Another Joseph Smith; a problem for atheism

[Simple Minded]

the only vague criticism id have of religion is that its power to stop humans being humans is debatable but from the agnostic perspective this is of course a given anyway, seeing as its by humans for humans.

"Humans never seem to manage to create a god superior to themselves."

MY GOD may be superior to YOUR GOD but unfortunately, he is not superior to me. I suspect the same is true for horses, dogs, cats, ET, etc.

one thing i do notice is that when im reading or watching an archeology thing on some long lost culture and they are trying to project a peaceful utopia on those ancients its quite obvious that (a) the archeologists seem to want to find that and (b) those people aint here anymore.

It is tough to sell one's preconceptions without supporting evidence...... It kicks ass when you can get paid to do so!

[Endovelico]

All this nonsense about everyone else in the whole world throughout history being primitive simpletons except for us has been said before. Usually by people whose own civilization and way of life was running on fumes. But maybe this time it's different.

well said.

Well said? I think it was a pathetic demonstration of inability to address the actual issues. My post above can and should be criticized, but to avoid referring any of the basic questions mentioned there shows one's difficulty in giving a thoughtful answer to the issues raised.

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason. But I said quite a few other things, and those might have deserved a bit attention...

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

But the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds.

All this nonsense about everyone else in the whole world throughout history being primitive simpletons except for us has been said before. Usually by people whose own civilization and way of life was running on fumes. But maybe this time it's different.

Pity you thought that phrase from my post was the only one worth your comment...

It's the basic disagreement we have, and it underlies the rest of the post and your point of view on this subject.

[Taboo]

Rationalist philosophers have, in every age, tried and miserably failed to come up with convincing and meaningful rational substitutes for the passionate, irrational, and functional myths they destroy. It goes like clockwork. A religion emerges out of a dark age and darker impulses to structure a mass of confused men into a society. In the late decadent phase of social formation, people denounce the traditional mythology as useless because it cannot be described in a series of rational propositions that correspond to measurements of the natural world (each time it occurs, these rationalists believe they are original and unprecedented). A brief period of rationalist triumphalism is immediately followed by the realization that people are bored, disillusioned, directionless, and suicidal. Various rational alternatives are suggested for the now irretrievably damaged social myth, all of them gaudy and ridiculous (some of the silly 'eco religions' and ersatz pseudopsychological new age crap are good examples). Failing that, secular symbols are grafted onto the existing mythology like Band-Aids. Unfortunately, Martin Luther King is no substitute for Moses, nor Steve Jobs for Prometheus, so the secular symbols are subject to far more scrutiny and are inherently more fragile and short-lived. Whereas the promise of heaven in the afterlife could be kept hidden from practical experience, the promise of progress and utopian futures engineered by human intention is quickly put to the test and found wanting. Cracks begin to show in the foundation as people realize they've gained freedom, but given up structure, acquired power, but forgotten any meaningful reason to exercise it. Too late, they realize they made a horrible mistake, and then the tide goes out. As the rationalists pick the through the rubble looking for seeds and roots to sustain them another day, the plantlike peasants return to the old religion, which outlasts its assailants in one form or another.

And how many times exactly has this ever happened?

[Ibrahim]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

[Endovelico]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

Please try and put down in writing your arguments in favour of the rationality of God and religion, if you can. I guess you may finally find out why some people think that it is all irrational.

[Ibrahim]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

Please try and put down in writing your arguments in favour of the rationality of God and religion, if you can. I guess you may finally find out why some people think that it is all irrational.

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

[Endovelico]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

Please try and put down in writing your arguments in favour of the rationality of God and religion, if you can. I guess you may finally find out why some people think that it is all irrational.

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

[Taboo]

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

Are we talking about the timeless, boundless entity that wanted to kill all the Jews and start again with Moses until Moses makes it change its mind? The entity that can create worlds with a word but needs to kill every firstborn in Egypt to change the mind of the pharaoh? The entity that is depicted as literally torturing Job on a bet with Satan, and who, when called out on it, says who are you to hold me accountable? The God that floods the entire earth by adding what can be shown to be about 3,780,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water and then removes it all at the end of the flood, incidentally leaving no geological trace, whilst fitting several million species of animal on a wooden boat? The entity that forbids gay sex and promises to punish limited crimes (and, depending on the particular flavor, thoughts) with eternal punishment? Eternity, mind you, is quite a long time.

Or are we talking about a vague, deist conception of God?

[noddy]

All this nonsense about everyone else in the whole world throughout history being primitive simpletons except for us has been said before. Usually by people whose own civilization and way of life was running on fumes. But maybe this time it's different.

well said.

Well said? I think it was a pathetic demonstration of inability to address the actual issues. My post above can and should be criticized, but to avoid referring any of the basic questions mentioned there shows one's difficulty in giving a thoughtful answer to the issues raised.

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason. But I said quite a few other things, and those might have deserved a bit attention...

i ignored it because its gobbledygook.

are you suggesting a frontal lobotomy to take away the primitive instinctual bits.. life without inspiration and hornyness and love and and a.. deary me.

those bits are as much of us as any other bits and any system which isnt integrated with them is dead in the water.

[Endovelico]

(...) are you suggesting a frontal lobotomy to take away the primitive instinctual bits.. life without inspiration and hornyness and love and and a.. deary me.

So, religion is like a good f_ck... Fine, although to me it's more like rape...

[Simple Minded]

All this nonsense about everyone else in the whole world throughout history being primitive simpletons except for us has been said before. Usually by people whose own civilization and way of life was running on fumes. But maybe this time it's different.

well said.

Well said? I think it was a pathetic demonstration of inability to address the actual issues. My post above can and should be criticized, but to avoid referring any of the basic questions mentioned there shows one's difficulty in giving a thoughtful answer to the issues raised.

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason. But I said quite a few other things, and those might have deserved a bit attention...

Actually Endovelico I was responding to JN's post not yours. It seemed inappropriate to respond to such a concise statement with excess verbiage. That and due to laziness and lack of time, I tend to skim the threads and missed your post completely.

The individual/corporation/nation/tribe/political party who spends the most time and resources advertising their superiority is usually in the later stages of their bubble. The harder you have to blow to maintain the status quo, the closer you are to popping or deflating.

The cost of the façade is always an indicator. I would imagine you have seen the same on the university level. It seems obvious in America at present.

Besides brother, rudeness (like offense) is only in the mind of the perceiver. Never apologize.... it just confuses people...

[Simple Minded]

I've noted creepy people often worship a creepy god or ideology.

Decent people have decent ideologies or beliefs.

Theists and atheists are broad labels. Both groups have contained some of the nicest and nastiest people I have ever met.

The fact that you can find both creepy and decent people professing belief in the same ideology/god, tends to make me think individuals corrupt their beliefs more often than a specific belief X or Y corrupts individuals.

Of course, the professor may say that everyone else is a hypocrite, and they are the "pure" believer/practitioner.

[Parodite]

I've noted creepy people often worship a creepy god or ideology.

Decent people have decent ideologies or beliefs.

Theists and atheists are broad labels. Both groups have contained some of the nicest and nastiest people I have ever met.

Indeed. It all begs the question: why can people behave very differently while eating the same food, or behave very similar while eating very different food for that matter?

So maybe: it never is a book, an ideology, a religion or even a cultural heritage alone that makes us behave the way we do. Kid a) plays 24/7 violent computer games but remains sane and behave like a normal kid. Kid b) grabs a gun and starts killing kids in the school yard. The risk of seeing causations where there is correlation. Etc.

[Ibrahim]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

Please try and put down in writing your arguments in favour of the rationality of God and religion, if you can. I guess you may finally find out why some people think that it is all irrational.

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

[Ibrahim]

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

Are we talking about the timeless, boundless entity that wanted to kill all the Jews and start again with Moses until Moses makes it change its mind? The entity that can create worlds with a word but needs to kill every firstborn in Egypt to change the mind of the pharaoh? The entity that is depicted as literally torturing Job on a bet with Satan, and who, when called out on it, says who are you to hold me accountable? The God that floods the entire earth by adding what can be shown to be about 3,780,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water and then removes it all at the end of the flood, incidentally leaving no geological trace, whilst fitting several million species of animal on a wooden boat? The entity that forbids gay sex and promises to punish limited crimes (and, depending on the particular flavor, thoughts) with eternal punishment? Eternity, mind you, is quite a long time.

Or are we talking about a vague, deist conception of God?

Any God or gods. An atheist doesn't believe in any of them, so I'd like to hear why that is.

[Typhoon]

So I was rude by saying that "the reasons religions give us are good only for the more primitive minds"... Yes, I was and I shouldn't have written it. There were other and better ways to convey the idea that religion appeals to instincts, not to reason.

The claim that atheists are governed by reason, whereas theists are not, is little more than a self-serving tautology. There are clearly plenty of rational and irrational people on both "sides."

Please try and put down in writing your arguments in favour of the rationality of God and religion, if you can. I guess you may finally find out why some people think that it is all irrational.

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

I prefer the following point-of-view:

3. It does not matter whether or not god or gods exist.

[Endovelico]

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

Look at it in a different way:

1. I don't believe in UFO's until someone proves they exist.
2. I believe in UFO's until someone proves they don't exist.

[Simple Minded]

I've noted creepy people often worship a creepy god or ideology.

Decent people have decent ideologies or beliefs.

Theists and atheists are broad labels. Both groups have contained some of the nicest and nastiest people I have ever met.

Indeed. It all begs the question: why can people behave very differently while eating the same food, or behave very similar while eating very different food for that matter?

So maybe: it never is a book, an ideology, a religion or even a cultural heritage alone that makes us behave the way we do. Kid a) plays 24/7 violent computer games but remains sane and behave like a normal kid. Kid b) grabs a gun and starts killing kids in the school yard. The risk of seeing causations where there is correlation. Etc.

"Between stimulus and response, man has the ability to choose." - Viktor Frankl

The desire to hyper-simplify the world into binary segments or just a few segments fascinates me.

Lots of people can read a few paragraphs of an book or ideology that contains 1,000s of pages and buy-in or condemn the whole package. Ignoring parts of one's religion/ideology when it is convenient to do so is a timeless practice.

I often noted that the rabid Christian, Muslim, republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian, nationalist, etc. seem to spend equal amounts of time and effort projecting not only the positive aspects of their ideology, but also the negative. They often think themselves salesmen for their cause, and I suspect their ideological opposites often are glad they are so vocal.

Lots of times I have heard people make ten points to support their ideology. Their argument would have been much stronger if they had stopped at four points. I find it easy to agree with most people to the 30-40% level, and somewhere around 80% most of them seem to drive their train off their tracks.

Could all just be difference in personal experience.

[Mr. Perfect]

Some people are just geldings who can't make decisions or face opposition and whose only observable talents seem to be in offering excuses for the former and the latter. "if only they had stuck to 4 points" "I was just about to take a stand on something but then someone said something mean for no good reason. Who can possible take a position on something with all these mean people"

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

Neither has anything to do with reason. In both examples, people make a decision based on an emotional reaction, and when confronted with a contrary point of view, instead of asking themselves "Should I believe this?", ask themselves "Must I believe this?"

[Simple Minded]

Some people are just geldings who can't make decisions or face opposition and whose only observable talents seem to be in offering excuses for the former and the latter. "if only they had stuck to 4 points" "I was just about to take a stand on something but then someone said something mean for no good reason. Who can possible take a position on something with all these mean people"

Amen brother! Those people tick me off too!

Cosmic justice for all! Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord!!!

[Simple Minded]

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

Neither has anything to do with reason. In both examples, people make a decision based on an emotional reaction, and when confronted with a contrary point of view, instead of asking themselves "Should I believe this?", ask themselves "Must I believe this?"

Many times they ask "What will my peers think of me if I believe this? Will I lose my current status in the tribe?"

[Ibrahim]

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

I prefer the following point-of-view:

3. It does not matter whether or not god or gods exist.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but I presume that you would agree that your view qualifies as agnosticism and not atheism.

[Ibrahim]

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

So do you know that there is no God? Or are you just playing what you think are the percentages?