In the name of God...
So, I'm in science today, and someone randomly asks me when I Bar Mitzvah is. I say that I'm not having one. She asks why not. I say that I don't need to identify with the Jewish religion or pray to a god that doesn't exist.
Now, much to my surprise, another person replied to this, saying "but God is the creator of the universe!" This surprised me because I thought she was a sensible person. It depresses me greatly to find out that seemingly sensible person is a theist.
Well, it's not always that bad, unless it just gets stupid. Both these people didn't understand how there couldn't be a god because "What created the universe? Where did people come from?" Did we not learn about this in school?
I tried to explain evolution. "Oh yeah, like we come from slime!" was the reply.
I try to explain the inconsistencies of god; mainly, the paradox of omnipotence. "Can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?" I ask.
"But God can do everything!"
"So can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?"
"He can do everything!"
I start to get frustrated at this point: "Can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?"
"God can create a rock that humans can't lift!"
"But can God create a rock that God can't lift?"
"But he can do everything!"
At this point, someone at a different table started hearing the discussion, and started yelling at us for talking about religion in school. Soon, other people catch on, and the room is ablaze with shouts about how great God is. Seriously. There were 2 other atheists in the room, that I knew of. I actually heard someone shout "God is the ruler of the universe!"
Oh, and on an amusing note, there were also people complaining about how I was using male pronouns for God and that this made me sexist. I never used any pronouns for God. The people I was arguing with said "he" and "him". Also, there were people accusing me of being disrespectful of other religions and telling people they were stupid, just because I was trying to talk about some flaws with theism. Sure, I can be disrespectful of other religions, but all I did today was try to quietly talk with two other people!
Eventually the teacher catches on to everyone screaming over a quiet discussion I was trying to have with two classmates. He told us to stop. I said that they were the people shouting about it, and we were chatting quietly. "So the logical solution would be to stop talking," he said. Geez. Punish the people who did nothing wrong, huh?
What did I learn from this? Well, I think it's a small scale example of the effect religion has on the world. Something that started small (quiet discussion between 3 people) became huge (literally, the whole room was shouting). Furthermore, it gone blown way out of proportion (people saying I was sexist, accusing me of calling people stupid because they're religious) and made severaal people mad. Sure, you can say religion helps people be good, but it never stays an individual thing. The state of modern America proves this.
Now, much to my surprise, another person replied to this, saying "but God is the creator of the universe!" This surprised me because I thought she was a sensible person. It depresses me greatly to find out that seemingly sensible person is a theist.
Well, it's not always that bad, unless it just gets stupid. Both these people didn't understand how there couldn't be a god because "What created the universe? Where did people come from?" Did we not learn about this in school?
I tried to explain evolution. "Oh yeah, like we come from slime!" was the reply.
I try to explain the inconsistencies of god; mainly, the paradox of omnipotence. "Can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?" I ask.
"But God can do everything!"
"So can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?"
"He can do everything!"
I start to get frustrated at this point: "Can God create a rock so big that God can't lift it?"
"God can create a rock that humans can't lift!"
"But can God create a rock that God can't lift?"
"But he can do everything!"
At this point, someone at a different table started hearing the discussion, and started yelling at us for talking about religion in school. Soon, other people catch on, and the room is ablaze with shouts about how great God is. Seriously. There were 2 other atheists in the room, that I knew of. I actually heard someone shout "God is the ruler of the universe!"
Oh, and on an amusing note, there were also people complaining about how I was using male pronouns for God and that this made me sexist. I never used any pronouns for God. The people I was arguing with said "he" and "him". Also, there were people accusing me of being disrespectful of other religions and telling people they were stupid, just because I was trying to talk about some flaws with theism. Sure, I can be disrespectful of other religions, but all I did today was try to quietly talk with two other people!
Eventually the teacher catches on to everyone screaming over a quiet discussion I was trying to have with two classmates. He told us to stop. I said that they were the people shouting about it, and we were chatting quietly. "So the logical solution would be to stop talking," he said. Geez. Punish the people who did nothing wrong, huh?
What did I learn from this? Well, I think it's a small scale example of the effect religion has on the world. Something that started small (quiet discussion between 3 people) became huge (literally, the whole room was shouting). Furthermore, it gone blown way out of proportion (people saying I was sexist, accusing me of calling people stupid because they're religious) and made severaal people mad. Sure, you can say religion helps people be good, but it never stays an individual thing. The state of modern America proves this.
This rant brought to you by seth at 4:14 PM has:
81 Comments:
Everybody identifies God with male pronouns. Except for the incredibly liberal church my family likes to go to sometimes, which occasionally prays the "our Mother" instead of the "Our Father" and never really refers to God as anything (he/she).
Just because that first person is a theist doesn't mean she can't be sensible. It just means that that is how she chooses to live her life.
Now the whole not accepting evolution thing - if you believe in God, you don't believe in evolution. Well, at least the beginning of the world part. You probably believe in the we-no-longer-need-an-appendix-or-one-of-our-kidneys-or-the-coccyx part of evolution. I actually have no idea because am an not a theist; this is just my guess. However, they're arguments that God can do anything were VERY weak. This does not make them dumb people, just bad debaters. If there is a God, and he is omnipotent, then he can do anything, except for not being able to do something. He (or she - not being sexist here - I actually had an argument with my CCD teacher like 3 years ago about the whole "he" thing being sexist, ha!) is incapable of not being able to do something.
You were probably being slightly disrespectful, but then again, so were they.
How thick is this teacher anyway?? Was he out of the room or something?? Or is he just completely oblivious (you say this got into a full-blown argument, but he doesn't do anything for a long time).
Religion helps some people to be good. It does not necessarily make them good debaters or strengthen their arguments or mental capabilities, but I'm sure that many (or at least some) of these people are good, whether it was because of their faith or not.
All I'm trying to say is that agnostics are really the only people who can be completely sure of their religion. That does not make other people bad people, or even wrong because somebody has to be right, but nobody should get mad at somebody else because of their religion (unless they're really pushy about it, like they're the Camdens or something) because NOBODY KNOWS AND NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD!!!!! Until they die. And maybe not even then - I don't know.
This has gone on for far too long, and I'm going to stop thinking about this, and just relax and listen to Claudine Longet (ironically "God Only Knows").
~Mia
RE sensibility:
Oh, I'll still qualify someone as sensible if they're just a theist who chose religion to be a good person, or whatever. But when they completely disregard evolution, how is that sensible? This one person could not understand how we evolved from slime!
My teacher did tell some people to be quiet, but he did let us shout for a while. It was very weird.
Mia, does Santa exist?
Did they completely disregard evolution or did they just say that God created the world? Because, theists believe that some god created the world. They do not believe that the world was created from a bolt of lightning, which created some single-celled organism, which eventually became a person (is that the story? I took Bio 2 years ago, I'm not quite sure).
With the whole Santa thing, are you trying to say that because it is possible to know that there is no Santa (sorry if any little kids for some reason read this blog), it is possible to know if there is no God??? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT A GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A GOD DOES EXIST!!! Religion is good for some people. For me, it is a waste of my Sunday mornings because I understand right and wrong and I think I'm a pretty good person (please, I spent my last hour of school this year helping someone who is not even a friend with old math homework - now that is charitable).For you Seth, it apparently does absolutely nothing as well. But for some people, believing in this greater power that may or may not exist helps them to better themselves.
I think I know that Santa does not exist because my parents would notice if presents they didn't buy for me suddenly appeared under the tree.
~Mia
They completely disregarded evolution.
the analogy with santa is that people can know that santa exist because all evidence points to the fact that somebody just made him up. it's the same thing with god. logical thought would show that the only reason the idea of god came to being was because early man could not explain its existence and everything else's. now that we can explain that, the idea of god is obsolete. it needs to be unproven just as much as santa does.
Evolution is a theory. Not a theorum. It is a logical solution, and it is how we came to be if there really is no God. But it is a theory, which means it is not proven, which means that the concept of God is still a possibility.
~Mia
you know, gravity still hasn't been proven either. it's still a possibility that the only thing connecting us to the ground is supernatural velcro.
What are you trying to say? That even though evolution hasn't been proven it must be right because there isn't another logical explanation? Another logical explanation is the existence of a higher power - a God. So that isn't a very good argument.
~Mia
I'm trying to say that your statement that evolution is just a theory is a weak argument itself. A theory is more than just an idea. A theory is a deep idea which can be applied to all or most relevant scenarios and work. It is an idea which answers all or most of the questions. It's an idea which has physical evidence in the world, not just hearsay.
Sure, evolution hasn't been proven. But it never will be proven either, because you can't go back in time and check it. So why does anybody care about it? Because it works in the present, and will in the future. Theism does not work. It does not provide a logical, sensible explanation for any aspect of life. It requires, and I hesitate to say this, a leap of faith.
I'll say it again: It is not necessary to disprove god's existence, for the same reasons that it is not necessary to disprove Harry Potter's existence. God is just a fictional character that got blown way out of proportion.
What is your view on ABORTION?
While Muslims and Catholics even regard contraceptive evil, Would you like to know what do most people think of these religious taboo?
See it from the divine perspective ... http://divinetalk.blogspot.com/
I presume that was spam, so I shall not respond.
Did somebody make up God? Do you know who "made up" God? JK Rowling made up Harry Potter. We know that because she is still here and is able to tell us that. JK Rowling is the proof that Harry Potter does not exist. There is absolutely nothing to tell us that God does not exist.
Your argument that theism does not work is not just a bad argument; it does not exist. Theism works just as much as evolution. We do not know which is true. Neither can be proven. We will never know which is true.
In reply to the SPAM, people who think that contraceptives are evil are nuts. The use of contraceptives lowers the pregnancy rate, and lowers the need for abortions.
~Mia
Sure, evolution works better than theism. It doesn't require any faith or belief in the unbelievable.
Do I really have to go over who came up with god again? Geesh. Many many years ago, early man was wondering around the planet. Let's zoom in on an individual, and name him Zog. Zog andhis friends just hunted down a healthy, nourishing mammoth and dragged a bounty of its meat into their warm, protective cave. Zog's friend Gob just went out to get water from a nearby freshwater stream, and berries from the nearby forest. All is good in Prehistoric-land.
Eventually, Zog starts thinking about how grand his world is. Everything is perfect; the food, the water, the shelter, it's all there for him! It fits his needs like a glove! Almost as if someone designed it for him...whaddaya know, it's so perfect, that someone must have designed it especially for him! And this someone must be pretty darn powerful, and able to hide itself, because Zog can't see it! Oh wow! Sound familiar?
In case that doesn't work:
There once was a puddle, lying on the sidewalk. It was thinking to itself about how perfectly it fit into the hole it was in. Almost as if it was meant to be there...and if it was meant to be there, something must have put it there!
Eventually, the puddle starts to evaporate. As it slowly disappears, it reassures itself that since something put it there, that something will keep it there. After all, if it was meant to be there, why would it disappear? It keeps trying to convince itself as it slowly and slowly evaporates....until it's gone.
OK, didn't quite get the puddle thing, but whatever.
You do not know that it was Zog who came up with this idea of God because someone must have made his life so perfect. You do not know that Adam and Eve KNEW that they were created by God because he talked to them and told them not to eat from the forbidden tree and all that jazz. You do not know that some other guy KNEW he was created by God because God talked to him. You cannot use the fact that God is obviously fictional to back up the lack of need to disprove God's existence (like the fact that Harry Potter is obviously fictional backs up the lack of need to disprove his existence). Harry Potter is obviously fictional. That is because we know who created him. We know that she made him up. We do not know who was the first person to think of the concept of "God," so we do not know whether he is fictional or not. Therefore, if you are to believe in the non-existence of God, it is truly a belief and NOT, as you say, truth (well it could be, but then it is not a known truth).
Evolution requires the belief that a lightning bolt (please correct me if I'm wrong - like I said, I don't remember exactly how evolution was supposed to start) struck a puddle of water and created life. That is not a proven fact, thus it requires faith in the unknown. The theory of evolution is no better than the theory of evolution.
~Mia
I must congratulate you on your Zog story. Very entertaining.
I'm trying to say that you do not know for sure that JK Rowling is writing fiction. She could be writing a biography of a very weird and misfortunate kid who lives in England. Yet why do you not need to disprove that? My guess is because it seems very irrational and nonsensical anyways. The same goes for the Bible; by the standards you'd be using for HP, it doesn't make sense either. The only difference is that it's old and is missing an author's name.
The analogy here is that the Bible, the main proponent for theism, is a book, just like Harry Potter. There is no evidence that the Bible is not fiction. But modern scientific theory serves as evidence that is.
Oh, and the theory of evolution doesn't requre that a lightning bolt was involved. Just that inorganic materials combined somehow (a lightning bolt would speed up the process, but there are other ways) and became organic. Then they became moe and more copmlicated over the millenia, blah blah.
All right, let me put it this way. How are we supposed to know that there is not such a thing as magic?? I mean, if Harry Potter is true, as you are saying it could be if JK Rowling was writing a biography, then there could be a Ministry of Magic covering up the all the magical things that are going on without all of us knowing. Is there really any proof that magic cannot exist? Likewise, there is no proof that the Bible (or other religious book) cannot be true. There are theories made that create alternative possibilities, but these alternative possiblities (evolution) are no more reliable than any theistic views. There may not be any proof that the Bible is not fiction, but there isn't any proof that it IS fiction either.
~Mia
There's more evidence that it's fiction than there is that it's not.
Great argument. Especially when there is no evidence actually provided. Really stellar.
~Mia
Do you really want me to describe how, scientifically, every strange phenomenon described in the Bible is impossible?
If a God does exist, then they are possibly possible.
~Mia
Ye gods man, you're only 13?
Ha ha, sorry, it just amuses me to be on the other end of that compliment. Whoo, I'm old now. I rock.
As for the current comment debate, I'd get involved, but I try not to jump in these things unless the side I'm on is outnumbered.
I'll just cheer on the sidelines instead. How's that?
Sure, sounds good.
Mia:
If a god does exist, then anything is potentially (I think that's the word you were looking for) possible. But we can't choose to apply that to some parts of the debate and not others. Let's let science be the standard from which we're arguing, since that seems to have worked before.
What? Harry Potter doesn't exist? Now I'll never go to Hogwarts.
I agree with Mia, there is no proof either way. If there is a God like being, I bet that it is like nothing any human has thought of. It probably isn't consious either.
However, when you're dealing with theism, anything IS potentially (yeah, that works better than possibly) possible. Theism isn't about science. If there really isn't a God, then you are right, most to all of the events occuring in the Bible are impossible. But if there is a God, they wouldn't be. So you can't use the impossibility of those phenomena as proof that God does not exist.
~Mia
Thanks for your support Shana!! (your comment just showed up now).
When you were 11, did you hope that you would get an owl telling you that you were a witch, or am I alone there??
~Mia
Ok, Pixelation, now I'm outnumbered.
Shana---you just contradicted yourself. You said a god would be like nothing anyone could imagine, and then you try to imagine what it is.
Mia---I'm going to go back to my argument that it isn't even necessary to disprove God. It originated as a way to explain what mankind couldn't explain. Now we can explain that, and are continuing to unravel nature's mysteries as time passes. The idea of a god is obsolete.
You do not know that it was created as a way to explain what mankind could not. Were you there??? The person who started the idea of "God" could have known God because God created him or her and God was a bit more talkative back then (like Adam and Eve - they supposedly spoke with God). There is a need to disprove God (if God does not exist and should be disproven) because we do not know.
~Mia
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eh, I saw what you wrote in the email alert. Yes, I think theism is irrational.
Hmm?? Confusion.
~Mia
I was talking to Smiterbob.
Deleted post. Got it.
~Mia
Hey, I can argue for or against God, depends on how I'm feeling and who I'm talking to. When talking to my very theistic friend, I argue against the existance of God. Against Seth, I argue for the existance, or possibility of God. I did really hope I would get a letter from Hogwarts when I was 11. I know I said that God is probably like nothing we can imagine, but that doesn't mean I can't try, I'm just stating possibilities. My personal, and still not completely formed beliefs are that there is God, but my Godlike figure is kind of the reason that science works. For instance, it is not likely for life to show up at any given time or place in the galaxy, and my explanation for the reason we were so lucky as to have it start here was God, and God helped evolution happen. Or God could be what atoms are made of, the basic element of everything, or something Nitrogen-esque that you can't live without. Or maybe why gravity works, but whatever God is or isn't there is no way to know for certain. Which gives plenty of opportunities for nice, long posts.
PS There is this cool site where you can talk to people kind of like this called youthnoise that I think you guys might like.
http://www.youthnoise.com/
After you make an account, go to the Noiseboards and have fun!
You rock, Shana!!
~Mia
Thanks!
Ha ha. Seth got outnumbered.
As far as evolution, it is a theory that is impossible to prove (without a time machine or some severe Sherlocke Holmesian logic), but is possible to disprove. Refutability is just about the most important characteristic a theory can have by the way. Otherwise it's just faith.
The Bible and ANY CONCEPTION of God is irrefutable. Try it. Grab the nearest theist and ask them this question, "Is there any set of circumstances that could possibly exist that would cause you to not believe in God?"
The answer will inevitably be a negative.
And evolution does not require life to even originate. That's a problem for science and evolutionary scientists, but not the theory of evolution. In fact, prove the theory right or wrong either way and you'll still have the same problems. That's why your argument went on for so long- it was equivocation.
As for whether there is proof or not of whether the gods truly exist. No, there isn't. There's a pork-load of evidence though (again, you all were equivocating). But, since there is no rational, reasonable support for the existence of Zeus, I shall not waste a cow's life to pray.
Nor shall I for Odin, or Yahweh, or Vishnu, or Quetzalcoatl, or...
You get my point.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F. Roberts
The idea of a god is quite possible, but it depends on how "God" is defined. If a god does not wish to be known as a god, what's to say he can't cover up all his divine tracks?
Besides, theism does not always equal belief in a conscious being in the sky. One can think about gravity and say "Gravity is a god," because gravity fits with their definition of God.
I prefer to think of gods as, for lack of a better word, "essences:" a star's starness is a god. The star is not a god itself, but the fact that it is a star can be interpreted as divine. Or it can be interpreted as not divine.
The absence of gods cannot be proven, as theological definitions vary.
Wow, we are all ganging up against Seth, aren't we?
I agree with you Anonymous - the absence of gods cannot be proven.
~Mia
Obviously, I'm talking about the omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent god described in Judeo-Christian mythology (fine, "scripture").
"Obviously, I'm talking about the omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent god described in Judeo-Christian mythology (fine, "scripture")."
Oh well THEN I agree with you! That kind of GOd is highly unlikely, though there still is no evidence against it or for it.
There's as much evidencd (for and against) as there is for Santa. The evidence for Yahweh is just a helluva lot older. That's why I've been saying that it's not necessary to disprove its existence.
Oh, and anonymous (I call you that even though I know who you are, and could easily walk into the living room to tell you this), that logic could be applied to anything. I could say that I don't believe in cheese, because my idea of cheese might be a giant penguin that soars through the sky and eats people who are bad.
However, I don't say that, because cheese has a set definition; a tasty dairy byproduct. "God" also has a set definition, that of a deity; a divine, conscious being that is very powerful.
If someone thinks that something's "essence" makes it a god, they should refrain from using the word "god". Varying definitions for theological terms is one of the many things that makes religion a confusing mass of nonsense.
"The evidence for Yahweh is just a helluva lot older."
It's just a lot older and because of that we do not know if it exists. The evidence you talk about does not exist (that we know of) and thus cannot be used to disprove the existence of a God.
~Mia
Durh, I'm talking about the bible.
Which isn't exactly evidence - at least, it doesn't prove anything (or show that nothing needs to be proven or whatever).
~Mia
"We've been here before."
"I've seen that tree"
(Vicious circle).
P* tweet, tweet, tweet
True, Mia, but it's what Christians use as one of the main pieces of evidence for the existence of a deity. That and the fact that the world exists.
Um, yeah, but "cheese" is a material object and God is a much more subjective concept.
I don't live with you and to my knowledge have never been in your living room.
Also, a god = a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.
Nowhere does that say that a god is neccessarily conscious.
So the bible does not prove that God DOES exist. But it also doesn't prove that God does NOT exist - so I don't see why you brought it up.
~Mia
Funny. Anonymous uses the same arguments and speech patterns as a certain member of my family. Anyways, assuming a god did exist, it would exist just as much as cheese.
And Mia, all I said was that the Bible is viewed as evidence.
"Anyways, assuming a god did exist, it would exist just as much as cheese."
Wow. Now that's a sentence I never thought I would ever read.
And so we now both agree that the Bible is NOT actually evidence for either side, correct??
~Mia
Oh, I never actually considered it evidence, I was just trying to say that many Christians do. My bad.
So yea, we're in agreement (for once).
I do not believe in cheese. There is no such thing, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.
that's very funny, Shana. ha ha ha. ha ha. ha.
Seth - You mean in agreement for once concerning religion. Because we agree on a lot of other things (the idiocy of Bush, for example). And if someone was trying to prove the existence of God I would be on your side - that the existence of God is not proven.
Shana - HAHAHA!!! Cheese is an illusion (wow 3rd Gilmore Girls reference on this post). It's there one minute, and then it's gone. It never really was.
~Mia
“If God exists, he certainly existed before religion... That he should have been taken up by a glorified supporters’ club is only a matter of psychological interest.”
Pixelation - I completely agree with you (or whoever said that quote). You don't have to feel guilty if you don't go to church every Sunday, or if you don't always keep kosher. Religion isn't about honoring God; it's about the effect it has on the individual person.
~Mia
I've got something else to say to the "religion-is-okay-because-it-makes-people-happy" argument:
Just because something makes people happy, or gives them peace, does not make it a good thing. Thousands, hell, millions of Americans are at peace knowing that George Bush is taking care of them. Does that mean it's a good thing that he's in charge?
Wow, good point Seth! Ok, what makes people happy isn't always right, but as I can not imagine any scenario where everyone is happy. The problem with your analogy is this: When religion makes its followers happy and no one sad, (except possibly the insane mega-religious people) then it is a good thing. Bush makes about half of America happy, but along with the liberals of America, he also makes Iraq and other countries unhappy by randomly invading them with shaky excuses.
Good argument, Shana!!!
Religion helps the people that it helps. The people that it doesn't help can just live out their lives without any harm from the relgion.
~Mia
I don't understand that "problem", Shana. People are happy knowing Bush is in charge in the same way people are happy knowing (believing) God is in charge. Just because Bush makes some people displeased doesn't mean the other people aren't experiencing false comfort.
But we know that the people who feel comfortable with Bush are experiencing false comfort (because we are all intelligent Dems). We do not know if the people who believe in God have "false" comfort.
Plus, their belief will probably keep them happy until they die and find out the truth. The people who believe in Bush will stay happy until they find out that he ruined their Social Security or until the draft has to start again and they get sent to Iraq.
~Mia
"But we know that the people who feel comfortable with Bush are experiencing false comfort (because we are all intelligent Dems)"
Uh....I could say the same thing about theists, and me being an intelligent atheist...
I was joking.
You cannot possibly know that they are experiencing false comfort because you do not know that there is a God.
~Mia
Just like how I can't possibly know that the moon isn't a big hunk of cheese.
Hey, for all we know it could be - there is no proof that there isn't a God.
~Mia
The moon is a big hunk of cheese! And as cheese doesn't exist, the moon doesn't exist....
These comments are going way too long! Wow.
Yeah, we've gotten into a pattern and we're sort of saying the same things over and over again and not really proving anything.
~Mia
And we talk over and over about cheese. Why cheese?
Because cheese is good.
~Mia
I tried to find a cheese quote to use here, but there aren't very many. I ended up reading coffee quotes instead and desperately wanting to pour myself a cup.
Just for clarification:
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. It the process by which life evolved, not by which it was created. You may have been taught about different theories of the origins of life, but they are not technically a part of evolutionary theory.
Seth - I know it is hard it is to fight this fight. I went through the same thing at about the same time. Don't give up and don't let yourself get too easily frustrated. It sounds like you are doing an excellent job holding your own.
To use Richard Dawkin's argument: The theists are exactly right. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods. Therefore the only perfectly logical choice is agnosticism. You also cannot prove or disprove the existence of fairies. So why not believe in fairies too?
LOL, what a delightful argument.
Diane (last comment) is exactly right: the existence of God cannot be disproven, therefore the only epistemologically defensible position is agnosticism. However, as a matter of daily existence, I live my life as if there is no god, so for all practical purposes I am an atheist. If anyone presses me on this, I explain that I am an epistemological agnostic, but a pragmatic atheist.
FYI, there are plenty of defensible positions which accept both the existence of a god or gods, but also accept the reality of evolution. These positions require that one accept the Bible as a literary and allegorical document rather than as a word for word account of the history of the universe. There are plenty of rational people who take this view.
Mrs. Coulter, I presume you've read "The Golden Compass"?
Indeedy-o. Mrs. Coulter is merely a pseudonym that I've chosen for myself (I have a very real daughter named Lyra, though). :-)
Well Mia, if you mean, "who made up Christ", then Jospeh Atwill makes a good case in Caesar's Messiah that the Roman family of Flavius did. They needed a way to premanently defuse the appearance of OT style 'militant' messiahs, which kept continually rising up against Rome. So, Titus Flavius had his adopted Jewish son Josephus intentionally alter the date when events in Titus' campaign happened, to make it 'fit' the prophecies in the Book of Daniel in the OT, then with Josephus' help, someone named John, who was a leader of the Jewish rebellion, but which Titus spared during the campaign, invented a Messiah whose birth, teachings, etc. also 'fit' the Book of Daniel, along with predictions that he would appear again. In the first century, nearly all Biblical Scholars identified Titus as the second coming predicted by Jesus. Only later, after all the original Flavians were all dead and the Catholic Church was a power unto itself, did the prophecies get reinterpreted to point at some imaginary future time. However, doing so invalidates the Book of Daniel, since he gave 'very' specific time periods between the appearance of a messiah, the destruction of the temple and other events, which Josephus went to such great lengths to adjust to fit. These reinterpretations where made 'before' modern archiology ever proved that Josephus made up his dates. It also explains several other things. 1. Why a Flavian just 'happened' to be the first official Pope, after Paul, who supposed annointed him. 2. How the Flavians, who where basically atheists, that like other Romans before them, had themselves declared Gods to better rule the ignorant masses that did believe, somehow became Christians. 3. How it was that every event in the NT happened in the same order and location, and often with nearly the same people, in War of the Jews, which Josephus wrote as the 'official' record of Titus' campaign. 4. The coincidences of things like Titus dragging Jewish rebels from the same sea, "like fish", that Christ supposedly made the comment, "You will become fishers of men." (Logically, if he was refering to the same event, it would make more sense to say, you will 'become the fish'.) 5. Why when the names did differ, they where always some variation on the same name, like Elazaer and Lazarus. And so on.
Now, we can also pin down with some accuracy who invented Greek Gods, Roman Gods, the first authors of Hinduism and others. Just because the original OT doesn't contain puzzles, like Atwill suggests the NT does, which point to the name of the author(s), nor a signature from any of them, doesn't make it any less likely to have been made up.
And if it isn't, consider this. The OT was the basis of the Jewish revolt against Rome *and* later the rise of Mohammed, who created Islam, both cases military messiahs, who believed all false religions should be destroyed. That would make 'them'. The people that force women, according to Islam, to marry their own rapists, even if they have to divorce their own husbands to do so, the 'true followers' of the Bible's God. If such a God existed.
Now, personally.. I find that a scary thought, but it does fit the fire and brimstone, "I just kill people I don't like, seemingly without what humans define as conscience or consistency, when ever I feel like it", God found in the OT. He does after all have a really nasty habit of changing his mind and destroying anything that annoys him, if you believe the OT. But, one has to wonder, if that God exists, how do you explain why places like San Fransisco haven't gone the way of Saddom and Gammora... Maybe God just likes the bridge? lol
I agree with Pixelation's earlier post. There could be a God, but nobody really knows. I could say that I believe in the Great Pumpkin, and you would dismiss me. But I would argue that there is no proof against him, therefore, theoretically, he could exist. The same goes for GOd. CHances are, he was made up, but for all we know he could exist. However, teh chance that he exists is smaller than googleplex to one, it is so minute, the smallest chance you can imagine, plus more, that I don't beleive inn God. Let's assume the universe is infinite. That's infinite planets, and then infinite minds to think up things that might exist, but they don't exist.
In other words, the chances that God exists are so incredibly small, that I disregard them. In that manner, i live a good, Jihad-free life. I could buy into religion, but it causes more pain that good, so what's the point.
By the way, I am an absolutist, so you'll never convince me otherwise.
Yes. And the stupidest thing imho Nauticashades is the insistence of some, especially the anti-evolution bunch, to talk about a "God of the Gaps". One person I read some comments on the subject from redeifned it, "The Incredible Shrinking God!" lol After all, what sane believer would even try to present God as some unseen force, which the more we know about the universe, biology and even evolution (which they constantly insist hasn't changes since 1955, out of ignorance), gets smaller and smaller, with less and less useful to do and more and more irrelevant to our understanding. I find it quite funny how they are trying to 'prove' supposed Biblical creationism by turning God into the very thing they 'think' they are preventing, by actually suggesting that he might exist, but be essentially irrelevant to 'everything' we manage to fill in the gaps of. Though, their argument is we, "can't" fill in the gaps and they have a whole list on them, all of which have been debunked, disproven or solved since Darwin first proposed and interesting, but since found too simplistic and abandoned idea. lol
I mean really, what is more sacreligious, claiming God doesn't exist at all, due to lack of evidence, or claiming he is nothing more than a filing clerk, who 'maybe' once enough gaps are filled in, does nothing by sit around nudging a few subatomic quatum to make 'directed' events happen? And what happens, as with the resent experiments in limited quatum teleportation, when we reach a point where nudging subatomic particles is possible, which isn't that far off? ;)
Congrats on the COTG listing. To paraphrase a greater mind than my own, "The fault lies not in our gods, but in ourselves."
A few unfortunate observations:
People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of any arguments to the contrary or contradictions within that belief system.
A person who tells you that they are about to tell you the truth (about anything) is lying, either in substance or in the assertion that what they are about to say is incontrovertible. If this were not so, why are they trying to prejudice your opinion of their argument ("facts")?
Agnosticism might be the only logically defensible position because of the disproof problem, but that merely straddles the issues of probability (50-50). Within the 50% probability that belongs to a deity of some kind, There are a myriad of possibilities that are almost as infinite as the imagination of the human mind itself. At least half of that 50% should be reserved for a creator that has no relevance in my day to day life. (Does the watchmaker constantly knock on your door and tinker with your watch?) What miniscule part of that remaining 25% should we reserve for Jehovah? Ahura Mazda? My cousin Maryanne? Hey, don't rule out my cousin; that would be about as incognito as you could get. "Mysterious ways", you know! ;-)
Someone in the ID crowd tried to prove God (back before they started insisting that God wasn't *actually* part of ID), with an equation. He concluded that it gave the existance for any god to be like 60% or something. The problem is, if you weighted the likelyhood of any of its factors lower, like one person commenting on it did, you could end up with anything from 0% to 100%. There is no more of a 50-50 chance for God than there is for leprechauns, unicorns or elves. Lack of evidence can mean anything from 99.9% certainty, but 'you just haven't seen it yet' to a 0.00000000000000001% probability. People that have spent most of their lives 'not' seeing God, but seeing a lot of silly nonsense, made up BS and intolerance based on it all tend to go for the later possiblity. 50-50 is merely a 'politically correct' way of saying, I don't feel 'comfortable' with completely rejecting the idea entirely. Most people fall into that category because its simply easier to assume something 'may' be real, than admit they don't understand the explaination for why it probably isn't, ala ghosts, psychics, healing magnets, dowsing or any other superstition. It only gets worse when they witness one of them and can't find and explaination, and refuse to accept te most reasonable one, that they deluded themselves, because the brain is designed to make shit up from past experience, when the perceptions available don't make any logical sense.
I used to spend hours studying the pattern in the paint on the walls of my room and joked about how much the pattern of wood on a hallway closet door looked like the Shroud of Turin (note that this was not a shroud in the Bible, but instead the traditional ceremonial burial robes and a head cloth. The only 'shroud' was about the size of a the napkin you get at a resteraunt to put on your lap. lol), but I unlike me, some people would have seriously taken the demons and monsters in the wall paint as a sign of demon possession and prayed to the damn closet door. We see what we believe, not what it there. That is why some clever fellow came up with the truely bizarre concept that just 'maybe' having dozens of people attempt the same identical things and seeing if they all 'saw' the same thing, might be marginally better than everyone assuming the bird droppings on a statue were talking to them, because they looked vaguely like Jesus, or similar crazy stuff. ;) lol
Ok, what makes people happy isn't always right, but as I can not imagine any scenario where everyone is happy. The problem with your analogy is this: When religion makes its followers happy and no one sad, (except possibly the insane mega-religious people) then it is a good thing.
If Pfizer were to invent a pill with positively no side effects, which made you "happy", would you support a move to mandate its consumption by everyone? If not, then your position is indefensible: you are holding some "genuine" happiness to be more valuable than the "false" happiness induced by the drug.
With respect to agnosticism being the only epistemically defensible position: I would have to disagree. If one accepts the requirements that modern science uses to judge the comparative worth of competing theories - explanatory power - then agnosticism is not defensible without extremely broad definitions of evidence, so broad as to support belief. There is no positive evidence of the existence of "God". We may, therefore, safely reject those theories until such time as there is evidence that supports the existence of such a being.
To withhold judgement incase some unknown evidence does appear at some point in the future seems beyond any reasonable justification. Reject now what we have no reason to believe now. The good thing about being rational entities is that we are able to revise our opinions and beliefs in the light of new knowledge.
"We may, therefore, safely reject those theories until such time as there is evidence that supports the existence of such a being. To withhold judgement incase some unknown evidence does appear at some point in the future seems beyond any reasonable justification. Reject now what we have no reason to believe now. The good thing about being rational entities is that we are able to revise our opinions and beliefs in the light of new knowledge."
This is all perfectly fine as long as you don't try to get theists to believe there is no God. As long as you have a "ignoring them and letting them do what they want" attitude, you can believe whatever you want.
Post a Comment
<< Home