To the Anti-Religious

[Storm]

Could you at least provide some substantiation for this 'shift perspective' advice?

That's what trance states do.

Preferably something that doesn't involve you accusing me of holding a position I do not hold, and preferably something that doesn't involve you making non-constructive posts like the above?

If I introduced a term/concept/idea that was vague, and people asked me to substantiate it, I don't think I would behaving in this way.

Hey, you could've just asked for clarification or elaboration, I would have been happy to oblige.

 

[themadhair]

That's what trance states do.

Care to elaborate on that and, in particular, can you explain why there isn’t problems with feedback loops and similar mechanism?

For example Scientologists experience trance like states during auditing and, by progressing up ‘the bridge’, they end up ‘shifting perspective’ in rather a massive way. The thing is that such ‘shifting perspective’ is, from what I can see here, a massive feedback loop. If Scientology had beliefs regarding evil invisible leprechauns then, via the trance states induced by auditing, those undergoing it would develop a belief in evil invisible leprechauns.

Hey, you could've just asked for clarification or elaboration, I would have been happy to oblige.

Hence the sharp one-liners that don’t do either.

 

[themadhair]

Thinking about this – none of what I have been writing in this thread even applies to you Storm. I seem to remember asking you on another thread about whether you make attributions to your god concept not mandated by your experiences – and you answered no (I’d need to route the thread out but if this recollection is mistaken point feel free to correct).

 

[Magic Man]

Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm against atheism? Most of the people I know and get along with are atheists to some degree. So I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was vindicating a diverse group of people, but I don't think I need to comment on that any further.

And I think I might have been misunderstood, MBall.

To claim that God does not exist is not arrogant at all. I'm okay with that view. I disagree, but I'm still okay with it.

But such a claim, by its very nature, is based on absolutely zero empirical evidence. It is an assumption made about reality based on one's individual perception. Sure, there is a lack of evidence for God's existence, but there is also a lack of evidence against it. So it remains an assumption.

It remains an assumption as much as saying that there are no unicorns in my backyard remains an assumption. Sure, it's possible that right now there is a family of unicorns prancing around in my backyard, but it's highly, highly unlikely. I have no evidence other than reason and experience to say that that family of unicorns is not out there, just like I have no evidence other than reason and experience to say that a theistic god doesn't exist. The claim that while there is no evidence for God, there is also no evidence against it is just silly. There is evidence against it, but for now I'll just stick to the fact that there doesn't need to be evidence against it. There doesn't have to be evidence against every claim people come up with. If some guy says he used to play hockey for the Toronto Maple Leafs and won a Stanley Cup with them years ago and I, being a hockey fan, have never heard of him, it's his job to support his statement. It's perfectly reasonable and rational to disbelieve him until he provides evidence for his claim. Just like it's perfectly reasonable and rational to disbelieve in God until there is some hard evidence for his existence.

Again. I have absolutely no problem with this assumption, this viewpoint, this belief on its own.

What I am against, however, is the absolute refusal to admit that belief in God is equally justified by the available empirical evidence (or rather, the lack thereof). To claim that all theists are using inferior logic to atheists in believing in God, when both perceptions of the world are in fact equally logical (scientifically), is arrogance at its worst. It reaks of bigotry.

No, it's not. It's one thing to have experienced something you can only label as God. If that's your reason for believing in God, then you're completely justified. However, if your reasoning for believing in God is because that's what you were taught, or it just makes sense or what-have-you, and you've never really had a personal experience with God, then you're certainly not as justified in your belief as an atheist is in their disbelief.

Of course, this also depends on which god we're talking about (as always). I'm talking about the normal, Abrahamic, interventionist, all-good, all-loving model. That one is certainly nowhere near logical in the context of everything else we know about the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

Just one thing though...



Mmm. I would use a different analogy.

Let's say a man from New York decides to travel to Africa for six months, to live with one of the tribes living in the remote jungle. Within two months he manages to learn their language and can communicate without a translator. When sitting down to eat the food that they had gathered one night, the man tells the story of all of the sky scrapers, the restaurants, the people, how everyone is white, how there are as many people there as there are stars in the sky, and virtually everything about the society he had come from. When he finished explaining, one of the elders of the tribe, a very wise man, said to the white traveller: "You're lying. I have lived here for years and years and I have yet to see such things. Where is your proof?"

Who is more reasonable?

The man from New York is more reasonable in that specific case because the African man says he's lived "here" for years and years. What does that have to do with New York?

As far as what you're getting at, the point is that an all-good, all-loving, creator, interventionist god like the Christian one doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of our knowledge about our universe. I have no doubt that some people have experienced something so crazy, deep and powerful that they can only refer to it as God, but to give that experience a characterization like the Abrahamic god is more than a stretch.

 

[Magic Man]

As a theist I freely admit that I have no real scientific evidence for the existence of Divinity. I do not wish to make absolute claims that God does exist because I can admit that I may be wrong. In truth, all I have is subjective feelings and perspective. For me, love and life and consciousness is what draws me to God concept. Those are the things that are of greatest mystery and wonder to everyone. So as far as defining God, I see Him as those three things. But I would not claim that I understand what God is.

So what I have is this: a yearning for something greater than random nothingness and a yearning to discover it. So I lead my life with the assumption that such a 'greater' exists because for me it must. Even if I am wrong, I have made this the meaning in my life and the purpose.

I do not think that anyone should make absolute statements either way and I do not think that any person should be kept from a life that has become their meaning and purpose. Science and subjective perception cannot always collaborate and i do not think that scientists can really tap that perception. Neither do I think it always should.

Great post. Well said.

I just have to quibble with one point. Atheists, like me, don't make absolute statements about gods like yours, generally. I will say "God does not exist", but only when "God" is defined as "an intelligent being which created the universe, is all-loving and all-good and all-powerful and intervenes in humans' daily affairs and sends people to heaven and hell". When "God" means something other than that, as it seems to for you, I will not make any absolute statements about it.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah! You're another one of those deciders of all universal truth guys. There's one on the other thred just now, too. Well, it's certainly a clever quote - very poetical. But it's still not logical. And the reason (that I feel sure you will once again ignore) is that you have no basis to accept OR reject an assertion that comes with no evidence whatever. Because no evidence is still no evidence, and no evidence logically means that we can draw no conclusions.

No, no evidence for something means we can draw the conclusion that it's wrong. Here's an example:

You're driving down the road with me in the passenger seat. I suddenly tell you that there is a car coming right at us, so you should swerve ASAP. You look ahead and don't see anything at all coming at us. I say "Well, I can see it, and it's almost at us, swerve now!". What do you do? do you swerve or do you just keep going straight? (Keeping in mind that in swerving you run the risk of hitting another car in another lane or a pedestrian on the sidewalk).

Yes it does, as it closes the mind to any further consideration, and it is also illogical.

No, it doesn't. I'm not closed-minded to god concepts. I will hear anyone's support for theirs. I don't dismiss them without knowing something about them. I'm not closed-minded about unicorns either. They might well exist and turn up some day. However, for now I'm going to assume they don't, because that's the only reasonable way to go about it.

Being open-minded, in this case, just means suspending judgment until some better and more conclusive evidence comes along.
I would collect more information, and then decide.

Essentially, you don't think anyone should ever make any decisions. There's nothing wrong with looking at all of the evidence for a claim, and seeing that it doesn't hold up, and therefore assuming the claim is false until further evidence is brought up. Just because you're rejecting it doesn't mean your mind is closed on the subject.

 

[DarkSun]

The man from New York is more reasonable in that specific case because the African man says he's lived "here" for years and years. What does that have to do with New York?

Lol.

Think about what you just said.

 

[DarkSun]

Absence of evidence is evidence. The reason we dismiss ideas of fairies, bigfoot, leprechauns, etc. is because the lack of any evidence for them is sufficient evidence to dismiss them.

I don't believe that black swans exist. I live in a part of the world where black swans aren't around, and there is no evidence for the existence of swans.

Does the lack of evidence count as evidence in this case?


I would respond to the rest of your post themadhair, but I honestly can't be bothered.

 

[DarkSun]

There is evidence against it, but for now I'll just stick to the fact that there doesn't need to be evidence against it.

Please present this evidence.

There doesn't have to be evidence against every claim people come up with.

I believe there is a God.

What? You want evidence? But there doesn't have to be evidence against every claim that people come up with.

If some guy says he used to play hockey for the Toronto Maple Leafs and won a Stanley Cup with them years ago and I, being a hockey fan, have never heard of him, it's his job to support his statement.

What if I've known this guy as a part of the Toronto Maple Leafs, even though you haven't?

It's perfectly reasonable and rational to disbelieve him until he provides evidence for his claim.

Not if you believe he's right to begin with. Then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to believe him until proof is found that I am delusional.

Just like it's perfectly reasonable and rational to disbelieve in God until there is some hard evidence for his existence.

Not if you believe in him to begin with. Then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to believe in his existence until proven otherwise.

No, it's not. It's one thing to have experienced something you can only label as God.

Mmm. Are you refering to me or to Christians in general?

Because I have some personal views which don't jibe well with mainstream Christianity.

If that's your reason for believing in God, then you're completely justified. However, if your reasoning for believing in God is because that's what you were taught, or it just makes sense or what-have-you, and you've never really had a personal experience with God, then you're certainly not as justified in your belief as an atheist is in their disbelief.

Most my family are agnostic. Some of them are really strong atheists. Besides me, only my grandmother and my great aunt are religious in some way.

So no, it's not what I've been taught by the people around me.

Even if it were, what would it matter? Everyone's views are influenced by society to some degree, not just mine.

Of course, this also depends on which god we're talking about (as always). I'm talking about the normal, Abrahamic, interventionist, all-good, all-loving model. That one is certainly nowhere near logical in the context of everything else we know about the universe.

Would this be your understanding of the universe? If so, then you're completely right to say that.

Would this be the scientific understanding of the universe? If so, then since science doesn't address God at all, then you're a bit wrong to say that. Sorry.

Would you be talking about my understanding of the universe? If so, then I disagree.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, to the elder it's just the same as no evidence. He shouldn't believe.

If you are arguing that there is no evidence - as you've been doing (not only that you can't show me the evidence) you should act the same. And maybe ask your "white man" for some evidence.



Again, even showing him something as extraordinary as a plane would be a good start. I don't know why you mentioned the Bible. It's a book isn't it, we have tons of those. Now show me a flying book and I could be impressed.*


*A second later he adds: "Please stop throwing books at me!"

1 - Yes, I am arguing that there is no emprical evidence. For the white man to prove to the elder that he's right, he would have to show the Elder something from his own world (the jungle) to do so. Since there is no evidence in this world, what he hopes to do is ultimately impossible.

2 - The photo I mentioned was an example of evidence that would not be taken seriously. Kinda like the Bible.

3 - Also, showing the Elder a plane is all well and good, but how would you get him to the air port against his will? Kinda like forcing someone to see things your way - it doesn't work.

 

[Commoner]

1 - Yes, I am arguing that there is no emprical evidence. For the white man to prove to the elder that he's right, he would have to show the Elder something from his own world (the jungle) to do so. Since there is no evidence in this world, what he hopes to do is ultimately impossible.

2 - The photo I mentioned was an example of evidence that would not be taken seriously. Kinda like the Bible.

3 - Also, showing the Elder a plane is all well and good, but how would you get him to the air port against his will? Kinda like forcing someone to see things your way - it doesn't work.

Who is the white man? Aren't we all elders?

1. Certainly not impossible - you are a living, breathing example of someone who has been convinced without evidence.

2. But the photo in your example would be considered extraordinary - something no one has seen before. How is this like the Bible?

3. Listen, if you say to me that you can prove it, I'll gladly walk with you to the airport. I've done so many times in the past - unfortunately, no planes yet.

 

[DarkSun]

Who is the white man? Aren't we all elders?

1. Certainly not impossible - you are a living, breathing example of someone who has been convinced without evidence.

2. But the photo in your example would be considered extraordinary - something no one has seen before. How is this like the Bible?

3. Listen, if you say to me that you can prove it, I'll gladly walk with you to the airport. I've done so many times in the past - unfortunately, no planes yet.

Perhaps it would help if I explained the metaphor.

The white man is a theist. The black man is an atheist. New York city (and any form of technology) is not literally a city, but represents one perception of the world. The jungle of Africa is not literally a jungle, but is another view of the world.

Both people are equally justified in their belief and disbelief in the different perception that the white man describes.

Sorry. It was probably a bit unfair of me to make the theist the white man, but at least you can see where I'm coming from now. (No, that wasn't racism.)



1. Not what I meant... Do you think it would be possible to prove that New York exists using only proof that this man has seen in the Jungle?

2. The photo wouldn't be considered extraordinary at all. It would be considered just as weird to the Elder as anything else the white man has said.

3. I can't show you my perception of the world in the form of physical, tangible proof at all.


Sorry, I probably should have been more clear.

 

[Commoner]

Perhaps it would help if I explained the metaphor.

The white man is a theist. The black man is an atheist. New York city (and any form of technology) is not literally a city, but represents one perception of the world. The jungle of Africa is not literally a jungle, but is another view of the world.

Both people are equally justified in their belief and disbelief in the different perception that the white man describes.

Sorry. It was probably a bit unfair of me to make the theist the white man, but at least you can see where I'm coming from now. (No, that wasn't racism.)

1. Not what I meant... Do you think it would be possible to prove that New York exists using only proof that this man has seen in the Jungle?

2. The photo wouldn't be considered extraordinary at all. It would be considered just as weird to the Elder as anything else the white man has said.

3. I can't show you my perception of the world in the form of physical, tangible proof at all.

Sorry, I probably should have been more clear.

If the white man is a theist - he has never been to New York - he has never seen it, touched it, had any empirical evidence for it. So in that case, the white man certainly isn't justified.

Again - and I hope for the last time - if you're claiming that there is no evidence for god, you can't be considered the white man in the analogy. Yes, to the elder - there might as well not be any evidence if none can be presented. But the white man certainly had evidence when he started to "believe in New York". If he didn't have any evidence, then he just made it up - or took the word of someone else -> then he's certainly not justified.

1. Irrelevant. There is evidence - if it just can't be presented, that's a completely different topic.
2. Maybe he should have pulled out a laptop. As I've said before, we could argue about what could be considered evidence and what not - but you're starting from the premise that there is no evidence (even bad evidence). So, you have no photo at all.
3. I can certainly put it to words and explain it - and show how it's supported by evidence, why can't you?

I find it curious that you have decided not to put the theist and the atheist on equal grounds. At least I could admit that we were both in the dark.

 

[themadhair]

I don't believe that black swans exist. I live in a part of the world where black swans aren't around, and there is no evidence for the existence of swans.

Does the lack of evidence count as evidence in this case?

Yes provided you did an honest search to seek out evidence. Which you clearly didn’t. When you debate the topic of black swans people can provide you with evidence rather easily too – render the problem with your analogy even more stark since you cannot do likewise for something non-existent.

I would respond to the rest of your post themadhair, but I honestly can't be bothered.

Please take the computer example on board. It really does highlight the flawed logic you are using by providing an example where you reject that logic.

 

[Magic Man]

Lol.

Think about what you just said.

I did. That's why I said it. The man was describing New York, which has nothing to do with Africa. So, the tribesman saying he's lived in Africa for many years is irrelevant because they're not talking about Africa. If you're trying to imply that the atheist's claim that God cannot exist because they've lived in the universe is similarly stupid and God doesn't jive with what they know about the universe, then I think it's you who needs to rethink what you're saying.

 

[Atheologian]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

This argument is old as well. They don't believe in a deity, but they still beleive in mystical nonsense that can never be proved.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't believe that black swans exist. I live in a part of the world where black swans aren't around, and there is no evidence for the existence of swans.

Does the lack of evidence count as evidence in this case?

It counts as evidence for the non-existence of black swans in your area. Now, when relating that to the God example, the area is the universe, since that's where we still see no evidence of God. So, lack of evidence of God in the universe counts as evidence against God's existence in the universe.

I would respond to the rest of your post themadhair, but I honestly can't be bothered.

Please present this evidence.

OK, I'll give you an example. Prayer. People say God answers their prayers. We know this isn't true. That is evidence against their God.

I believe there is a God.

What? You want evidence? But there doesn't have to be evidence against every claim that people come up with.

Huh? Right, there doesn't have to be evidence against that claim for me to reasonably not believe it. You seem to have missed the point. You can make that claim, but it's only reasonable for me to believe it if you present some evidence for it. If you don't, the only reasonable option for me is to not believe it.

What if I've known this guy as a part of the Toronto Maple Leafs, even though you haven't?

Then, you should believe him. You don't seem to understand the analogy, do you?

Not if you believe he's right to begin with. Then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to believe him until proof is found that I am delusional.

I'm really not sure how to get this through to you. Sure, you can believe him to begin with, but it's irrational and unreasonable unless you have some evidence for him being right, which was the whole idea. If he provides that evidence, then it's perfectly rational to believe him. If he doesn't, it's irrational to believe him when your experience contradicts what he's saying.

Not if you believe in him to begin with. Then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to believe in his existence until proven otherwise.

No, it's not. You can believe in him, if you want, but without any evidence, it's not reasonable or rational. You're getting yourself confused here. I'm not saying people can't believe in God, just that if they're going solely by what others have told them, then it's irrational.

Mmm. Are you refering to me or to Christians in general?

Because I have some personal views which don't jibe well with mainstream Christianity.

I've made it more than abundantly clear in this thread that we're only dealing with the normal Abrahamic, all-good, all-loving, all-powerful, interventionist god. If your view doesn't jive well with that, then I don't mean you.

Most my family are agnostic. Some of them are really strong atheists. Besides me, only my grandmother and my great aunt are religious in some way.

So no, it's not what I've been taught by the people around me.

Even if it were, what would it matter? Everyone's views are influenced by society to some degree, not just mine.

So, what's your point? As I said, if it's some experience you've had that you can only label as God, then you're perfectly justified and reasonable in your belief.

My views on theology are not influenced by society.

Would this be your understanding of the universe? If so, then you're completely right to say that.

Would this be the scientific understanding of the universe? If so, then since science doesn't address God at all, then you're a bit wrong to say that. Sorry.

Would you be talking about my understanding of the universe? If so, then I disagree.

I'm talking about everyone's understanding of the universe. This isn't hard. We know that that kind of God doesn't make sense in this universe. According to science, according to common sense, according to reason, according to anything you want. It just doesn't make sense. If your understanding of the universe allows the possibility of that kind of god, then your understanding is flawed.

 

[Magic Man]

1 - Yes, I am arguing that there is no emprical evidence. For the white man to prove to the elder that he's right, he would have to show the Elder something from his own world (the jungle) to do so. Since there is no evidence in this world, what he hopes to do is ultimately impossible.

But there is empirical evidence. It is entirely possible for him to prove this to the tribesman. All he has to do is take him to New York. If you believe something without evidence, you're being irrational. In this case, the "theist" had evidence, namely his life in New York. As I've said many times, if you've had an experience that can only be labelled God, then you have your evidence. If not, then you're going by what others have told you, and you're being irrational.

2 - The photo I mentioned was an example of evidence that would not be taken seriously. Kinda like the Bible.

Why wouldn't it be taken seriously? You're missing the key difference here. The Bible is a bunch of stories. If we had pictures, it would make it more believable. Besides, photos wouldn't be the only evidence in that case. As I said, he could always take the tribesman to New York and show him.

Now, I know what you'll say to that, "Well, I could show you my god, but you have to trust me and be open-minded". And that's BS. The difference there is that, I have to believe first for you to be able to show me your god. The tribesman just has to take a trip.

3 - Also, showing the Elder a plane is all well and good, but how would you get him to the air port against his will? Kinda like forcing someone to see things your way - it doesn't work.

That's true, but that's a little different than a theist and an atheist. I'll gladly look at any evidence you have to show me. I would get on that metaphorical plane. However, the question of God doesn't work like that.

 

[Atheologian]

Personally, I view the areligious as those that are prone to making mistakes due to the logical conclusions that follow from sharing in unsupported beliefs. I view the areligious as having good intentions as most people do and that we want the same things in life, we differ on how we set out to achieve our common goals because we differ on how we believe the world works.

What’s the difference between a consultant, a lawyer and a theologian? Answer: a consultant borrows your watch and tells you the time. A lawyer borrows your watch, tells you the time, and keeps the watch as part payment of the fee. A theologian tells you the time, and suggests you adjust your watch.

and the atheist hands you an automic clock that shows the correct time, at all times.