Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war.

[swilow]

People like you is why the truth stays hidden. You're so bitter and confused but somehow also determined to antagonize others over something that you couldn't possibly have the answers to. Skepticism is good, but after a certain point it's just provocation.

Resorting to ad hominems indicates you only have an emotive/non-existent point to make. You do this quite a bit.

 

[swilow]

Not pretending its important, just indicating what I think of one of your methods of argument.

You keep doing it in the above post too.

But anyway, why does the burden of proof fall exclusively on believers?

How would it be at all possible to present evidence for the non-existence of something? Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, and that is the basic claim of atheism. There is not evidence for god. Perhaps the best that atheists can do is point out the ways in which the theology of believers is false, mistaken or absurd.

In an argument the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. If I disagree with your claim then it is up to you as its proponent to susbtantiate your position; there is no way that I can substantiate mine (yet) as it exists only as a consequence of your initial claim.

Of course, no one needs to substantiate an argument they put forth, but then we would need to call it an opinion and treat it accordingly.

 

[Nixiam]

There's different kinds of knowledge which converge to make one truth. When I talk about spirit, you assume that I mean a very specific thing, preferably something you can easily shit on. But beyond your tiny worldview of ethics and reason and rationality, there's stuff happening on a spiritual level. If you don't have the aptitude to pick up on the subtleties of your everyday life, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that this stuff exists.



I don't remember where but someone here said absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence. That's kind of what I was getting at when I mentioned prerequisites. But anyway, why does the burden of proof fall exclusively on believers? Is it a fact that some kind of higher being doesn't exist?

Btw, your pseudonym couldn't be any less fitting. Also I find it a bit ironic that you scoff at anything related to religion or spirituality but include bible quotes in nearly every single one of your posts. Like if you're so wise and above all this stuff, why would you resort to using quotes from the bible?



I've done that like once with a guy who thinks suicide is brave, but yeah lets pretend like that's the important thing here.

Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence, true.

But belief where there is no proof is irrational, kind of like the argument. Redundant.

Bible quotes are especially effective in an atheistic or agnostic argument, oddly enough.

I agree, Swilow is conspiring with other non believers, keeping us from the truth! An evil man.

 

[Nixiam]

For me, I think it that a deity who causes this much warfare would do better to seek out me, rather than wait for me to look past religious bullshit to find said deity.

Not to mention, I have no incentive since god has given me none, and if he did exist it wouldn't change anything. No profit in chasing something that might not exist, and has no value if found out.

Because nobody can agree on anything. How would you even prove god to other people through spiritual mumbo jumbo in the first place?

God has to be non detrimental to all and to one. Meaning if god exists at all he better not hav personal relationships with us humans... If you are a religious believer, then you can see how god talking to man has historically fucked a lot of people and set science back a few hundred years.

So if anything proving his existence has already happened, in religion, since the religious have all the proof they need.

And look where that got us.

Trying to do the thing that the others did would only cause more violence.

It would be like it started all over again, and the reason why is because all the proof is the same thing.

I talked to god and wrote a book, here it is. By the way, if you follow me there are benefeits.

But if you believe in god and it hurts no one else, call it justified.

That is my stance on the matter, even though you did not direct anything at me. It is discussion after all.

 

[swilow]

Alright but you can look at it another way: instead of clinging onto the apparent lack of evidence, why not dedicate yourself to finding the necessary evidence? I suspect it might be a healthier approach to these matters.

Odd idea. Why would I seek to prove your hypothesis?

But, I have looked for evidence for much of my life. I've found none. What evidence have you found?

 

[Nixiam]

I couldn't possibly point to one occurrence and say 'this proves god exists' lol, but over time I think if you're observant and introspective and tenacious in your analysis of your everyday life, you're bound to conclude that there's something else.



Good effort, but this just tells me you have no idea what we're talking about.

Enlighten me.

I think that if you're introspective and tenacious in your analysis of everyday life, you'll only see what you set out to see.

So did you set out to prove god or did you set out to find him?

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I think that if you're introspective and tenacious in your analysis of everyday life, you'll only see what you set out to see.

Generally true. lol

I can't see any logical way to be other than agnostic on the god issue. Unless you meet god face to face I guess. There are so many emotional forces at work in this issue I'd hardly trust myself on it. Especially since I'm quite aware I have an unconscious mind to deal with. Many deep thinkers on the issue have concluded that god is an invention to deal with the frightening fact that life and death are huge unknowns in big ways for humans. The Terror Management Theory folk have shown pretty conclusively that humans have a fear of death no matter what we may tell ourselves and others. Eternal life comes in handy for dealing with that fear. However there are other ways to understand the idea of a creator than it bestowing eternal life.

 

[swilow]

I couldn't possibly point to one occurrence and say 'this proves god exists' lol, but over time I think if you're observant and introspective and tenacious in your analysis of your everyday life, you're bound to conclude that there's something else.

I don't agree. I consider myself observant and introspective. I've thought my way into the conclusions I have drawn. Obviously, everyone comes to different conclusions.

I think your line of argument there is lacking. You are basically saying that the reason that someone like me does not believe in god is because I haven't worked hard enough or in the correct way to find the evidence. If I had done what you have done, I wouldn't be benighted in unbelief. This is a patronising line of thought. If, through observation and introspection, you have been able to draw a definitive conclusion, it seems peculiar that you haven't even briefly mentioned the factors that lead you to your conclusion.

Good effort, but this just tells me you have no idea what we're talking about.

Personally, I've never heard a convincing argument detailing how gods existence would be a benefit. Assuming god exists, how does one explain the suffering, uncertainty, fear, degradation that afflict humanity? A naive statement perhaps, but wouldn't a beneficial god eliminate such things? God is not god unless it has the power to do that. Why doesn't it? The fact that it does not intervene makes our world appear precisely the same as a godless one.

I see little reason to think that the existence of god is beneficial. The world is as it is. Except we would have to consider the fact that our immense suffering is the intent of another being. To me, that is not exactly an endearing trait.

How has your belief benefited you?

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Great post. I concur. Much suffering is often incurred by a belief in a god.

 

[Nixiam]

Who will care when the wall breaks?

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Alright clearly we're not speaking the same language, but I will say one thing: don't make the mistake of equating hard work with capacity for clarity. The former doesn't guarantee the latter as the latter has several other prerequisites. So you could smash your head against the wall all day long, but it doesn't mean the wall will break, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone else hasn't found a way to break it.

It's not about speaking the same language but rather who is able to present the most logical case for what they believe to be true.

 

[Ninae]

I think people have lost all interest in the truth. They just want to look smart/be right. It's more of a social thing and about prestige to them.

They don't realise they're pre-disposed to the materialist view since it's the only one that's been presented to them in an intelligent way. So they're subconsciously influenced in that direction, and if the opposite was the case, the opposite would also be true. Both these things are common.

What isn't so common is investigating for yourself in a serious way. No one has time for that. But logic doesn't necessarily make something more true. It's one of the main means of persuasion that can be used to make people believe in anything, because of our inherent respect for it ("It sounds intelligent so it must be true"). The truth is above all that.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

How do you expect to understand the logical if we're swimming in the illogical?

I've seen you present nothing logical. So what are you talking about?

I couldn't possibly point to one occurrence and say 'this proves god exists' lol, but over time I think if you're observant and introspective and tenacious in your analysis of your everyday life, you're bound to conclude that there's something else.


This is not logic. This is subjective personal opinion with no substance.

 

[Nixiam]

How do you expect to understand the logical if we're swimming in the illogical?



You say that now, but you'll be the first to care when the time comes.

The time won't.

 

[Ninae]

What makes you think the subjective/experimental viewpoint has no substance? After all, it's what is most real to you. Does a paper written by a well-educated Atheist necessarily have any more substance (logical or not)?

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

What makes you think the subjective/experimental viewpoint has no substance? After all, it's what is most real to you. Does a paper written by a well-educated Atheist necessarily have any more substance (logical or not)?

No one said it does. That's the point. Claiming certainty where there is none. If I believe in the easter bunny does that make it real? However to disregard logic in place of superstition is really a poor way to live IMO but to each his own.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

Yes brother I can admit there is more to life than science and reason. There is the unknown and plenty of it IMO. Human reason is not infallible. Reason is a well considered best guess based on all the evidence we can find and doing our best to make sense if what we think it means. We can be wrong and ultimately are for the most part I'd say. We are not the creator of life so we cannot even know if our well considered best guess is right or to what degree it may be right. Therefore we need a little humility at the end of the day. I have strong opinions but they are not more than that. I use my mind as best I can and I try to understand my own limitations as a falable human. That's why many of my posts include at least one "IMO". There is a lot I don't understand about myself and how my mind works. My conscious and unconscious biases and that I'm a product of a lot of programming by my parents and my culture that is very hard to root out so I can find what it is that I actually believe for myself.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think people have lost all interest in the truth. They just want to look smart/be right. It's more of a social thing and about prestige to them.

They don't realise they're pre-disposed to the materialist view since it's the only one that's been presented to them in an intelligent way. So they're subconsciously influenced in that direction, and if the opposite was the case, the opposite would also be true. Both these things are common.

What isn't so common is investigating for yourself in a serious way. No one has time for that. But logic doesn't necessarily make something more true. It's one of the main means of persuasion that can be used to make people believe in anything, because of our inherent respect for it ("It sounds intelligent so it must be true"). The truth is above all that.

Really?

You sound like you have put faith before facts.

Faith without facts is for fools.
Those who are literalists canonly reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did. to logic and reason.

“Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, thegreatest enemy that faith has.”

Or this way.

http://imgur.com/IBroXK9

Regards
DL


===========

To all. A full fledged lie, followed by a cheep insult.

"there's stuff happening on a spiritual level. If you don't have the aptitude to pick up on the subtleties of your everyday life, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you that this stuff exists."

Regards
DL

 

[Foreigner]

Yes brother I can admit there is more to life than science and reason. There is the unknown and plenty of it IMO. Human reason is not infallible. Reason is a well considered best guess based on all the evidence we can find and doing our best to make sense if what we think it means. We can be wrong and ultimately are for the most part I'd say. We are not the creator of life so we cannot even know if our well considered best guess is right or to what degree it may be right. Therefore we need a little humility at the end of the day. I have strong opinions but they are not more than that. I use my mind as best I can and I try to understand my own limitations as a falable human. That's why many of my posts include at least one "IMO". There is a lot I don't understand about myself and how my mind works. My conscious and unconscious biases and that I'm a product of a lot of programming by my parents and my culture that is very hard to root out so I can find what it is that I actually believe for myself.

We could never reproduce your life in a double-blind experiment. There's no experiment to prove consciousness as a thing or not. Science can't even tell if consciousness is a material thing or something else, there are only assumptions.

You can take any material reductionist and apply the same skeptical logic to their inner framework until you find something unproveable about it. Nobody's life is 100% rational, that's just hubris. Our aliveness and functionality are based on such a complex network of things that we don't even really understand yet, it's kind of a miracle that we're here at all. The idea that science will one day be within reach of everything is also hubris. You're aware that science in its current form is about 200-300 years old only, right? All previous systems were disregarded. This system too will be disregarded, eventually. Your epistemology may not even exist in another 200 years for you to be making that claim.

I don't get why some scientists try to enter philosophy and act like they're en par, when they're not. Philosophy and science are two different branches. They approach the world completely differently. When a scientist enters a philosophical thread and criticizes its inductive reasoning, a big "duh" comes to mind. You're not going to find anything concrete in the philosophical and spiritual branches that satisfies material reductionism.

Science will never be able to prove god, one way or another. Science concerns itself only with the material world, which is why it has a lot of strength there. Crossing into other epistemologies and territories is pointless if you aren't willing to ease up on that mindset.

There are atheists who just say there is no god, and leave it at that. Then there are those who enter discussions to repeat over and over that there's no proof of God. You want to talk about no substance? Look no further. Do you have anything to really add apart from your disbelief?

I just find it unfortunate because if you could take the first premise on faith, you could learn a great deal through subsequent systems and methodologies. But you're stuck at the initial premise, which is why your input into these discussions doesn't facilitate the kinds of explorations that others are doing. It shuts them down and not much else.

I mean look... the topic is religion and tribalism as means to appease war and drama, and yet another good thread is bogged down about whether or not God is real because the focus has become the primacy of material reductionism and almighty rationality. Honestly, can we move beyond it???

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

I'm really not sure what you're going on about? What first premise are you referring to?

I hardly think anything I say shuts anyone down as they can easily skip over anything they have no interest in. No one has ever been able to do that to me at least. I personally have no idea whether god is real or not. It's not important to me until someone tries to insist that god is an obvious fact if only I was a little more logical or honest or something to that effect.

So be a little more specific and I'll try to address your concerns. I don't think what you quoted even mentions god. Not sure I even brought that subject up in this thread.