the middle east; usually inside a cave or out in a desert where no one could witness it. GOd could simply re arrange the stars to enlighten us of his existence if he was interested in having us believe in him. So he either doesn't care or doesn't exist or else he likes trolling and toying with humans. I basically accept the truth of the fact that anybody who says they know the mind of God is wrong in some way.

So you yourself practice faith and belief without proof and yet you judge those who have different beliefs to you?
That's just.. really on the nose..

 

[serp777]

So you yourself practice faith and belief without proof and yet you judge those who have different beliefs to you?
That's just.. really on the nose..

Its based on significant reason and some evidence. I just explained that to you. Belief in supernatural mumbo jumbo is no where near the same. I explained why it was a safe belief that doesn't require a massive burden of proof. Realistically though when I say strong faith its more of a rhetorical device. I mean i'm 99.99.. with a hundred decimal places sure that nobody knows the mind of an infinite being. But you can't be 100% absolutely certain about anything. The burden of proof is by far on you to show that anyone has knowledge of God's characteristics, attributes, and thoughts. And I don't practice faith rofl. I have one idea that i am mostly certain about like I am mostly certain that gravity exists. I basically accept it as true because the probability of the truth of it is so high, just like the existence of gravity, or the speed of light. Finally just because there are separate beliefs doesn't mean they are equivalent just because they are beliefs. That's an incredible fallacy.

 

[Thana]

Its based on significant reason and some evidence. I just explained that to you. Belief in supernatural mumbo jumbo is no where near the same. I explained why it was a safe belief that doesn't require a massive burden of proof.

If you can't see how unbelievably hypocritical everything in that statement is then I don't know what more I can say.

 

[serp777]

If you can't see how unbelievably hypocritical everything in that statement is then I don't know what more I can say.

Great, you quote just one part one my post and missed the entire point. Nothing is hypocritical whatsoever; i also said it was more of a rhetorical device, but that i am 99.99..% certain with 100 decimal places. The main point though is that I provided substantial reasoning to basically affirm that my udnerstanding that nobody knows the mind of God is as certain as my understanding that gravity is real. Now I don't actually know this to 100% absolutely certainty technically but I essentially accept it as a truth since it is so very likely to be true.

Also its quite worthless to assert someone is being hypocritical without justifying that claim whatsoever. I justified my claim with significant reason before which you didn't even attempt to address any of it. Furthermore, again the burden of proof relies entirely on you for showing that someone does know the infinite mind of a perfect God, although I am of course not saying this proves that nobody knows the mind of God, just that the minimum you can say is that we don't know whether anyone knows the mind of God.

Another reason why its most likely not possible to know an infinite mind is because we only have a finite mind for God's sake. It would require another infinite mind to truly know another infinite mind. It would be like trying to store an infinite amount of money in a finite bank account. Its just not possible. It would take an infinite amount of time to go through an infinite mind in the first place. The unbelievable thing here is that you don't address 90% of what i've written and instead take one small part and ignore the rest. No doubt you will do something like "well I can't even argue with you then if you can't see this point" without even recognizing that I already addressed the alleged hypocrisy. But if you do this without justifying yourself at all then you essentially concede as you clearly have no good counterarguments.

 

[Thana]

Great, you quote just one part one my post and missed the entire point. Nothing is hypocritical whatsoever; i also said it was more of a rhetorical device, but that i am 99.99..% certain with 100 decimal places. The main point though is that I provided substantial reasoning to basically affirm that my udnerstanding that nobody knows the mind of God is as certain as my understanding that gravity is real. Now I don't actually know this to 100% absolutely certainty technically but I essentially accept it as a truth since it is so very likely to be true.

Also its quite worthless to assert someone is being hypocritical without justifying that claim whatsoever. I justified my claim with significant reason before which you didn't even attempt to address any of it. Furthermore, again the burden of proof relies entirely on you for showing that someone does know the infinite mind of a perfect God, although I am of course not saying this proves that nobody knows the mind of God, just that the minimum you can say is that we don't know whether anyone knows the mind of God.

Another reason why its most likely not possible to know an infinite mind is because we only have a finite mind for God's sake. It would require another infinite mind to truly know another infinite mind. It would be like trying to store an infinite amount of money in a finite bank account. Its just not possible. It would take an infinite amount of time to go through an infinite mind in the first place. The unbelievable thing here is that you don't address 90% of what i've written and instead take one small part and ignore the rest. No doubt you will do something like "well I can't even argue with you then if you can't see this point" without even recognizing that I already addressed the alleged hypocrisy. But if you do this without justifying yourself at all then you essentially concede as you clearly have no good counterarguments.

I never claimed that one can know the entire mind of God, you're the one who claimed that no one can know anything about God!

And do you not think that a Theist will claim the exact same thing that you have, that it is likely their idea of God is real for such and such reasons and because of such and such evidence?

 

[serp777]

I never claimed that one can know the entire mind of God, you're the one who claimed that no one can know anything about God!

And do you not think that a Theist will claim the exact same thing that you have, that it is likely their idea of God is real for such and such reasons and because of such and such evidence?

That's true you did not but naturally I assumed you would think you can know the mind of God since you're, im guessing, a non denominational christian?

And no, that's not what i said. That's an extreme oversimplifcation of my point; it was that all the reason and logic and some supplementary evidence suggests that nobody can know the mind of God. You still haven't addressed any of the points ive made. Obviously the theist wont make the same claim as me because he wouldn't have reason or logic to back his claim up. He would ONLY have FAITH. That's the point. I have evidence and reason to back my single claim while the religious and the theists have nothing except for something like their feelings to backup hundreds of claims about God's mind.

 

[Thana]

That's true you did not but naturally I assumed you would think you can know the mind of God since you're, im guessing, a non denominational christian?

And no, that's not what i said. That's an extreme oversimplifcation of my point; it was that all the reason and logic and some supplementary evidence suggests that nobody can know the mind of God. You still haven't addressed any of the points ive made. Obviously the theist wont make the same claim as me because he wouldn't have reason or logic to back his claim up. He would ONLY have FAITH. That's the point. I have evidence and reason to back my single claim while the religious and the theists have nothing except for something like their feelings to backup hundreds of claims about God's mind.

Well no wonder you don't know what you're talking about if all you do is assume. And yes I'm a non-denom Christian but that is a point for me not against since the bible very specifically states that one cannot truly know God's mind or His ways.

And as for the rest, I'll refer you to post #29

 

[serp777]

Well no wonder you don't know what you're talking about if all you do is assume. And yes I'm a non-denom Christian but that is a point for me not against since the bible very specifically states that one cannot truly know God's mind or His ways.

And as for the rest, I'll refer you to post #29

But my assumption of you being a christian was correct so fail. You're also extremely naive if you think that a couple assumptions means all I do is assume. You obviously didn't read or couldn't understand 90% of what i've written. As for the rest check out post #30. Your counterarguments are worthless essentially. Clearly you're unaware of what hypocrisy actually is.

 

[Laika]

How can you assume this knowledge is correct though in the first place? You cannot have knowledge of the accuracy of this understanding since it could be a delusion or some other neurological phenomena, or the ingestion of certain chemicals, etc.

We are not absolutely certain though--nobody is and that's the point. We can't realistically say we know the truth of something which has so many discrepancies and mutually exclusive reports as well as being inherently unverifiable.

I can't really. So far as I know "faith" represents a much older approach to knowledge and understanding. It is important to keep in mind that the conflict between faith in literal interpretations of the bible and the use of reason and science is the result of the theory of evolution in the 19th century. For a considerable period in history people tried to find rational basis for their belief.there have been considerable changes in the way people reach conclusions and science itself was only developed from the 1500s to the 1800s.

 

[ether-ore]

So basically, how can someone move from the belief that there is a God to something much, much, much more significant claims about God intervening in reality and caring about things such as sexual intercourse, what holy days are observed, what propitiations are made, what food and beverages are acceptable, etc.

It seems to me to be a massive, quantum leap to jump from a general belief in God without knowing his specific characteristics to knowing his mind and what he cares about, and his accomplishments. It requires such a massive quantity of evidence to say that you know the mind of God and that God has a special connection with you. It demands a truly breathtaking scale of arrogance--an omnipotent, all knowing, immortal, infinitely intelligent entity suddenly cares whether men, for example, exchange bodily fluids with each other. The much more reasonable position is that God nobody knows the mind of God or what his intentions and demands are. Although I would also state that nobody has special knowledge denied to me showing that God definitely exists--the only thing we can do is say that we don't know God exists.

One of the common arguments i've heard is that experiences or visions or feelings somehow prove to people that God cares about certain petty human actions and beliefs. It somehow also proves to them that God exists. One example is Francis Collins--a key individual in the unravelling of the human genome; one day he was out hiking and he saw a vista, then dropped down to his knees on the dewy grass and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior because he saw a frozen waterfall that has formed three parts. Its a complete non sequitur to go from a feeling or experience to special knowledge about the truth of reality. Its especially preposterous because if Francis collins hadn't heard about Christianity before hand then he would have had no idea about the trinity and the three waterfalls.

Similarly, the religious can't seem to absorb this basic point--people of all mutually exclusive religions have identical experiences. There are alien abduction experiences and feelings, scientology feelings, and thousands of other ridiculous examples showing how unreliable these feelings and experiences are. Somehow people think that because they had a religious experience, it must be infallible--it couldn't be a hallucination, or a delusion, or the manifestation of sub conscious desires, or a complete no sequitur and false deduction like francis collins. Clearly experiences are the result of evolution and the fundamental workings of our brains. There is nothing ensuring that a religious experience has to be connected to God. Finally, the biggest point against experiences and feelings justifying theistic belief is that plenty of people have experiences that lead them to blow up buildings or drown their children--the most likely explanation that solves the problem of all these inconsistent feelings and experiences is that it is simply a neurochemical phenomena that had or has an evolutionary advantage. This is perhaps the cause of the initial formations of religions, and since religions assisted early societies by improving a sense of community and bolstering social behavior, it makes sense that many humans would be genetically predisposed to having these experiences--they're an evolutionary leftover

Furthermore, if God cares about belief, then why not simply convince everyone of his existence? I mean he has allegedly revealed himself to some people by performing miracles and other supernatural acts to prove the truth of his claims--why is it that, for instance, iron age peasants in the middle east, or their counterparts in the rest of the world, get revelations and evidence, and yet 21st century skeptics with an understanding of the scientific method are just supposed to accept things on faith? Its completely senseless. God could easily re arrange the stars faster the light to spell out, Allah, or Yahweh exists. Astronomers could verify this and show that the stars broke the laws of physics to form the configuration. Realistically theists use faith as a convenient excuse.

Ultimately it all comes down to this--there is absolutely no way you can jump from deism to theism. You certainly can't prove it, and as ive shown experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient. People should accept the fact that they most likely cannot have special knowledge of God. If he wanted people to know of his existence then he could do so easily so it stands that he probably doesn't care about our belief or knowledge of his existence. The odds of selecting the proper theistic position is also very unlikely just by looking at all religions equivalently and assuming one is true--your odds of picking the correct religion is (1/(the number of religions)) * 100 = %. So take 10,000 religions and your odds are 0.01%. Not very good especially considering this ignores the fact that the correct religion may not have come into existence yet, or hasn't already been forgotten in ages past. Either way all theists and religious people are on extremely shaky ground--this is why they need faith in the first place; to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore all the strong arguments against theism and a particular religion. However, I do think the general existence of God is a genuine possibility that cannot be ignored. Still, theism is pure guesswork.

It sounds like you've made up your mind. What is your concern with others thinking something different... I mean beside what you think of their mental capacity?

 

[pacifica]

Geez Serp thank God there's you defending reason and logic against all these dumb believers! LOL

You're coming off as the new atheist kid that has to make sure everybody really knows what he thinks. Are you new to this whole atheism thing, by the way? Usually it's only the new recruits who are so militant. We get it, religion is dumb and it's worthless. Compliments on your nuanced understanding of the world and human psyche. You started a thread for one single reason which is to tell believers they're wrong and stupid, and like, you do you, but it's going to get this conversation nowhere. Your combative tone reveals that you're not really interested in debating but in asserting how smart and rational you are. Boring. I'm telling you this as an atheist.

As for our own personal exchange of opinions:

But it would be a non sequitor to go from that to knowing the mind of God. I don't see how the experience of love and the desire for religion means you know that God has certain attributes or characteristics. Being attractive has nothing to do with the reality of that thing, which I would hope all people recognize. Its the difference between what you want to be true and what actually is true. Furthermore just because something is awe inspiring or something doesn't mean whatsoever that God cares about who we have sex with lol. I fail to see the connection whatsoever. Its a giantic, massive, mega leap to say you can know the mind of an infinite being with a finite mind just because you have a sense of wonder. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree that under no circumstances is it logical to go from "I love God" to "I know God". In fact, the major monotheist religions all say that God is not knowable. They agree with you! Sort of. They mean that the essence of God and His plans are not knowable, but His motives, at least partially, are.

"Just becuse something is awe inspiring or something doesn't mean whatsoever that God cares about who we have sex with lol" - you are grossly oversimplifying complex cultural, historical and psychological processes and you're misconstruing my argument. My argument is that the feeling of awe (and primitive populations must have felt awed a lot more than we do nowadays) leads to the desire to 1) attribute metaphysical qualities to the awe-inspiring object and 2) pay tribute to it. I think it makes sense that if a certain group thought that certain tangible objects, say the Sun and the Moon and the Thunderbolt, were just the most brilliant and dreaful things ever, they'd start to think of them as somehow animated and deserving of worship. That's animism. At some point it can become a belief that Sun, Moon and Thunderbolt are actual gods. That's polytheism.

Now, it definitely looks to me like THE leap is going from a belief in God(s) to a belief in God(s) that care(s) about humans and interact(s) with them. That is not limited just to the Abrahamic religions; to my understanding, almost all theistic religions around the world posit that God or the Gods are involved in some way with humans and actively engage with them. One can only speculate why exactly the human mind tends or has tended to make that 'particular leap. I can offer only my speculation on the matter. Awe (and dread) again: lightning, thunder, droughts, plagues, fires, "what is this?" -> "It must be the Gods" -> "The Gods actively intervene in our world then, they are here!" -> "Then that means we can possibly interact with them. Let's plead, let's pray" -> "I prayed a lot and the crops were good this year. They have heard me!". And then that belief, that the Gods are here and intervene, gets passed down the generations, while religion changes and refines and eventually gets to monotheism that eventually becomes very sofisticated and abstract monotheism (Sufi tradition, Kabbalah, some Medieval Christian philosophy). It's not like the Hebrews were 'The Stupids ' who said "hey, God cares!" first. The assumption is much older than that and had its own evolutionary process. Incidentally, I also loathe the assumption that our 'primitive' ancestors were just a bunch of dumb ****s spouting nonsense 'just because'; that is a really arrogant assumption that gets thrown around a lot (personally, for me Wittgenstein's critique of Frazer's Golden Bough was most enlightening).

The way I see it, most of (Abrahamic) religion's apparently nonsensical commandments stem from that basic assumption about His motives, namely that 1) He cares about his creation (i.e. the world and humans), which leads, among others, to 1a) He wants to preserve human life, or at least his true believers' life and 1b) He wants to see human populations thrive and 1c) grow (yay, more believers). Homosexuality for example goes directly against 1c. That's might also be part of why masturbation is forbidden. God isn't going to get truck loads of new believers if homosexuality is widespread.

That's if you want to take a religious approach to the question. Historically, one could argue that the Hebrews were a bellicose population that needed a growing warrior class and that's why they were so hellbent on eradicating homosexuality, since homosexuals aren't going to give you more warriors. Even if one accepts the popular hypothesis that the Hebrews were not in fact bellicose land-conquering warriors but just native Canaanites that never left their land and just went from polytheism to enotheism to monotheism, the point still stands: one of the ways primitive populations misured collective success was assessing population growth. Big families were a sign of health and fertility, and the more fertile a people (and a land), the better. I truly do think that a modicum of historical and contextual knowledge (instead of the lololol-so-dumb approach) can point to a number of interesting possible reasons why the the Judeo-Christian-Islamic laws are what they are. They made sense, in context.

Now, accepted that The Laws made sense in the Bronze Age, the true question are: 1) doesn't that just mean that people simply ascribed their own personal characteristics and motives to their deity? and 2) does it make sense for believers in the 21st century to follow them? These are interesting questions that deserve debate; I just don't think you're truly interested in doing that.

 

[serp777]

It sounds like you've made up your mind. What is your concern with others thinking something different... I mean beside what you think of their mental capacity?

What on earth is your point ? We're in the religious debate section. I like debate. Im not very interested in changing minds; im just interested in discussing intellectual ideas and improving my debate skills as a result. Furthermore if someone did have a good point I would learn from it, or perhaps adopt it. Also what I think of their mental capacity? What are you talking about again? And Im not interested in going over the psychology of my concern with others thinking something different. This is just a red herring and this thread has nothing to do with a concern for others thinking different things. Now if you'd care to address the actual points i've made, I welcome you to join to discussion, otherwise you should just leave.

By the way just because I think some religious ideas are quite stupid, that doesn't mean i think all religious people are stupid. I have had stupid ideas before and so has everyone else. Just because I question a belief doesn't mean i think someone is stupid. You're blowing my attack on a particular religious belief way out of proportion.

 

[aoji]

... how can someone move from the belief that there is a God to ...

Rationalization.

The much more reasonable position is that ... nobody knows the mind of God or what his intentions and demands are. Although I would also state that nobody has special knowledge denied to me showing that God definitely exists--the only thing we can do is say that we don't know God exists.

Suppositions. You assume too much, you presume too much. You're relying on logic too much. Religion isn't of the mind, it's of the heart, although most religion today is of the mind, too. Reason is of the mind.

One of the common arguments I've heard is that experiences or visions or feelings somehow prove to people that God cares about certain petty human actions and beliefs. It somehow also proves to them that God exists. One example is Francis Collins ... It's a complete non sequitur to go from a feeling or experience to special knowledge about the truth of reality. It's especially preposterous because if Francis Collins hadn't heard about Christianity before hand then he would have had no idea about the trinity and the three waterfalls.

But the fact is that he knew those things, they were part of his mind. Yes, you could make the case for an impersonal God, that he doesn't care about humanity. But, if you can think of God is being Life itself, there is no reason why He would need to care; being alive is enough, being alive is the proof. Eastern Religion says that we don't really know what Reality is, we only think we do. Eastern Religion says Enlightenment is always sudden, even if we think it is slow, say over many lifetimes, when it happens it is always sudden.What is Enlightenment? Seeing Reality.

... thousands of other ridiculous examples showing how unreliable these feelings and experiences are. Somehow people think that because they had a religious experience, it must be infallible--it couldn't be a hallucination, or a delusion, or the manifestation of sub conscious desires, or a complete no sequitur and false deduction.

Why don't you also question EVERY experience you have, then? Why do you accept everything the mind tells you? Why do you rely on logic so much? Logic has nothing to do with life. Biology has to do with life. You're born, you fall in love, you have children, you die. Love is not logical. It just is. It happens. No logic necessary. Relying on Science to tell you that what you feel isn't real will be seen as preposterous when one is in love. You will just laugh. Just like if Science says that there is nothing to sex, you will just laugh if you think it during sexual intercourse ...

Clearly experiences are the result of evolution and the fundamental workings of our brains. There is nothing ensuring that a religious experience has to be connected to God.

It is only "clear" to you. Religious experiences are connected to God only because logic dictates that they are super natural, and therefore they cannot be real. Again, you are using the mind as the standard. All I can say is that I have had experiences which I KNOW were not manifestations, hallucinations or delusions of my mind. I KNOW they happened.

"Experiences are the result ... of our brains"? That's what Eastern Religion says to - that what we experience as reality is just an illusion of our mind. Of course what we experience is of our minds because it is the mind which tries to make sense of what we experience. But if we experience something which the mind cannot make sense of then our minds stop, our thinking stops. It is only afterwards that we rationalize it. If we are lucky we will see that we are aware that our minds are not thinking. Afterwards we cannot convince ourselves that what happened didn't happen because to do so is to negate consciousness itself. Yes, you can convince yourself that the brain had a fart but you cannot hope to convince yourself that you were aware that the brain was farting, certainly not whilst in the experience itself.

.. plenty of people have experiences that lead them to blow up buildings or drown their children-... This is perhaps the cause of the initial formations of religions...

Quite the stretch isn't it? If it is just DNA, biology and evolution, then why not just accept it? Not the lunacy, of course, since that is also just logic at work.

... if God cares about belief, then why not simply convince everyone of his existence? ... and yet 21st century skeptics with an understanding of the scientific method are just supposed to accept things on faith? Its completely senseless.

No, the skeptic isn't supposed to accept anything, that's why they are called skeptics. You THINK that that is what others are expecting from you. God doesn't need to prove he exists just like love doesn't need to prove it exists. Can you prove you exist? Say that you are talking to someone with an Eastern Religion. They tell you that you do not exist, you only think that you exist. How do you prove it? You could slap them and say "If I didn't exist then who slapped you?" They will say that you did not slap them, that 'that' body struck 'this' body but "you" did not strike "me". It's just a different mindset. If you knew Reality then you would not speak like you do because you would have a different mindset - the Enlightened supposedly react, the mind is a slave, it has been mastered, it has been transcended; it responds to questions but the awareness is there that it is the mind that is answering, that they are awareness itself.

God could easily re-arrange the stars faster the light to spell out, Allah, or Yahweh exists. Astronomers could verify this and show that the stars broke the laws of physics to form the configuration. Realistically theists use faith as a convenient excuse.

Faulty logic. Someone else would look at the panorama of life and see that as proof enough.YOU are trying to corner the theist, setting up the argument such that he cannot possibly win the argument. Minds playing mind games.

Astrophysicists don't know everything about the Universe. You are limiting your knowledge to what they know. You accept whatever Science says not realizing that what they are saying may not be true, it may just be a best guess. Consider Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Would you have believe in them 100 years ago when they were not known? But now we spout it as if we know what that means. Well there was plenty of things 100, 200, 500 years ago that were not true, but everyone thought that they were truth. Blacks came from apes? Today we know that it isn't true, but "we" believed it hundreds of years ago. Today Science says that Man came from Africa. But we don't think that we are Blacks, right? If we did we would not be prejudiced.

... there is absolutely no way you can jump from deism to theism. You certainly can't prove it, and as I've shown experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient.

Unless one transcends the mind. Experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient to "You". Eastern Religion says that if you transcend the mind you will see that your position doesn't matter and will be seen as childish.

People should accept the fact that they most likely cannot have special knowledge of God. ... Either way, all theists and religious people are on extremely shaky ground--this is why they need faith in the first place; to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore all the strong arguments against theism and a particular religion.

What you call "shaky ground" they call a rock. Faith is mental, a convenience of words. You think that they are 'sticking their fingers in their ears.' It is your conclusion. That doesn't make it right. Appealing to logic won't help.

Where will your logic be when you are dying? You can be logical about death now, but you won't be logical about it when it is actually happening to you. (Any arguments you can proffer are mere imaginations.) Then you won't worry about the experience because you will be the experience itself. Religion deals with life and death. Neither is logical. It needn't be because it just is.

Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... . But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then surrendered it wholly to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

If they were thought interchangeable, then it would be easy for a Deist to become a Theist through direct experience of a "miracle". What form that miracle took can only be known to the Deist.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

I'm not saying that Science is wrong. I am saying that whatever it says we accept as true/truth at the moment. The same can probably be said of Scripture - it is not wrong, it was accepted as true/truth at the moment.

 

[serp777]

Geez Serp thank God there's you defending reason and logic against all these dumb believers! LOL

You're coming off as the new atheist kid that has to make sure everybody really knows what he thinks. Are you new to this whole atheism thing, by the way? Usually it's only the new recruits who are so militant. We get it, religion is dumb and it's worthless. Compliments on your nuanced understanding of the world and human psyche. You started a thread for one single reason which is to tell believers they're wrong and stupid, and like, you do you, but it's going to get this conversation nowhere. Your combative tone reveals that you're not really interested in debating but in asserting how smart and rational you are. Boring. I'm telling you this as an atheist.

As for our own personal exchange of opinions:



I agree that under no circumstances is it logical to go from "I love God" to "I know God". In fact, the major monotheist religions all say that God is not knowable. They agree with you! Sort of. They mean that the essence of God and His plans are not knowable, but His motives, at least partially, are.

"Just becuse something is awe inspiring or something doesn't mean whatsoever that God cares about who we have sex with lol" - you are grossly oversimplifying complex cultural, historical and psychological processes and you're misconstruing my argument. My argument is that the feeling of awe (and primitive populations must have felt awed a lot more than we do nowadays) leads to the desire to 1) attribute metaphysical qualities to the awe-inspiring object and 2) pay tribute to it. I think it makes sense that if a certain group thought that certain tangible objects, say the Sun and the Moon and the Thunderbolt, were just the most brilliant and dreaful things ever, they'd start to think of them as somehow animated and deserving of worship. That's animism. At some point it can become a belief that Sun, Moon and Thunderbolt are actual gods. That's polytheism.

Now, it definitely looks to me like THE leap is going from a belief in God(s) to a belief in God(s) that care(s) about humans and interact(s) with them. That is not limited just to the Abrahamic religions; to my understanding, almost all theistic religions around the world posit that God or the Gods are involved in some way with humans and actively engage with them. One can only speculate why exactly the human mind tends or has tended to make that 'particular leap. I can offer only my speculation on the matter. Awe (and dread) again: lightning, thunder, droughts, plagues, fires, "what is this?" -> "It must be the Gods" -> "The Gods actively intervene in our world then, they are here!" -> "Then that means we can possibly interact with them. Let's plead, let's pray" -> "I prayed a lot and the crops were good this year. They have heard me!". And then that belief, that the Gods are here and intervene, gets passed down the generations, while religion changes and refines and eventually gets to monotheism that eventually becomes very sofisticated and abstract monotheism (Sufi tradition, Kabbalah, some Medieval Christian philosophy). It's not like the Hebrews were 'The Stupids ' who said "hey, God cares!" first. The assumption is much older than that and had its own evolutionary process. Incidentally, I also loathe the assumption that our 'primitive' ancestors were just a bunch of dumb ****s spouting nonsense 'just because'; that is a really arrogant assumption that gets thrown around a lot (personally, for me Wittgenstein's critique of Frazer's Golden Bough was most enlightening).

The way I see it, most of (Abrahamic) religion's apparently nonsensical commandments stem from that basic assumption about His motives, namely that 1) He cares about his creation (i.e. the world and humans), which leads, among others, to 1a) He wants to preserve human life, or at least his true believers' life and 1b) He wants to see human populations thrive and 1c) grow (yay, more believers). Homosexuality for example goes directly against 1c. That's might also be part of why masturbation is forbidden. God isn't going to get truck loads of new believers if homosexuality is widespread.

That's if you want to take a religious approach to the question. Historically, one could argue that the Hebrews were a bellicose population that needed a growing warrior class and that's why they were so hellbent on eradicating homosexuality, since homosexuals aren't going to give you more warriors. Even if one accepts the popular hypothesis that the Hebrews were not in fact bellicose land-conquering warriors but just native Canaanites that never left their land and just went from polytheism to enotheism to monotheism, the point still stands: one of the ways primitive populations misured collective success was assessing population growth. Big families were a sign of health and fertility, and the more fertile a people (and a land), the better. I truly do think that a modicum of historical and contextual knowledge (instead of the lololol-so-dumb approach) can point to a number of interesting possible reasons why the the Judeo-Christian-Islamic laws are what they are. They made sense, in context.

Now, accepted that The Laws made sense in the Bronze Age, the true question are: 1) doesn't that just mean that people simply ascribed their own personal characteristics and motives to their deity? and 2) does it make sense for believers in the 21st century to follow them? These are interesting questions that deserve debate; I just don't think you're truly interested in doing that.

You're coming off as the new atheist kid that has to make sure everybody really knows what he thinks. Are you new to this whole atheism thing, by the way? Usually it's only the new recruits who are so militant. We get it, religion is dumb and it's worthless. Compliments on your nuanced understanding of the world and human psyche. You started a thread for one single reason which is to tell believers they're wrong and stupid, and like, you do you, but it's going to get this conversation nowhere. Your combative tone reveals that you're not really interested in debating but in asserting how smart and rational you are. Boring. I'm telling you this as an atheist.

I think you probably are responding to an entirely different thread or something. But also, if you don't mind, don't tell me what the purpose of this thread was or invent fabrications about my position. Furthermore i'm an agnostic and not an atheist so its very clear you have no idea what you're talking about; and i've been an agnostic for a very long time. But this red herring you're bringing up is completely irrelevant. I Made this thread to question the logic of going from deism to theism and because I like debates; plus i find them entertaining. Furthermore I don't care whether anyone here thinks im smart and rational; im simply here for the debate and to perhaps find new or better arguments, or perhaps improve my own repertoire. Im here for entertainment and self improvement and not for vanity.

Lets also address your strawman--I never said religion was dumb and worthless. You have 23 posts and its quite obvious that you are new to debate so I will educate you on some basics. A strawman is when you take a persons position, reduce it down to an inaccurate position which has nothing to do with the original statement, and you attack the strawman as if you've defeated the argument. My position hasn't been that all religions are worthless and stupid, but rather that the jump from deism to theism hasn't been properly justified or reason and that it requires a massive quantum leap. Furthermore, a red herring is when you try to distract from the debate and the argument by talking about something irrelevant, such as questioning whether Im new to atheism or what my psychological status is.

Finally just because I question religion doesn't mean im militant. That's just ignorant.

you are grossly oversimplifying complex cultural, historical and psychological processes and you're misconstruing my argument. My argument is that the feeling of awe (and primitive populations must have felt awed a lot more than we do nowadays) leads to the desire to 1) attribute metaphysical qualities to the awe-inspiring object and 2) pay tribute to it.

No im not misconstructing your argument whatsoever. My point was that a feeling of awe or desires suggests nothing about the truth of anything supernatural. In addition, im not grossly oversimplying anything. We're not talking about why people go from deism to theism; im not analyzing the cultural, political, or socioeconomic causes that lead to people becoming theists. I understand, as you say, how people initially arrived at animism like your example states; I understand already that there are many reasons, most consisting of non sequitors, why people might go from deism to theism, but I argue that none of them are logical or sensible from an objective person. The thread and my argument is simply that going from deism to theism is illogical for the reasons listed in the op, not that people don't have personal, incorrect reasons for it. Feelings or awe inspiring moments, as I've already stated and argued, are not an effective means of deducing that God cares about anything our species does. For instance, how does the brilliance or dread inspired by something mean it should be worshiped and that its a deity or that it is caused by some unseen intelligence? As i've stated its a non sequitur and just an assumption. You seem to think I am asking why people go from deism to theism--im not--im arguing for the fact that its illogical. You've misconstrued the thread and most of my points.

I agree that under no circumstances is it logical to go from "I love God" to "I know God". In fact, the major monotheist religions all say that God is not knowable. They agree with you! Sort of. They mean that the essence of God and His plans are not knowable, but His motives, at least partially, are.

Then they also should agree that its probably impossible to understand his morality and likely impossible to know what he cares about. Furthermore they don't agree with me because I already stated that, for a variety of reasons, its not likely anyone can know what his motives or characteristics are whatsoever. My position is that nobody can certainly know anything about him. SO when religious people say that Jesus has come down and was sacrificed to save our sins, or the Allah gave Mohammad a transmission from heaven in a cave where no one could see him, my point is that people cant know this, nor can they know what God's moral commandments are, or if he even has any. Holy books and word of mouth are extremely unreliable. So no, they don't agree with me. If they agreed with me they'd all be agnostics.

Awe (and dread) again: lightning, thunder, droughts, plagues, fires, "what is this?" -> "It must be the Gods" -> "The Gods actively intervene in our world then, they are here!" -> "Then that means we can possibly interact with them. Let's plead, let's pray" -> "I prayed a lot and the crops were good this year. They have heard me!".

Yes and I think it should be clear that my position is that this line of thought is entirely illogical. Its full of type A thinking errors and presumptions of an external intelligence being involved and a bizarre kind of self centeredness that the Gods are communicating with them through natural phenomena. So again, i understand people can be illogical. Im not asking why people believe this stuff. Im arguing that this is very illogical in this day and age.

Now, accepted that The Laws made sense in the Bronze Age, the true question are: 1) doesn't that just mean that people simply ascribed their own personal characteristics and motives to their deity? and 2) does it make sense for believers in the 21st century to follow them? These are interesting questions that deserve debate; I just don't think you're truly interested in doing that.

These questions aren't very interesting. Bronze age laws are entirely senseless in this day and age. Its why most successful countries follow secular laws based on a kind of utilitarianism. If you want bronze age laws check out Iran or other theocracies. Personally im not interested in following laws like stoning homosexuals and adulterers. And do people ascribe their personal attributes to their deity? Almost 100% certainly. Look at christianity where you can see the politics and various cultures of the time directly affecting which of the gospels were included and which were thrown out. You're right though, im completely uninterested in talking about those questions. I am more interested in debating the religious whether going from deism to theism is illogical or not. Apparently it is an interesting debate too since a lot of people jumped in already.

 

[serp777]

Rationalization.



Suppositions. You assume too much, you presume too much. You're relying on logic too much. Religion isn't of the mind, it's of the heart, although most religion today is of the mind, too. Reason is of the mind.



But the fact is that he knew those things, they were part of his mind. Yes, you could make the case for an impersonal God, that he doesn't care about humanity. But, if you can think of God is being Life itself, there is no reason why He would need to care; being alive is enough, being alive is the proof. Eastern Religion says that we don't really know what Reality is, we only think we do. Eastern Religion says Enlightenment is always sudden, even if we think it is slow, say over many lifetimes, when it happens it is always sudden.What is Enlightenment? Seeing Reality.



Why don't you also question EVERY experience you have, then? Why do you accept everything the mind tells you? Why do you rely on logic so much? Logic has nothing to do with life. Biology has to do with life. You're born, you fall in love, you have children, you die. Love is not logical. It just is. It happens. No logic necessary. Relying on Science to tell you that what you feel isn't real will be seen as preposterous when one is in love. You will just laugh. Just like if Science says that there is nothing to sex, you will just laugh if you think it during sexual intercourse ...



It is only "clear" to you. Religious experiences are connected to God only because logic dictates that they are super natural, and therefore they cannot be real. Again, you are using the mind as the standard. All I can say is that I have had experiences which I KNOW were not manifestations, hallucinations or delusions of my mind. I KNOW they happened.

"Experiences are the result ... of our brains"? That's what Eastern Religion says to - that what we experience as reality is just an illusion of our mind. Of course what we experience is of our minds because it is the mind which tries to make sense of what we experience. But if we experience something which the mind cannot make sense of then our minds stop, our thinking stops. It is only afterwards that we rationalize it. If we are lucky we will see that we are aware that our minds are not thinking. Afterwards we cannot convince ourselves that what happened didn't happen because to do so is to negate consciousness itself. Yes, you can convince yourself that the brain had a fart but you cannot hope to convince yourself that you were aware that the brain was farting, certainly not whilst in the experience itself.



Quite the stretch isn't it? If it is just DNA, biology and evolution, then why not just accept it? Not the lunacy, of course, since that is also just logic at work.



No, the skeptic isn't supposed to accept anything, that's why they are called skeptics. You THINK that that is what others are expecting from you. God doesn't need to prove he exists just like love doesn't need to prove it exists. Can you prove you exist? Say that you are talking to someone with an Eastern Religion. They tell you that you do not exist, you only think that you exist. How do you prove it? You could slap them and say "If I didn't exist then who slapped you?" They will say that you did not slap them, that 'that' body struck 'this' body but "you" did not strike "me". It's just a different mindset. If you knew Reality then you would not speak like you do because you would have a different mindset - the Enlightened supposedly react, the mind is a slave, it has been mastered, it has been transcended; it responds to questions but the awareness is there that it is the mind that is answering, that they are awareness itself.



Faulty logic. Someone else would look at the panorama of life and see that as proof enough.YOU are trying to corner the theist, setting up the argument such that he cannot possibly win the argument. Minds playing mind games.

Astrophysicists don't know everything about the Universe. You are limiting your knowledge to what they know. You accept whatever Science says not realizing that what they are saying may not be true, it may just be a best guess. Consider Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Would you have believe in them 100 years ago when they were not known? But now we spout it as if we know what that means. Well there was plenty of things 100, 200, 500 years ago that were not true, but everyone thought that they were truth. Blacks came from apes? Today we know that it isn't true, but "we" believed it hundreds of years ago. Today Science says that Man came from Africa. But we don't think that we are Blacks, right? If we did we would not be prejudiced.



Unless one transcends the mind. Experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient to "You". Eastern Religion says that if you transcend the mind you will see that your position doesn't matter and will be seen as childish.



What you call "shaky ground" they call a rock. Faith is mental, a convenience of words. You think that they are 'sticking their fingers in their ears.' It is your conclusion. That doesn't make it right. Appealing to logic won't help.

Where will your logic be when you are dying? You can be logical about death now, but you won't be logical about it when it is actually happening to you. (Any arguments you can proffer are mere imaginations.) Then you won't worry about the experience because you will be the experience itself. Religion deals with life and death. Neither is logical. It needn't be because it just is.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

If they were thought interchangeable, then it would be easy for a Deist to become a Theist through direct experience of a "miracle". What form that miracle took can only be known to the Deist.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

I'm not saying that Science is wrong. I am saying that whatever it says we accept as true/truth at the moment. The same can probably be said of Scripture - it is not wrong, it was accepted as true/truth at the moment.

Rationalization.

Yes exactly--its a rationalization, couldn't have said it better myself; lies we tell ourselves to make us feel better--a defense mechanism.

Suppositions. You assume too much, you presume too much. You're relying on logic too much. Religion isn't of the mind, it's of the heart, although most religion today is of the mind, too. Reason is of the mind.

You've just gone nuclear. Going nuclear is when you claim, in a debate, that logic and reason are no longer sufficient. It reflects irony and hypocrisy because you try to use logic to show logic is insufficient or invalid. It means we can't have a debate essentially. You can't debate through personal feelings and how right you feel your beliefs are. I don't accept using feelings and experiences as a means of debate because the terrorist or mother who drowns her kids could say the same thing. They had feelings and experiences from their so called diety to commit terrible acts. Naturally we recognize these people should be in an institute. But still, there's no reason why their feelings and experiences are any less correct than yours according to your logic. Their beliefs were of the heart. But no, religion is not of the mind which is why you've just said that I rely on logic too much. Saying that I rely on logic too much, as if you made a major blow, is actually quite a nice compliment, so thanks. I am more than happy to rely on logic all the way. The only tool in a debate we can use is logic.

Logic lets us sift through the nonsense. We couldn't get anywhere without it since it would just be my opinion vs yours.

Why don't you also question EVERY experience you have, then? Why do you accept everything the mind tells you? Why do you rely on logic so much? Logic has nothing to do with life. Biology has to do with life. You're born, you fall in love, you have children, you die. Love is not logical. It just is. It happens. No logic necessary. Relying on Science to tell you that what you feel isn't real will be seen as preposterous when one is in love. You will just laugh. Just like if Science says that there is nothing to sex, you will just laugh if you think it during sexual intercourse ...

Uhhhhh i don't. But many of the things i don't need to question because they aren't about the truth of the universe. But many things I do question--like I don't just accept that a magician is using actual magic because my eyes completely deceived me. I say ahah, well thats a cool trick but i recognize its just a perceptual error on my part since its much more likely to assume a trick rather than the laws of physics being broken. Same logic applies to religion.

Eastern Religion says that we don't really know what Reality is, we only think we do. Eastern Religion says Enlightenment is always sudden, even if we think it is slow, say over many lifetimes, when it happens it is always sudden.What is Enlightenment? Seeing Reality.

This presumes that there is a true way to see reality which I reject. There are many different ways to see the universe, all with an element of truth. Consider the theory of relativity. from the observer on board a space ship going near the speed of light, everything outside is experiencing time more quickly, and the universe is blue shifted. From a stationary observer, the space craft is compressed in length, and a clock on the ship goes much more slowly. Both perspectives are correct and valid. Similarly, our what we see is a correct, valid observation of the universe, but there are other alternative views from which to see things. All perspectives are correct and there is no single universal reference point. Science and the intracicies of the universe are so much more interesting, powerful, fascinating, and awe inspiring than eastern religion mumbo jumbo about enlightenment--their enlightenment presumes they know what enlightenment is in the first place, which I reject out of hand. Someone like einstein was vastly more aware of the universe then eastern religious priests and witch doctors or whatever.

All I can say is that I have had experiences which I KNOW were not manifestations, hallucinations or delusions of my mind. I KNOW they happened.

No you DON'T know. I don't care how real it seemed. Anyone experiencing a delusion thinks they're not delusional. That's why its called a delusion. For all you know you may have been created 5 seconds ago with the memories of this so called experience. You simply do not know it happened; sorry, but there are many possible other explanations far more likely than you had a conversation with the divine. And how do you go from having an experience to knowing that the supernatural is real? Sorry but its a non sequitor. It doesn't follow from A to B. Also, if you accept your experience was real, then you have to accept that the muslim terrorist with a vision from allah, or a christian woman with a vision from Jesus to drown her kids, must also have equally real experiences. They KNEW their experiences were real. THEY KNOW IT HAPPENED. DOn't you see why your argument falls apart? There are too many mutually exclusive experiences which couldnt all be real. The best explanation is that they are just delusions that occur because the brain makes errors. Then you're left with nothing to explain--we already know the brain makes errors too, so its not a stretch to continue that line of thought.

Faulty logic. Someone else would look at the panorama of life and see that as proof enough.YOU are trying to corner the theist, setting up the argument such that he cannot possibly win the argument. Minds playing mind games.

You conveniently ignored my point. If God wanted us to believe then he could do so easily. So obviously he doesn't want us to believe, or he doesn't care, or he doesn't exist. There are only so many permutations. The panorama of life is a result of evolution, which is a well known scientific theory. Do you disagree with the theory of evolution? Well you can't disagree with the evolution of anti biotic bacteria which are killing hundreds of thousands. Evolutionists predicted that bacteria would evolve to resist anti biotics. So guess what. Its REAL! Seriously you don't want a MRSA resistant strain of staff. You'll die.

Astrophysicists don't know everything about the Universe. You are limiting your knowledge to what they know. You accept whatever Science says not realizing that what they are saying may not be true, it may just be a best guess.

Complete strawman. I didn't say any of this. You're putting words in my mouth and inventing my position. I only said here that astronomers could verify the example of God rearranging the stars as legitimate and exceeding the laws of physics. Its funny how you accept whatever religious mumbo jumbo is thrown at you. And you question science while typing on a computer that uses the internet. Science is more than just a best guess. It makes so many predictions and has so many concrete results that to say its a best guess is foolish. Science is incomplete, but much of the science we have so far is a fact. Like computers working for instnace. So ill take science and logic you can go with religious mumbo jumbo and feelings. Im on infinitely safer ground.

[QUOTE ]Where will your logic be when you are dying? You can be logical about death now, but you won't be logical about it when it is actually happening to you. (Any arguments you can proffer are mere imaginations.) Then you won't worry about the experience because you will be the experience itself. Religion deals with life and death. Neither is logical. It needn't be because it just is. [/QUOTE]
I guess you'll have fantasies and self deceptions when you're dying. Im sure that will be nice for you. But you can definitely apply logic to it. Being dead will be like the existence before being born. Or it will be like being in a very deep sleep without dreams/ a coma. religions don't deal with life or death at all thought; They guess and profess false hopes. They are insufficient and don't have any special knowledge or insight about it. Its not even a best guess.