Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Rolling_Stone]

Someone not believing the way I do doesn’t make them stupid.

The question is about whether it is fair to call God an illusion.

Look, the amount of information that comes to the brain through the five senses is around 400 billion bits per second. Only about two thousand of those four billion bits get through to our surface-consciousness. That‘s .0005% or 1 bit in every 200,000. Consider also that it’s estimated that 1 cubic centimeter of “empty space”--about the size of a marble--contains more energy than all the (so-called) solid matter in the universe. Isn’t it therefore more than a trifle absurd to suppose that reality can be known by ordinary material means?

Are people who don't believe that god is "being itself" pathetic?

No. At some level they are aware that there is something more fundamental, more real, than physical appearance.

 

[Yerda]

If, on the other hand, they don’t know the difference (which really is pathetic), one might as well be talking about flagpoles to a kitten blind to objects with a vertical dimension.

To be fair to you Rolling Stone, I don't know the difference. Neither having being or being being has any locus of recognition in my lexical or cognitive faculties. If pathetic is what you believe it to be then I appreciate your honesty, and I actually quite enjoy outspoken exchange. I'm baffled as to your motives though.

 

[Mister_T]

What do you mean by "these groups mentioned"? If you mean anyone with faith....I honestly don't know if the majority base their faith off of "feelings". I am certain, however, that many people base their faith in part off of powerful experiences they've had where they felt god's presence, the presence of a loved one, or where they felt god answered their prayers, etc

I guess I got a little off track there. We were specifically talking about Christians, who are repeatedly told not to base faith off of feelings. Basing your faith solely off of a feeling you get is going against the doctrine that is preached to them.

I just don't see any connection whatsoever between my argument and your "Atheism in 6th century B.C." bit. Can you explain?

Your argument was that religion/gods is a product of culture. My counter argument was essentially that Atheism is a relatively new idea and religions/gods were instinctive....apparently I needed to be more clear on what I was getting at.

I asked HOW do you know, for example, that it wasn't a bird or drafts or creaks. Your response is just a reassertion that you know, because we "can be sure that the evidence was looked at from every possible angle". Okay, but HOW was this done in such a way as to rule out aliens or birds or drafts or creaks? What was their METHOD to accomplish this? To simply assert that none of these possibilities should be taken seriously--THAT is dismissive, i.m.o.

I personally don't know, since I was not there to record it. As far as I know, aliens have not been attributed to such noises. And I don't see how the sound of rivers or creeks is even remotely similiar to crying. If these guys say that there was nothing that could be attributed to the sound, I have faith in what they're saying.

Here's an idea: get recordings of actual crying, recordings from the supposedly haunted room, and recordings from a non-haunted room with no crying. Maybe get some recordings of some random noises for good measure. Mix them up and let people listen to them without telling them which one is which. See if random people can consistently identify the recording of the supposedly 'haunted' room as the sound of a girl crying. (Of course, bear in mind that I have no knowledge of what the recording sounds like....if the sound of the crying is obvious enough, then this might not be necessary.)

Well here, check it out for yourself. YouTube - Ghost Hunters S03 Ep11 Part 5#

But what I would suggest is this: there will always be a temptation in any media (TV, radio, etc) to embellish. A story that suggests a paranormal event or strange creature (like bigfoot or nessie) is legitimate will always be more popular than a story that suggests such things are not legitimate. An expeditionary team looking for the Yeti that comes back empty-handed is not big news; an expeditionary team that comes back with "possible evidence!" of the Yeti is media gold. The ratings will be higher, the money for advertizements will be greater, and the temptation will be, in many cases, irresistable.

But see, that's what makes these guys different: A lot, if not most of the time, they come up empty handed.

 

[Seneca]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

If someone believes in something that is, in your opinion, imaginary, is that person necessarily unintelligent or childish?

When, if ever, is it fair to consider another person's belief an illusion?

Here is the exchange that started this discussion:

I'm afraid being an atheist pretty much entails the view that any such deities are an illusion. That's what it means.

So yes, it is fair....