We're all (mostly) dogmatic... Only few admit it while others call it faith or science.

[dianaiad]

The give-away is when people start using PPNs ( Pretentious Proper Nouns ). People think that starting words with a capital letter somehow gives them more credibility, however this is just smoke and mirrors, an attempt to present a belief as a truth. These PPNs are invariably ill-defined, and often meaningless when you examine them closely. Some people make up a personal PPN language and expect everyone else to understand their obscure jargon and word salad. Words to hide behind.

So "Truth" is supposed to be more true than "truth", and "Ultimate Reality" more real than "reality". Yeah, whatever.

Nope, actually, "Truth" isn't 'more true' than truth (lower case) Most people understand that "Truth" (upper case) refers to something...else, something different, and something emotionally, spiritually or philosophically based, rather than objective fact.

So, when the Romanticist Shelley writes "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" Now THAT is a Truth that incorporates and then transcends the report of the archeologist who found a statue of a former king standing alone and broken in a desert, where 'nothing beside remains."

Perhaps the difference is this: "truth" (lower case) is what is. "Truth" (upper case) is what it means. Not 'more true,' but a different truth.

 

[dianaiad]

The rule in religion is you can make up whatever you like.

Some do, yes. Certainly most religious believers would agree with you....about everybody else's belief system.

 

[dianaiad]

I value truth over comfort. Do you?

The truth is often uncomfortable but it seems a lot of people can't cope with that.

....second thought about the above post, so I'm responding to it again.

What if my beliefs are 'true?' Is your determination to cling to your own ideas the result of your not being able to cope with THAT?

We really need to understand, we believers and non-believers alike, that the other guy doesn't believe or think the way he does in reaction to what we do. Most of 'em don't have a clue what we think, and couldn't care less if they did.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What if my beliefs are 'true?' Is your determination to cling to your own ideas the result of your not being able to cope with THAT?

Not at all, I can see the attraction and comfort of taking on certain beliefs, I would rather like to believein space aliens for example. But as I said, I value truth over comfort, and most religious belief seems more concerned with the latter than the former. From my point of view beliefs of any sort are an obstacle to seeing things clearly. Beliefs are like tinted lens on spectacles, they help people cope with the harsh glare of reality but also distort their vision. So better to take off the glasses, assume nothing, just observe what is actually there.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm not making any claim at all here. You are.

However, if I WERE going to make a claim, it would be 'I believe that there is a God and that He is as I think He is." What is the claim there, psychoslice? It is "I believe" something. It's easy to prove that one. I believe. There you go. I have just proven that I believe, at least enough to say so.

YOU, on the other hand, have claimed that it is a fact that there is no god 'at this stage of life." I'll have to admit, that claim is a bit squishy. Perhaps you could begin by explaining exactly what you mean by that?

.............and then YOU get to prove that it's a fact. Stop attempting to reverse the burden of proof here. It's not my job to prove that there is a god when YOU have categorically claimed that it 'is a fact' that there isn't. It is now your problem, your burden, and your job. I can't even say that the ball is now in your court, because saying so is acknowledging that it was ever in mine. You have missed the serve every time, psychoslice, and have yet to get the ball over the net.

The burden of proof is on you, not me, you say there is a god, but you have no proof, I say there is no god because there has neve been any proof, now either you can prove god or you can't, make up your mind.

 

[dianaiad]

Not at all, I can see the attraction and comfort of taking on certain beliefs, I would rather like to believein space aliens for example. But as I said, I value truth over comfort, and most religious belief seems more concerned with the latter than the former. From my point of view beliefs of any sort are an obstacle to seeing things clearly. Beliefs are like tinted lens on spectacles, they help people cope with the harsh glare of reality but also distort their vision. So better to take off the glasses, assume nothing, just observe what is actually there.

What I see in the above post is this:

"From my point of view, beliefs of any sort (except, of course, mine) are an obstacle to seeing things clearly (or rather, to seeing things the way I do).

Rick O'Shez, it IS important to 'assume nothing, and observe what is actually there." However, no human comes at observations without previous assumptions. NONE of them do. As far as I can see, when one decides from the very beginning that only one sort of evidence is worth examining, and that anybody who examines any other sort...or who comes up with different conclusions using that evidence...is only doing so because they are 'afraid of the truth," is engaging in projection.

It is one thing to examine evidence and come to conclusions for oneself about these things; we all must do that. It is quite another to categorically denounce any who come to different conclusions as being cowards, or having some other character flaw.

It's just possible, after all, that one of THEM could be right and you wrong. Would that mean your characterization of THEM as being 'afraid of the truth' actually applies to you?

Personally, I do people the courtesy of figuring that whatever causes them to believe as they do, 'being afraid of the truth," isn't one of those causes.

PS. I do believe in 'space aliens,' if you mean by that a belief that there is other life of some sort in the universe. Whether that life consists of much more than fuzzy fungus anywhere I wouldn't know, but it seems to me to be pretty unreasonable to figure that in all of the universe, life showed up ONLY here. I mean...really...how arrogant and, what...'earth centric' can one get?

 

[dianaiad]

The burden of proof is on you, not me, you say there is a god, but you have no proof, I say there is no god because there has neve been any proof, now either you can prove god or you can't, make up your mind.

(sigh) Is there anybody else here who would like to join me in a short 'Logic 101' session here?

psychoslice, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the one who makes a claim to prove that claim.
Always.

You made a claim: that it is a fact that there is no god.

Most atheists have better sense. They will argue 'I have seen no evidence to prove that there is a god." Atheism, after all, is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities.
At least, that's what most atheists start yelling when a theist starts ascribing certain qualities to atheists or atheism.

But you have gone further than that, haven't you? You haven't said 'I haven't seen any evidence to show that there is a god." You went straight to the definite. YOU said that it is a fact that there is no god. That's quite a claim, and you made it.

I have not claimed that a God exists. My only claim is that I believe one to exist, based upon evidence that convinces me. That evidence is pretty darned subjective, actually, and certainly wouldn't convince you or anybody else, and I'm fine with that. I can't prove, objectively, that God exists, I don't try, and psychoslice? I don't have to prove a single thing to YOU in order to continue to believe myself. I don't see the need to get all excited about it.

And you are attempting to get out of your own pickle by turning this around. NO sir. Had you stated simply that you haven't seen any evidence of a god, I'd accept that.

However, that's not what you did. You went ahead and said 'there is no god,' and claimed that, by cracky, to be a FACT.

Your claim. Your job to prove your claim, and I think you are running out of 'serves,' here.

 

[psychoslice]

(sigh) Is there anybody else here who would like to join me in a short 'Logic 101' session here?

psychoslice, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the one who makes a claim to prove that claim.
Always.

You made a claim: that it is a fact that there is no god.

Most atheists have better sense. They will argue 'I have seen no evidence to prove that there is a god." Atheism, after all, is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities.
At least, that's what most atheists start yelling when a theist starts ascribing certain qualities to atheists or atheism.

But you have gone further than that, haven't you? You haven't said 'I haven't seen any evidence to show that there is a god." You went straight to the definite. YOU said that it is a fact that there is no god. That's quite a claim, and you made it.

I have not claimed that a God exists. My only claim is that I believe one to exist, based upon evidence that convinces me. That evidence is pretty darned subjective, actually, and certainly wouldn't convince you or anybody else, and I'm fine with that. I can't prove, objectively, that God exists, I don't try, and psychoslice? I don't have to prove a single thing to YOU in order to continue to believe myself. I don't see the need to get all excited about it.

And you are attempting to get out of your own pickle by turning this around. NO sir. Had you stated simply that you haven't seen any evidence of a god, I'd accept that.

However, that's not what you did. You went ahead and said 'there is no god,' and claimed that, by cracky, to be a FACT.

Your claim. Your job to prove your claim, and I think you are running out of 'serves,' here.

You can manipulate the words to suite yourself, but the fact is you cannot prove a god, we have looked out in space billions of miles and haven't found man in the sky pushing buttons, I don't call myself an atheist so I don't care how atheist argue or how you want to argue, to me personally there is no argument.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

 

[dianaiad]

You can manipulate the words to suite yourself, but the fact is you cannot prove a god,

No, I can't. But then, I haven't claimed that I can, either.

YOU claimed that it is a FACT that there 'IS NO GOD.'

Do you understand the issue here?

My inability to prove that there is a god DOES NOT PROVE that there is not one. Someone else might be able to prove one...or nobody can because God is hiding too well...the point is,."lack of proof is not proof of lack." What you are doing is pulling a logical fallacy called 'argument from ignorance."

we have looked out in space billions of miles and have found man in the sky pushing buttons,

The universe is considerably bigger than 'billions of miles' One bored mathematition called it something like 546.33 SEXTILLION miles across. So...what if God is a bit further away than 'billions of miles?" Not to mention that many religions have God entirely outside the universe in the first place.

I don't call myself an atheist so I don't care how atheist argue or how you want to argue, to me personally there is no argument.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

That's nice...and frankly, had I MADE the claim that "There is a God and I can prove it," then the above quote would apply.

BUT...I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU are.

We'll leave aside the bit about you not calling yourself an atheist. You can call yourself 'not an atheist' all you want to. I have a friend who does something similar: she absolutely refuses to call herself a 'wife.' Mind you, she's married, she wears the ring, lives with her husband (whose last name she took) and has done so for forty years, has raised six kids and has ten grandkids. She is, whether she calls herself a 'wife' or not, definitely a wife.

....................and a pretty darned good one. Just ask her husband.

Of course, if it makes you feel any better, your inability to prove that there isn't one doesn't prove that one exists, either. The point is, YOU made the claim that it is a fact that there is no god. Your claim. Your problem. G'head.

 

[psychoslice]

No, I can't. But then, I haven't claimed that I can, either.

YOU claimed that it is a FACT that there 'IS NO GOD.'

Do you understand the issue here?

My inability to prove that there is a god DOES NOT PROVE that there is not one. Someone else might be able to prove one...or nobody can because God is hiding too well...the point is,."lack of proof is not proof of lack." What you are doing is pulling a logical fallacy called 'argument from ignorance."



The universe is considerably bigger than 'billions of miles' One bored mathematition called it something like 546.33 SEXTILLION miles across. So...what if God is a bit further away than 'billions of miles?" Not to mention that many religions have God entirely outside the universe in the first place.



That's nice...and frankly, had I MADE the claim that "There is a God and I can prove it," then the above quote would apply.

BUT...I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU are.

We'll leave aside the bit about you not calling yourself an atheist. You can call yourself 'not an atheist' all you want to. I have a friend who does something similar: she absolutely refuses to call herself a 'wife.' Mind you, she's married, she wears the ring, lives with her husband (whose last name she took) and has done so for forty years, has raised six kids and has ten grandkids. She is, whether she calls herself a 'wife' or not, definitely a wife.

....................and a pretty darned good one. Just ask her husband.

Of course, if it makes you feel any better, your inability to prove that there isn't one doesn't prove that one exists, either. The point is, YOU made the claim that it is a fact that there is no god. Your claim. Your problem. G'head.

Yes I'll stick to my claim that there is no god, now what I call god is all there is, the total cosmos, I can prove that............but anyway, when you get proof please let me know, I will be very interested, and looking forward to it also.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I'll stick to my claim that there is no god, now what I call god is all there is, the total cosmos, I can prove that............but anyway, when you get proof please let me know, I will be very interested, and looking forward to it also.

(sigh)

You say you can prove that.

G'head.

..............and what, precisely, am *I* supposed to prove, here? The only claim I have made is that I believe that there is a God. Here's the proof that I believe that there is a God.

Listen up: I believe there is a God. There. I've proven my claim. I believe in God enough to claim to do so, anyway.

YOU claim that you can prove that what you call god is all there is, the total cosmos. Earlier you said that there is no god and that's a fact.

.............but you have offered no proof. None. Zip. Nada...and when I ask for some you turn around and demand that I prove a claim I didn't actually make, as if my inability to prove a claim I didn't make somehow proves yours.

Do you do this a lot?

 

[psychoslice]

(sigh)

You say you can prove that.

G'head.

..............and what, precisely, am *I* supposed to prove, here? The only claim I have made is that I believe that there is a God. Here's the proof that I believe that there is a God.

Listen up: I believe there is a God. There. I've proven my claim. I believe in God enough to claim to do so, anyway.

YOU claim that you can prove that what you call god is all there is, the total cosmos. Earlier you said that there is no god and that's a fact.

.............but you have offered no proof. None. Zip. Nada...and when I ask for some you turn around and demand that I prove a claim I didn't actually make, as if my inability to prove a claim I didn't make somehow proves yours.

Do you do this a lot?

The proof is there right in front of you, the cosmos is everywhere and we are part of that, simple, now to say there is a god out there that makes everything is going to take a hell of an imagination, an imagination you call faith.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The proof is there right in front of you, the cosmos is everywhere and we are part of that, simple, now to say there is a god out there that makes everything is going to take a hell of an imagination, an imagination you call faith.

Yes, the universe is here, and we are in it, fleeting specks of life in a vast cosmos. The rest is speculation, wishful thinking, anthropomorphism, confirmation bias, mental imaginings.

Man made God and Santa Clause, the main difference is that Santa actually does something useful.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Good old Christopher! I am trying to get him made a Saint, along with Saint Dawkins.

 

[gnostic]

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Now I can accept that.

You can manipulate the words to suite yourself, but the fact is you cannot prove a god, we have looked out in space billions of miles and have found man in the sky pushing buttons, I don't call myself an atheist so I don't care how atheist argue or how you want to argue, to me personally there is no argument.

Is that "haven't"?
"and haven't found man in the sky pushing buttons"

I'd agree with all this, if it is haven't.

 

[psychoslice]

Now I can accept that.


Is that "haven't"?
"and haven't found man in the sky pushing buttons"

I'd agree with all this, if it is haven't.

Yes of course, and thanks for pointing that out, I'll change it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is quite another to categorically denounce any who come to different conclusions as being cowards, or having some other character flaw.

Not if it is true.

 

[dianaiad]

Not if it is true.

Ah....but is it true?

Are you of the opinion that nobody has the truth but you?

 

[dianaiad]

The proof is there right in front of you, the cosmos is everywhere and we are part of that, simple, now to say there is a god out there that makes everything is going to take a hell of an imagination, an imagination you call faith.

Yes. The cosmos is everywhere (if you define 'cosmos' as 'everything everywhere,' which is a tad bit circular) and we are a part of that. How is that proof that there is no God Who may have created it?

BTW, "faith" is not 'imagination.' "Faith" is 'trust,' or the willingness to behave as if the thing you believe to be true is true. Some of us have more faith in our own beliefs and ideas than others.

I will repeat, however....no inability on the part of any human to prove that there is a God is proof that there is no god.
The obverse is true, too; no inability on the part of any non-believer to prove that God does not exist is proof that God does.

The existence, or non-existence, of deity must be arrived at personally, and by non-scientific means...for oneself.

What I see is that there is absolutely no difference between the passionate theist and the passionate atheist in one respect. Both the wordy theist and the mocking atheist are convinced that HIS notion regarding God is the one, the only, the TRUE, by golly, possible way to think about it, and anybody who doesn't agree with that idea is obviously stupid, or 'afraid of the truth,' or possessed by the spirit of Satan...or of mind numbed stupidity, depending on who's talking.

It makes me tired.

Here you are, doing the same thing. Yes, the cosmos is everywhere and we are a part of that. How does that PROVE that nothing, and no-one..or No-One..created it?

I have a pond in my back yard covered with lilypads. This year it has exploded with lilies. It has quite a few fish in it, too; some of 'em several years old and grown rather large, and a WHOLE bunch of teeny ones who get hatched...and then mostly eaten. Their world is their cosmos; self contained. I never feed them. The most I ever do is add water when required, and run the pump.

Now I'm sure that the fish, if they had brains enough to think about it, would consider their world to be 'the cosmos.' Everything in it works according to whatever laws apply. They have no ability to think beyond their cosmos, and no reason to do so. If some genius fish began to wonder why their water moves constantly in one direction, or why there are more mosquito larvae to eat at one season than at another, they MIGHT, if they were imaginative fish, figure that some Power outside their cosmos was in charge and made everything happen.

Or they might figure that their job wasn't to speculate about what...or who...caused the water flow, but simply to observe that flow and describe its effects; to eventually trace it back to its source, and finding it...and realizing that there isn't anything on the other SIDE of that source, name it the "Big Flood" and call it good. Which of those Einsteinian fish would be right?

The answer? Both of 'em, actually...because they would be investigating different things with different methods.
Your answer...and your 'proof' is amazingly religious, y'know, almost fanatically so. Indeed, your notion that the Cosmos (including us) is God is a well known religious idea. Unitarians come close to codifying it, in a way.

But you haven't proven it.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes. The cosmos is everywhere (if you define 'cosmos' as 'everything everywhere,' which is a tad bit circular) and we are a part of that. How is that proof that there is no God Who may have created it?

BTW, "faith" is not 'imagination.' "Faith" is 'trust,' or the willingness to behave as if the thing you believe to be true is true. Some of us have more faith in our own beliefs and ideas than others.

I will repeat, however....no inability on the part of any human to prove that there is a God is proof that there is no god.
The obverse is true, too; no inability on the part of any non-believer to prove that God does not exist is proof that God does.

The existence, or non-existence, of deity must be arrived at personally, and by non-scientific means...for oneself.

What I see is that there is absolutely no difference between the passionate theist and the passionate atheist in one respect. Both the wordy theist and the mocking atheist are convinced that HIS notion regarding God is the one, the only, the TRUE, by golly, possible way to think about it, and anybody who doesn't agree with that idea is obviously stupid, or 'afraid of the truth,' or possessed by the spirit of Satan...or of mind numbed stupidity, depending on who's talking.

It makes me tired.

Here you are, doing the same thing. Yes, the cosmos is everywhere and we are a part of that. How does that PROVE that nothing, and no-one..or No-One..created it?

I have a pond in my back yard covered with lilypads. This year it has exploded with lilies. It has quite a few fish in it, too; some of 'em several years old and grown rather large, and a WHOLE bunch of teeny ones who get hatched...and then mostly eaten. Their world is their cosmos; self contained. I never feed them. The most I ever do is add water when required, and run the pump.

Now I'm sure that the fish, if they had brains enough to think about it, would consider their world to be 'the cosmos.' Everything in it works according to whatever laws apply. They have no ability to think beyond their cosmos, and no reason to do so. If some genius fish began to wonder why their water moves constantly in one direction, or why there are more mosquito larvae to eat at one season than at another, they MIGHT, if they were imaginative fish, figure that some Power outside their cosmos was in charge and made everything happen.

Or they might figure that their job wasn't to speculate about what...or who...caused the water flow, but simply to observe that flow and describe its effects; to eventually trace it back to its source, and finding it...and realizing that there isn't anything on the other SIDE of that source, name it the "Big Flood" and call it good. Which of those Einsteinian fish would be right?

The answer? Both of 'em, actually...because they would be investigating different things with different methods.
Your answer...and your 'proof' is amazingly religious, y'know, almost fanatically so. Indeed, your notion that the Cosmos (including us) is God is a well known religious idea. Unitarians come close to codifying it, in a way.

But you haven't proven it.

I can see we are not getting anywhere, you have your belief there is a god in the sky and I don't, all I do know that we have seen far into the cosmos, but no one has seen anything of god.........lets leave it at that, but thanks for the conversation.