If it is of any consolation, I think people saying that there are aliens among us, but we can't dectect them in any way possible fall in the same category of people that claim god(s) exist (or the FSM, etc.) but we can't detect them.
At least you are consistent. That is the crux of my whole argument here - many, many people that are vehemently against the idea that God exists accept other theories that are no more scientifically valid, yet pretend to some sort of rational superiority.
The debate already starts there, and has rather to do with semantics (omnipotent in my view is exactly what it means as explaned in the dictionary; if people use personal interpretations of a certain terminology, one can never come to any fruitful debate).
That is not actually a personal interpretation. It is a domain specific (religious philosophy) definition that I did not come up with. It's very, very common for specific domains to take a common English word and attach a domain specific definition or connotation to it (e.g., theory). The problem with omnipotence as used in religion is that there are lots of religious people that toss the term around, doing exactly as you do, thinking it means the dictionary definition.
Now, take the FSM: can you actually prove it doesn't exist? As it is equally (or even more) consistent than most religious claims,
You keep conflating a belief that God exists with various religions. It is perfectly possible to believe in God and not believe the nonsense that religions claim. FSM and other religions all have ridiculous contentions in them that do not make any sense (beer volcanoes? all the animals in the world being saved from a flood on a boat?), even thought they might be internally consistent. All that is necessary for a sensible, consistent deistic theory is the assumption that there are dimensions/realms/universes/whatever that we can't currently observe by scientific means. Maybe you think that is nonsense.
Only if the theories lend themselves to falsification, at least in principle.
Just to be snarky, most deistic theories lend themselves to falsification. All you have to do is die:-)
Well..I'm not going to debate the whole thing again; I would have thought you had your fill with the other poster.;-)
yeah, I did pose that question to another poster, but he didn't answer it either. Besides, I am pretty insatiable when it comes to philosophic debates.
As for the reincarnation of Napoleon, I would be skeptical based on the fact that the theory of reincarnation doesn't allow for transferral of memories, or anything concrete that would enable this person to have any knowledge of his previous lives. So, his claim is logically inconsistent. He might be the reincarnation of Napoleon, but he wouldn't be able to know it. That is the crucial difference between all of your "similar" cases and deism: deism provides a logically consistent explanation for observed phenomena that does not contradict other observed phenomena. In certain instances (pre-Big Bang, for example) there are no competing explanations. Let's look at your example of the tooth fairy. It is trivial to prove there is not a creature that removes teeth from under pillows and leaves behind money other than parents. In fact, my parents didn't do that; the few times I left teeth, I got nothing. Now, if my teeth disappeared, money appeared in their place, and my parents told me they didn't do it, I'd have some reason to at least consider tooth fairies as the explanation.
(Now, as for my personal vision on religion and the existence of an all-powerful being:
This is an example of religion facing some of the same PR issues science does - it gets misrepresented by people that don't really understand it, this misrepresentation is blindly defended by still others that don't understand it, and suddenly nobody believes in evolution b/c "I ain't descended from no monkey". God is NOT all-powerful in the sense that you mean it, that is not really what omnipotent means as applied by religious scholars. Omnipotent is better translated as "possesses all power that exists". If it can logically be done, God can do it.
he proof that something exist has to be delivered by those who make the claim, not by those who hear the claim.
I'm not trying to prove God exists, and I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else God exists. I'm trying to point out the bizarre mind-set of non-deists towards belief in God. It is a logically consistent, non-falsified theory that serves to explain observed phenomena. Non-deists are willing to consider other theories that have no more support than deism, but react with remarkable hostility towards the idea that God might exist. If I stated that I believed there were sentient races possessing advanced technology in another galaxy, I might get an argument, but I doubt I would have people calling me brain-damaged or a loon. I could even speculate that they had developed technologies that our current understanding suggests are impossible, and these people would accept that the aliens had figured out ways around the perceived limitations. But any theorizing that life exists in a dimension in addition to the spatial and temporal, and that maybe other sentiences exist there, too, is rather vehemently attacked.
It isn't political psychiatry in the sense that it is used to further political power, but the basic
idea of using psychiatry as an end run around law to get rid of undesirables is not just a symptom of Chinese society.
Me: I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally
Thee: Well, I'm not sure if he actually said it that way, but maybe he misfrased it
What Bobby_Mahoney said was: "*loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves." I pointed out that if you DON'T verify it for yourself, you A) don't really know whether you could have or not and B) don't know what to believe. So, the ability to verify for ones self, without the actual verification, is completely meaningless as far as determining truth. So, he didn't actually say one should verify everything before believing it (I took this to mean accepting something as true), but he either implied it or made a nonsensical statement.
I refute, however, that there is no difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim; the difference lies exactly in the ability to falsify
Of course, that's pretty much the definition. My point is that all of these people that pooh-pooh the idea of God b/c it can't be scientifically confirmed or denied, accept all kinds of other beliefs in their lives that either can't be, or aren't, scientifically confirmed or denied. And one more time, in terms of utility for determining truth, there is no difference between can't and don't scientifically verify. You can't even say that something IS scientifically verifiable if you don't actually verify it. So, on the one hand, you and others think it silly to believe in God without scientific evidence that He exists; on the other hand, I am quite certain you believe lots of things to be true that you have never scientifically verified. In fact, implicit in your argument is the belief that science can explain all of reality. On what evidence do you base this belief?
there is the possibility of verifying it - regardless of whether one does it or not.
Right. But my point is, if you don't verify something, regardless of whether you can or not, you are simply taking it on faith. There is no practical difference between being unable to, and simply not bothering to, verify something. Either way, I am taking a position without any actual evidence to support it. Which people do all the time, b/c actually verifying every belief you form throughout your life is impractically time and resource consuming. Most beliefs are based on probability - I don't run chemical analysis on my sandwich b/c the statistical likelihood of my sandwich being intentionally or unintentionally poisoned is small.
This point doesn't really speak to religious belief, per se; I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally. It is a completely impractical philosophy. And it makes even less sense to only believe what you "can verify". The ability to verify a position w/o actually verifying it tells you nothing. I can verify your gender. That fact doesn't help me in any way decide whether I think you are male or female.
just that the education system has a strong tendency to indoctrinate those [Democratic] values
You know, I have heard this many, many times, mostly as an indictment of the educational system. I'm not saying the educational system doesn't have problems, but I always found this to be a weird thing for Republicans to point out. "Educated people tend to vote Democrat." It could reflect some sort of bias in the educational system, or it could simply reflect a bias of informed, intelligent people towards Democrat. If I were trying to support the Republican party, I think I would try to downplay this particular trend. Then again, what do I know about political maneuvering?
I don't think never having been exposed to anything past basic algebra makes someone a dumbass. I don't even think being unable to grasp anything past basic algebra makes someone a dumbass.
5) Raise instead of lower the requirements in order to graduate high school. One of my friends has a daughter who just started high school this year. The only math requirements for her to graduate are two semesters of math. What this means is that they're only required to take and pass Pre-Algebra I & II. Since most everyone on here are IT pros of some kind, I'm sure you're aware that this doesn't cut it for college. Algebra I & II, Geometry, and Trig should be the minimum requirements, IMHO
I disagree, and here's why: graduating high-school should not simply be viewed as a pre-cursor to a college education. Students should have the option to take more math & science in preparation for college, sure. But the kid who just wants to graduate high-school so he can at least have the satisfaction of achieving the goal he was forced to work towards for 10 years, then go work in his dad's mechanic shop, why does he need Trig? A surprising number of kids have no interest in and/or ability to go to college. Why force them to prepare for it?
The problem with your philosophy is the definition of "results". You (and others) define it as "higher test scores". But that's a bad criteria. It's actually quite hard to both educate a student and teach them to pass a standardized test. Countless studies have shown that standardized tests only measure the students ability to take that test. So, in order to receive funding, schools must teach students how to pass tests. Which means they can't spend much time actually educating the students. Which means the intelligent kids get overlooked - they are already passing tests. So the vast majority of a teacher's time is now spent teaching stupid or apathetic, or both, kids how to pass a test. And when the kid simply CAN NOT or WILL NOT learn, the teacher is blamed for "not teaching", when in fact what happened is the student didn't learn. There is a huge difference, and only one of those can the teacher control.
Also, a circle is the most material efficient design, is easier to put on (fewer ways to position it incorrectly), and easier to transport by hand, if such becomes necessary. I happen to have a college degree, but I didn't learn this in college, either. I learned it building forts as a kid.
This, as I've pointed out a few times now, does not work for your concept "God". There is no experiment that can show that there is *anything* there. Your suggestion to pray for a year does not work. It's been tried. By lots of different people. We know the outcome: the outcome is they end up believing fully different things, there is not a *SINGLE* aspect of "God" that people will consistently agree on after having prayed for a year
Well, I could mention the incredible complexity of the subject matter, the subjectivity inherent in something as personal as a relationship with God, but I'll settle for this question: if you and I read the same poem, and disagree on what it means, does that mean one of us is wrong?
mostly they'll get whatever result their parents/surrounding-culture get, which is a fairly strong indication that this is something you learn from your surroundings, not something coming from a divine being.
So is it that people come up with fully different ideas of God, or similar ones to people around them? You state both, and claim both are examples of why belief in God is ridiculous. Either way, you admit that there is something with a few basic properties (there actually are some common themes in most religions, amongst truly religious people, etc.), yet you seem adamantly opposed to entertaining the idea that it might be "light". If so, that's cool for you (I guess), but I don't understand why you (and lots of others) seem to take it almost personally that other people don't share your all-abiding faith in science and it's ability to completely categorize and explain all of reality. On the one hand, you insist on only believing things that can be proven; on the other, you believe that science can explain all of reality, w/o any real evidence at all that this is true. The more science explains, the more questions are uncovered. Hell, science can't even really explain nor reliably determine human sentience, but you expect me to doubt my own experiences b/c it can't uncover evidence of a vastly more complex sentience?
[I thought]he was a native speaker that just couldn't be bothered to re-read what he'd wrote before he submitted.... English is my native language, and I'm sick of seeing it butchered by people who don't care enough to use it properly.
Don't get me wrong, I find inappropriate jokes hilarious - I thought the original "WHERE" joke pretty funny. But I have to disagree with the idea that it is even possible to take some things, such as child prostitution, too seriously. I'm not saying everyone MUST take it completely seriously, but the ones that do aren't somehow making too much of it. I mean, it not like it's something trivial, like wife-beating:-)
The reason is that if you deliberately search for verifiable indications that God exists, you find none.
And you have deliberately searched for verifiable indications that God exists? I don't mean physical indications; as I've said before, God is not physical. No, the only indications I have ever found of God's existence were spiritual (or, if you prefer, mental). Tell you what - pray every day for a year. Doesn't matter what about, treat God like a pen-pal if you prefer. But do it open-minded; if you go into an experiment with predetermined conclusions, you'll contaminate the evidence. If, at the end of a year, you have not seen any indication of God's existence, then feel free to dismiss my claims.
The problem is observations that are inherently baseless, coupled with the power to explain nothing whatsoever.
Just like the blind man could easily claim your "light" detection machine observations are inherently baseless. He doesn't see any "light", he just hears sound. He only has YOUR word for it that these sounds correspond to "light". And observations aren't supposed to explain anything; theories explain observations, such as my theory of God explains observations I have made in my life.
This doesn't let the blind see. but it convinces him that the machine reacts to *something* and that *something* may just aswell be labeled "light".
Notice how this example COMPLETELY fails to work for your "God"
Actually, it is EXACTLY what is happening with my God. You see me reacting to something that you can't see. The only difference is your blind man takes your word for it that the unseen something the machine reacts to is this light you claim. You, on the other hand, dismiss me as crazy or mistaken, and say I am obviously reacting to something else, because this light I am describing is absurd.
I am not sure how observation doesn't imply sentience. Yes, it doesn't seem to matter if it is a sensitive machine "observing" the waveform, but the machine is just a proxy for an intelligent sentience. Just as are corneas; everything you (a sentient being) perceive is via proxy. I don't see how you can claim observation doesn't require sentience; do you have evidence of any observation effecting a quantum waveform that wasn't ultimately a proxy for a sentient being? I don't see how that would be possible, but I'd be very interested to see it.
No, I don't claim that I act as a decent human being b/c of religion. Would it have made me an indecent human being to walk away w/o mentioning the clerk's mistake? I claim I am a BETTER human being b/c of my religious convictions. I am certainly happier. And I already know that I alone carry all the blame or praise associated with my own actions. Since God isn't making the choices for me (through, say, a set of rules) I don't get to shrug my personal responsibility off on him, good or evil.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in a bunch of/. posts discussing how best to save time on email? It's like an alcoholic giving advice on giving up coffee, cause, you know, caffeine is bad for you.
probably more people throughout history HAVE believed in God than HAVE NOT.
So ? Truth ain't determined by popularity-contest.
Of course not. But just b/c you have never seen any indication of God in your life, you assume that everybody else must not have, either, even if they tell you they did. It's like a blind man refusing to believe there is such a thing as light - just b/c you can't see it, you assume everyone else is imagining it.
I'm sure my understanding of Big Bang & QM is shaky, since I am not a physicist. But I'm pretty sure QM states that quantum particles exist as a wave of probabilities until they are observed, at which point they collapse into a particle. That implies to me that sentient observation influences their behavior. Feel free to explain why that is wrong, but don't imagine that just stating it is wrong and saying "There is no room in the margins for my proof." is an acceptable debate tactic.
So -- you did the typical religious thing: you avoided the question.
No, I pretty clearly stated "My religion doesn't believe in God-given rules." I then went on to describe how my faith does influence my behavior. And I didn't rename rules to principles. They are different things. "Love others" is a principle w/o specifics; "Only walk 5000 steps on the Sabbath" is a specific rule. One require no judgment on my part, the other does.
In other words, how would your method for making judgements change if you didn't believe in God ?
Well, it's hard to say how much of the changes I have experienced are due to religion, growing older and wiser, and any number of other factors. But I imagine I would be more selfish and uncaring without faith, since those are the two things I struggle with the most. Instead of concerning myself with the welfare of others, I would likely lie & cheat in small ways that benefited me and didn't harm others TOO much. It's a piss-poor example, but the last time a clerk at the store accidentally rang me up too low, I pointed it out to her. I was tempted not to, I wanted that $5, but I told her. As a side note, she had already rung up the total and didn't want to bother re-doing the order, so I got the $5 and I got to feel good about being honest.
I also believe that marijuana reduces intelligence, if enough of it is consumed over a sufficiently long period of time.
I'd have to disagree with that statement. I *ahem* know a guy that spent the vast majority of about 6 years constantly stoned. First thing in the morning, last thing at night, every day kind of thing. I noticed a significant reduction in his ability to focus, remember facts, and just generally exert any sort of effort or motivation (not to mention breathe), even during those periods where he was not actually stoned. However, I did not notice a reduction in his ability to construct a chain of deductive reason, recognize patterns, and grasp complex concepts. In fact, I saw several instances where being stoned seemed to help him "think outside the box" and develop a creative solution to a coding problem. Finally, since this fellow quit smoking around 5 years ago, I have noticed a significant improvement in the areas that saw degradation during the period of smoking. I have no objective measurements before and after to make a comparison, but subjectively speaking, he doesn't seem any dumber now than he did before he started. It's certainly possible that there has been some loss of intellectual capacity overall, but if so, it would appear to be very minimal.
Of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am not in the best position to judge this individuals overall intellectual capacity:-)
and we've seen no indication whatsoever that Gods exist.
And yet, probably more people throughout history HAVE believed in God than HAVE NOT. Why do you say that none of these people found any indications that God exists? Because there is not scientific evidence? Science is a process specifically designed for learning about the physical universe. God is not in the 4 dimensions science measures, so how could it find evidence of God? Although, I personally think science has provided evidence that God is LIKELY to exist. I am going to assume you believe in the Big Bang theory. Me too. Assuming you do, you probably believe there was a dimensionless bundle of matter/energy that exploded into the 4 dimensions (or created them by expanding), somewhat spontaneously? I think the explosion was sparked by an equally dimensionless sentient being. So, I think the universe (meaning the 4 dimensional physical universe we can easily observe) was created by this sentience I refer to as God. I assume you think that sentience didn't appear in the universe until millions or billions of years of evolution developed sentience. I am making some assumptions about your beliefs here, but I think they are fairly standard.
Ok, so now we have quantum physics, which suggest that quantum particles have a measurable reaction to observation, which implies a sentient being doing the observing. This is a very odd property for these particles to have if the first billion years or so of their existence there was no sentience. Why would they develop this sensitivity? However, if the very formation of these particles was intimately tied to sentience, it makes a lot of sense that they would react in some way to sentience. In fact, they would have to in order for God's will to motivate them into the Big Bang. It's not proof, but it seems to me to be an indication that sentience plays a larger role in the very foundation of the universe than is accounted for by non-deistic belief systems.
Are there any moral or ethical rules that you follow because you consider it (for reasons unapparent to me) likely that "God" wishes you to, but which you wouldn't otherwise follow ?
I realize it is a bit of a cop-out, but my religion (Christianity) doesn't actually believe in "rules" per se. I realize that sounds strange given the overwhelming number of Christians that obviously believe stringently in a whole bunch of rules, but I think they have all made an unfortunate error in their interpretation of the Gospel. Christians should follow Christ's teachings and examples. He specifically said he came to break the old covenant, so the rules in the Old Testament are right out. All the crap Paul wrote was his very human interpretation of Christ's teachings. Paul was NOT a disciple of Christ, he had no personal experience with the man. Everything I have read about the life of Paul indicates he was a raging bigot and an asshole who was very good at the politics of religion. Why people take his interpretation as the truth rather than reading about the actual life of Christ and figuring out what they think He meant, I will never understand. But yeah, basically Christ said that following rules was the trap the Jews had fallen into, and he came to free them from this trap. He specifically went around breaking rules when he thought he could do more good outside the law. Jesus was a rebel:-)
So, yeah, I don't believe there ARE any God given rules. Just principles by which He expects us to make our own judgments as to what is appropriate behavior in any given situation. It's all about the choices we make that define us as human beings; following a bunch of laws just cause somebody else said God said so is surrendering what I believe is my responsibility to seek a personal relationship with God. At the end of the day, anyone who hasn't contemplated/meditated/prayed about their religious convictions, and developed their own personal interpretation of God's will, doesn't truly have a faith in God. They have a faith in whichever human authority handed them their religion.
There is no proof that green cow-shaped aliens do not live in a cave on Mars. Do you believe it ?>br/> But there is evidence that supports the belief that there is not life on Mars, so while there is no proof, the evidence points to no.
There is no proof that all dollar-bills aren't going to spontaneously disintegrate in 51 minutes -- are you going to spend the next 50 minutes trying to exchange the ones you have for coins ?
Again, no proof, but an overwhelming amount of past data that makes it a tiny probability. And thus it is with God. I have no proof either way, but I have seen evidence of some higher power in my life. Call it fate, destiny, God, FSM, whatever, in my judgement, the evidence points to God being more likely than not. But the thing is, it's a personal decision for everyone. I could point to the evidence I have, and you could easily explain it away as coincidence. It boils down to a feeling. Kind of like love. Are you in love? Prove it...
much less adjust your life so as to comply with the imagined wishes of the thing that you don't even have any indication exists at all.
Ah, but I do have indications my imaginary friend exists; not proof, but indications. Besides, He just wants me to be nice to people. While that is not always my first instinct, it is almost always the best response anyway. Or do you not subscribe to any morality or ethics? If you do, I assume you developed yours through studying others thoughts and figuring out how your natural beliefs fit in with other beliefs. Same here; since God didn't come down and hand me stone tablets or speak from a burning bush, I had to figure out my beliefs the same way everyone else does there's. So I ascribe mine to God, you ascribe yours to some abstract definition of "moral" or "right". Or maybe you're just a prick; I don't get that vibe off you, but I don't know you.
Believing in the green cows on mars would make *exactly* as much sense as beliving in salvation trough Jesus.
Just to throw my 2 cents in, Jesus is "the way and the light". Believing in Jesus means believing in the truth he represented and following the guiding light he provided. The way to Salvation is to love others, and put them before yourself. I can SEE the joy that brings people here on Earth; if you believe in an afterlife, why wouldn't it continue to bring joy then? You ever get a warm feeling looking back on a situation where you made a self-sacrifice just for the sake of someone else? Heaven is the peace of righteousness, Hell is the torture of regret. Of course, this makes the assumption that we have an immortal soul that lives on after physical death AND remembers and cares about the actions we took in life. We'll all find out one day. Even if I'm wrong, faith and action through faith makes me happy now, and (I think) a better person, so why not? If I am wrong, though, I hope FSM has a sense of humor about the whole thing:-)
Fair enough. Your personal interpretation of Buddhism is extremely well thought-out and coherent, and I have no rebuttal. In fact, I was looking for some documentation to prove that at least I am not alone in my (mis)understanding of Buddhism, and I ran across this, which seems to support your interpretation of reincarnation. Cheers!
The ability to verify and actually verifying are different.
Not as they relate to forming the basis of a belief. The assertion that I should only believe in what I can verify doesn't make any sense if you don't mean that I should verify, and form my belief on the results of the verification. Otherwise, how do I know what I can and can't verify, and how do I know which position to hold if I haven't verified one or the other?
That claim requires no suspension of critical thinking. It can be verified through logic.
Well, the question of identity is one that has been pondered by people much smarter than myself over a large amount of time, and to my knowledge, there has not yet been a satisfactory answer developed. From which observable facts, exactly, can I extrapolate the conclusion "There is no self [to perfect]"? ] And while we're at it, how do you logically distinguish between parinirvana and samsaric death? To an observer, they will look exactly the same.
Yeah, from what I recall, Confucianism is a philosophical/political code of conduct designed to bring maximum virtue as defined by an individuals contribution to his society. I don't know much about Taoism, I was never really clear on what sets of beliefs are referred to as Taoism. But if the Tao of Pooh can be believed, it is a philosophy designed to maximum happiness? As far as I know, neither make any reference to what happens after death, as Christianity and Buddhism do. That, to me, is the fundamental difference between a religion and a philosophy. Religion attempts to answer questions that can not be answered using logic, due to their inscrutable nature.
loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves.
Really? I would define someone who ONLY believes in that which they can (and have) verified for themselves as a loon. B/c practically speaking, you can't go through life without accepting some things on faith. I didn't verify that the restaurant I ate lunch at didn't poison my rice dish. I had no reason to believe they had, that was good enough for me. Most of the time, we make decisions and form beliefs based on our own estimate of probabilities. Same with God. There is no evidence proving or disproving God's existence; everyone forms their own opinion based on their personal calculation of the odds (or unthinkingly accept other people's opinions). You can't decide the question logically, which is why I find it weird that you seem to be implying that the logical choice is to not believe in God. What logic dictates believing an assertion false until it is proven true?
Yeah, I'm not Buddhist, so I probably don't understand it correctly. Hell, I am a Christian, and I doubt my understanding there, too:) But I think Buddhism makes no outrageous claims that require suspension of critical thinking to accept. is a bit much on the tail of There is no self to perfect.
But hey, if you feel that Buddhism is worthwhile, fine by me. If you want to distinguish it from the religions that you obviously think the world would be better off without, still fine by me. Just don't expect me to agree that your set of beliefs are better or more reasonable than mine just b/c you call them a philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is of any consolation, I think people saying that there are aliens among us, but we can't dectect them in any way possible fall in the same category of people that claim god(s) exist (or the FSM, etc.) but we can't detect them.
:-)
At least you are consistent. That is the crux of my whole argument here - many, many people that are vehemently against the idea that God exists accept other theories that are no more scientifically valid, yet pretend to some sort of rational superiority.
The debate already starts there, and has rather to do with semantics (omnipotent in my view is exactly what it means as explaned in the dictionary; if people use personal interpretations of a certain terminology, one can never come to any fruitful debate).
That is not actually a personal interpretation. It is a domain specific (religious philosophy) definition that I did not come up with. It's very, very common for specific domains to take a common English word and attach a domain specific definition or connotation to it (e.g., theory). The problem with omnipotence as used in religion is that there are lots of religious people that toss the term around, doing exactly as you do, thinking it means the dictionary definition.
Now, take the FSM: can you actually prove it doesn't exist? As it is equally (or even more) consistent than most religious claims,
You keep conflating a belief that God exists with various religions. It is perfectly possible to believe in God and not believe the nonsense that religions claim. FSM and other religions all have ridiculous contentions in them that do not make any sense (beer volcanoes? all the animals in the world being saved from a flood on a boat?), even thought they might be internally consistent. All that is necessary for a sensible, consistent deistic theory is the assumption that there are dimensions/realms/universes/whatever that we can't currently observe by scientific means. Maybe you think that is nonsense.
Only if the theories lend themselves to falsification, at least in principle.
Just to be snarky, most deistic theories lend themselves to falsification. All you have to do is die
Well..I'm not going to debate the whole thing again; I would have thought you had your fill with the other poster. ;-)
yeah, I did pose that question to another poster, but he didn't answer it either. Besides, I am pretty insatiable when it comes to philosophic debates.
As for the reincarnation of Napoleon, I would be skeptical based on the fact that the theory of reincarnation doesn't allow for transferral of memories, or anything concrete that would enable this person to have any knowledge of his previous lives. So, his claim is logically inconsistent. He might be the reincarnation of Napoleon, but he wouldn't be able to know it. That is the crucial difference between all of your "similar" cases and deism: deism provides a logically consistent explanation for observed phenomena that does not contradict other observed phenomena. In certain instances (pre-Big Bang, for example) there are no competing explanations. Let's look at your example of the tooth fairy. It is trivial to prove there is not a creature that removes teeth from under pillows and leaves behind money other than parents. In fact, my parents didn't do that; the few times I left teeth, I got nothing. Now, if my teeth disappeared, money appeared in their place, and my parents told me they didn't do it, I'd have some reason to at least consider tooth fairies as the explanation.
(Now, as for my personal vision on religion and the existence of an all-powerful being:
This is an example of religion facing some of the same PR issues science does - it gets misrepresented by people that don't really understand it, this misrepresentation is blindly defended by still others that don't understand it, and suddenly nobody believes in evolution b/c "I ain't descended from no monkey". God is NOT all-powerful in the sense that you mean it, that is not really what omnipotent means as applied by religious scholars. Omnipotent is better translated as "possesses all power that exists". If it can logically be done, God can do it.
he proof that something exist has to be delivered by those who make the claim, not by those who hear the claim.
I'm not trying to prove God exists, and I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else God exists. I'm trying to point out the bizarre mind-set of non-deists towards belief in God. It is a logically consistent, non-falsified theory that serves to explain observed phenomena. Non-deists are willing to consider other theories that have no more support than deism, but react with remarkable hostility towards the idea that God might exist. If I stated that I believed there were sentient races possessing advanced technology in another galaxy, I might get an argument, but I doubt I would have people calling me brain-damaged or a loon. I could even speculate that they had developed technologies that our current understanding suggests are impossible, and these people would accept that the aliens had figured out ways around the perceived limitations. But any theorizing that life exists in a dimension in addition to the spatial and temporal, and that maybe other sentiences exist there, too, is rather vehemently attacked.
It isn't political psychiatry in the sense that it is used to further political power, but the basic idea of using psychiatry as an end run around law to get rid of undesirables is not just a symptom of Chinese society.
Me: I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally
Thee: Well, I'm not sure if he actually said it that way, but maybe he misfrased it
What Bobby_Mahoney said was: "*loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves." I pointed out that if you DON'T verify it for yourself, you A) don't really know whether you could have or not and B) don't know what to believe. So, the ability to verify for ones self, without the actual verification, is completely meaningless as far as determining truth. So, he didn't actually say one should verify everything before believing it (I took this to mean accepting something as true), but he either implied it or made a nonsensical statement.
I refute, however, that there is no difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim; the difference lies exactly in the ability to falsify
Of course, that's pretty much the definition. My point is that all of these people that pooh-pooh the idea of God b/c it can't be scientifically confirmed or denied, accept all kinds of other beliefs in their lives that either can't be, or aren't, scientifically confirmed or denied. And one more time, in terms of utility for determining truth, there is no difference between can't and don't scientifically verify. You can't even say that something IS scientifically verifiable if you don't actually verify it. So, on the one hand, you and others think it silly to believe in God without scientific evidence that He exists; on the other hand, I am quite certain you believe lots of things to be true that you have never scientifically verified. In fact, implicit in your argument is the belief that science can explain all of reality. On what evidence do you base this belief?
there is the possibility of verifying it - regardless of whether one does it or not.
Right. But my point is, if you don't verify something, regardless of whether you can or not, you are simply taking it on faith. There is no practical difference between being unable to, and simply not bothering to, verify something. Either way, I am taking a position without any actual evidence to support it. Which people do all the time, b/c actually verifying every belief you form throughout your life is impractically time and resource consuming. Most beliefs are based on probability - I don't run chemical analysis on my sandwich b/c the statistical likelihood of my sandwich being intentionally or unintentionally poisoned is small.
This point doesn't really speak to religious belief, per se; I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally. It is a completely impractical philosophy. And it makes even less sense to only believe what you "can verify". The ability to verify a position w/o actually verifying it tells you nothing. I can verify your gender. That fact doesn't help me in any way decide whether I think you are male or female.
There have been studies that support your theory.
just that the education system has a strong tendency to indoctrinate those [Democratic] values
You know, I have heard this many, many times, mostly as an indictment of the educational system. I'm not saying the educational system doesn't have problems, but I always found this to be a weird thing for Republicans to point out. "Educated people tend to vote Democrat." It could reflect some sort of bias in the educational system, or it could simply reflect a bias of informed, intelligent people towards Democrat. If I were trying to support the Republican party, I think I would try to downplay this particular trend. Then again, what do I know about political maneuvering?
I don't think never having been exposed to anything past basic algebra makes someone a dumbass. I don't even think being unable to grasp anything past basic algebra makes someone a dumbass.
5) Raise instead of lower the requirements in order to graduate high school. One of my friends has a daughter who just started high school this year. The only math requirements for her to graduate are two semesters of math. What this means is that they're only required to take and pass Pre-Algebra I & II. Since most everyone on here are IT pros of some kind, I'm sure you're aware that this doesn't cut it for college. Algebra I & II, Geometry, and Trig should be the minimum requirements, IMHO
I disagree, and here's why: graduating high-school should not simply be viewed as a pre-cursor to a college education. Students should have the option to take more math & science in preparation for college, sure. But the kid who just wants to graduate high-school so he can at least have the satisfaction of achieving the goal he was forced to work towards for 10 years, then go work in his dad's mechanic shop, why does he need Trig? A surprising number of kids have no interest in and/or ability to go to college. Why force them to prepare for it?
The problem with your philosophy is the definition of "results". You (and others) define it as "higher test scores". But that's a bad criteria. It's actually quite hard to both educate a student and teach them to pass a standardized test. Countless studies have shown that standardized tests only measure the students ability to take that test. So, in order to receive funding, schools must teach students how to pass tests. Which means they can't spend much time actually educating the students. Which means the intelligent kids get overlooked - they are already passing tests. So the vast majority of a teacher's time is now spent teaching stupid or apathetic, or both, kids how to pass a test. And when the kid simply CAN NOT or WILL NOT learn, the teacher is blamed for "not teaching", when in fact what happened is the student didn't learn. There is a huge difference, and only one of those can the teacher control.
Also, a circle is the most material efficient design, is easier to put on (fewer ways to position it incorrectly), and easier to transport by hand, if such becomes necessary. I happen to have a college degree, but I didn't learn this in college, either. I learned it building forts as a kid.
This, as I've pointed out a few times now, does not work for your concept "God". There is no experiment that can show that there is *anything* there. Your suggestion to pray for a year does not work. It's been tried. By lots of different people. We know the outcome: the outcome is they end up believing fully different things, there is not a *SINGLE* aspect of "God" that people will consistently agree on after having prayed for a year
Well, I could mention the incredible complexity of the subject matter, the subjectivity inherent in something as personal as a relationship with God, but I'll settle for this question: if you and I read the same poem, and disagree on what it means, does that mean one of us is wrong?
mostly they'll get whatever result their parents/surrounding-culture get, which is a fairly strong indication that this is something you learn from your surroundings, not something coming from a divine being.
So is it that people come up with fully different ideas of God, or similar ones to people around them? You state both, and claim both are examples of why belief in God is ridiculous. Either way, you admit that there is something with a few basic properties (there actually are some common themes in most religions, amongst truly religious people, etc.), yet you seem adamantly opposed to entertaining the idea that it might be "light". If so, that's cool for you (I guess), but I don't understand why you (and lots of others) seem to take it almost personally that other people don't share your all-abiding faith in science and it's ability to completely categorize and explain all of reality. On the one hand, you insist on only believing things that can be proven; on the other, you believe that science can explain all of reality, w/o any real evidence at all that this is true. The more science explains, the more questions are uncovered. Hell, science can't even really explain nor reliably determine human sentience, but you expect me to doubt my own experiences b/c it can't uncover evidence of a vastly more complex sentience?
[I thought]he was a native speaker that just couldn't be bothered to re-read what he'd wrote before he submitted. ... English is my native language, and I'm sick of seeing it butchered by people who don't care enough to use it properly.
Ouch!
Don't get me wrong, I find inappropriate jokes hilarious - I thought the original "WHERE" joke pretty funny. But I have to disagree with the idea that it is even possible to take some things, such as child prostitution, too seriously. I'm not saying everyone MUST take it completely seriously, but the ones that do aren't somehow making too much of it. I mean, it not like it's something trivial, like wife-beating :-)
The reason is that if you deliberately search for verifiable indications that God exists, you find none.
And you have deliberately searched for verifiable indications that God exists? I don't mean physical indications; as I've said before, God is not physical. No, the only indications I have ever found of God's existence were spiritual (or, if you prefer, mental). Tell you what - pray every day for a year. Doesn't matter what about, treat God like a pen-pal if you prefer. But do it open-minded; if you go into an experiment with predetermined conclusions, you'll contaminate the evidence. If, at the end of a year, you have not seen any indication of God's existence, then feel free to dismiss my claims.
The problem is observations that are inherently baseless, coupled with the power to explain nothing whatsoever.
Just like the blind man could easily claim your "light" detection machine observations are inherently baseless. He doesn't see any "light", he just hears sound. He only has YOUR word for it that these sounds correspond to "light". And observations aren't supposed to explain anything; theories explain observations, such as my theory of God explains observations I have made in my life.
This doesn't let the blind see. but it convinces him that the machine reacts to *something* and that *something* may just aswell be labeled "light". Notice how this example COMPLETELY fails to work for your "God"
Actually, it is EXACTLY what is happening with my God. You see me reacting to something that you can't see. The only difference is your blind man takes your word for it that the unseen something the machine reacts to is this light you claim. You, on the other hand, dismiss me as crazy or mistaken, and say I am obviously reacting to something else, because this light I am describing is absurd.
I am not sure how observation doesn't imply sentience. Yes, it doesn't seem to matter if it is a sensitive machine "observing" the waveform, but the machine is just a proxy for an intelligent sentience. Just as are corneas; everything you (a sentient being) perceive is via proxy. I don't see how you can claim observation doesn't require sentience; do you have evidence of any observation effecting a quantum waveform that wasn't ultimately a proxy for a sentient being? I don't see how that would be possible, but I'd be very interested to see it.
No, I don't claim that I act as a decent human being b/c of religion. Would it have made me an indecent human being to walk away w/o mentioning the clerk's mistake? I claim I am a BETTER human being b/c of my religious convictions. I am certainly happier. And I already know that I alone carry all the blame or praise associated with my own actions. Since God isn't making the choices for me (through, say, a set of rules) I don't get to shrug my personal responsibility off on him, good or evil.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in a bunch of /. posts discussing how best to save time on email? It's like an alcoholic giving advice on giving up coffee, cause, you know, caffeine is bad for you.
probably more people throughout history HAVE believed in God than HAVE NOT. So ? Truth ain't determined by popularity-contest.
Of course not. But just b/c you have never seen any indication of God in your life, you assume that everybody else must not have, either, even if they tell you they did. It's like a blind man refusing to believe there is such a thing as light - just b/c you can't see it, you assume everyone else is imagining it.
I'm sure my understanding of Big Bang & QM is shaky, since I am not a physicist. But I'm pretty sure QM states that quantum particles exist as a wave of probabilities until they are observed, at which point they collapse into a particle. That implies to me that sentient observation influences their behavior. Feel free to explain why that is wrong, but don't imagine that just stating it is wrong and saying "There is no room in the margins for my proof." is an acceptable debate tactic.
So -- you did the typical religious thing: you avoided the question.
No, I pretty clearly stated "My religion doesn't believe in God-given rules." I then went on to describe how my faith does influence my behavior. And I didn't rename rules to principles. They are different things. "Love others" is a principle w/o specifics; "Only walk 5000 steps on the Sabbath" is a specific rule. One require no judgment on my part, the other does.
In other words, how would your method for making judgements change if you didn't believe in God ?
Well, it's hard to say how much of the changes I have experienced are due to religion, growing older and wiser, and any number of other factors. But I imagine I would be more selfish and uncaring without faith, since those are the two things I struggle with the most. Instead of concerning myself with the welfare of others, I would likely lie & cheat in small ways that benefited me and didn't harm others TOO much. It's a piss-poor example, but the last time a clerk at the store accidentally rang me up too low, I pointed it out to her. I was tempted not to, I wanted that $5, but I told her. As a side note, she had already rung up the total and didn't want to bother re-doing the order, so I got the $5 and I got to feel good about being honest.
I also believe that marijuana reduces intelligence, if enough of it is consumed over a sufficiently long period of time.
:-)
I'd have to disagree with that statement. I *ahem* know a guy that spent the vast majority of about 6 years constantly stoned. First thing in the morning, last thing at night, every day kind of thing. I noticed a significant reduction in his ability to focus, remember facts, and just generally exert any sort of effort or motivation (not to mention breathe), even during those periods where he was not actually stoned. However, I did not notice a reduction in his ability to construct a chain of deductive reason, recognize patterns, and grasp complex concepts. In fact, I saw several instances where being stoned seemed to help him "think outside the box" and develop a creative solution to a coding problem. Finally, since this fellow quit smoking around 5 years ago, I have noticed a significant improvement in the areas that saw degradation during the period of smoking. I have no objective measurements before and after to make a comparison, but subjectively speaking, he doesn't seem any dumber now than he did before he started. It's certainly possible that there has been some loss of intellectual capacity overall, but if so, it would appear to be very minimal.
Of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am not in the best position to judge this individuals overall intellectual capacity
and we've seen no indication whatsoever that Gods exist.
:-)
And yet, probably more people throughout history HAVE believed in God than HAVE NOT. Why do you say that none of these people found any indications that God exists? Because there is not scientific evidence? Science is a process specifically designed for learning about the physical universe. God is not in the 4 dimensions science measures, so how could it find evidence of God? Although, I personally think science has provided evidence that God is LIKELY to exist. I am going to assume you believe in the Big Bang theory. Me too. Assuming you do, you probably believe there was a dimensionless bundle of matter/energy that exploded into the 4 dimensions (or created them by expanding), somewhat spontaneously? I think the explosion was sparked by an equally dimensionless sentient being. So, I think the universe (meaning the 4 dimensional physical universe we can easily observe) was created by this sentience I refer to as God. I assume you think that sentience didn't appear in the universe until millions or billions of years of evolution developed sentience. I am making some assumptions about your beliefs here, but I think they are fairly standard.
Ok, so now we have quantum physics, which suggest that quantum particles have a measurable reaction to observation, which implies a sentient being doing the observing. This is a very odd property for these particles to have if the first billion years or so of their existence there was no sentience. Why would they develop this sensitivity? However, if the very formation of these particles was intimately tied to sentience, it makes a lot of sense that they would react in some way to sentience. In fact, they would have to in order for God's will to motivate them into the Big Bang. It's not proof, but it seems to me to be an indication that sentience plays a larger role in the very foundation of the universe than is accounted for by non-deistic belief systems.
Are there any moral or ethical rules that you follow because you consider it (for reasons unapparent to me) likely that "God" wishes you to, but which you wouldn't otherwise follow ?
I realize it is a bit of a cop-out, but my religion (Christianity) doesn't actually believe in "rules" per se. I realize that sounds strange given the overwhelming number of Christians that obviously believe stringently in a whole bunch of rules, but I think they have all made an unfortunate error in their interpretation of the Gospel. Christians should follow Christ's teachings and examples. He specifically said he came to break the old covenant, so the rules in the Old Testament are right out. All the crap Paul wrote was his very human interpretation of Christ's teachings. Paul was NOT a disciple of Christ, he had no personal experience with the man. Everything I have read about the life of Paul indicates he was a raging bigot and an asshole who was very good at the politics of religion. Why people take his interpretation as the truth rather than reading about the actual life of Christ and figuring out what they think He meant, I will never understand. But yeah, basically Christ said that following rules was the trap the Jews had fallen into, and he came to free them from this trap. He specifically went around breaking rules when he thought he could do more good outside the law. Jesus was a rebel
So, yeah, I don't believe there ARE any God given rules. Just principles by which He expects us to make our own judgments as to what is appropriate behavior in any given situation. It's all about the choices we make that define us as human beings; following a bunch of laws just cause somebody else said God said so is surrendering what I believe is my responsibility to seek a personal relationship with God. At the end of the day, anyone who hasn't contemplated/meditated/prayed about their religious convictions, and developed their own personal interpretation of God's will, doesn't truly have a faith in God. They have a faith in whichever human authority handed them their religion.
There is no proof that green cow-shaped aliens do not live in a cave on Mars. Do you believe it ?>br />
:-)
But there is evidence that supports the belief that there is not life on Mars, so while there is no proof, the evidence points to no.
There is no proof that all dollar-bills aren't going to spontaneously disintegrate in 51 minutes -- are you going to spend the next 50 minutes trying to exchange the ones you have for coins ?
Again, no proof, but an overwhelming amount of past data that makes it a tiny probability. And thus it is with God. I have no proof either way, but I have seen evidence of some higher power in my life. Call it fate, destiny, God, FSM, whatever, in my judgement, the evidence points to God being more likely than not. But the thing is, it's a personal decision for everyone. I could point to the evidence I have, and you could easily explain it away as coincidence. It boils down to a feeling. Kind of like love. Are you in love? Prove it...
much less adjust your life so as to comply with the imagined wishes of the thing that you don't even have any indication exists at all.
Ah, but I do have indications my imaginary friend exists; not proof, but indications. Besides, He just wants me to be nice to people. While that is not always my first instinct, it is almost always the best response anyway. Or do you not subscribe to any morality or ethics? If you do, I assume you developed yours through studying others thoughts and figuring out how your natural beliefs fit in with other beliefs. Same here; since God didn't come down and hand me stone tablets or speak from a burning bush, I had to figure out my beliefs the same way everyone else does there's. So I ascribe mine to God, you ascribe yours to some abstract definition of "moral" or "right". Or maybe you're just a prick; I don't get that vibe off you, but I don't know you.
Believing in the green cows on mars would make *exactly* as much sense as beliving in salvation trough Jesus.
Just to throw my 2 cents in, Jesus is "the way and the light". Believing in Jesus means believing in the truth he represented and following the guiding light he provided. The way to Salvation is to love others, and put them before yourself. I can SEE the joy that brings people here on Earth; if you believe in an afterlife, why wouldn't it continue to bring joy then? You ever get a warm feeling looking back on a situation where you made a self-sacrifice just for the sake of someone else? Heaven is the peace of righteousness, Hell is the torture of regret. Of course, this makes the assumption that we have an immortal soul that lives on after physical death AND remembers and cares about the actions we took in life. We'll all find out one day. Even if I'm wrong, faith and action through faith makes me happy now, and (I think) a better person, so why not? If I am wrong, though, I hope FSM has a sense of humor about the whole thing
Fair enough. Your personal interpretation of Buddhism is extremely well thought-out and coherent, and I have no rebuttal. In fact, I was looking for some documentation to prove that at least I am not alone in my (mis)understanding of Buddhism, and I ran across this, which seems to support your interpretation of reincarnation. Cheers!
The ability to verify and actually verifying are different.
Not as they relate to forming the basis of a belief. The assertion that I should only believe in what I can verify doesn't make any sense if you don't mean that I should verify, and form my belief on the results of the verification. Otherwise, how do I know what I can and can't verify, and how do I know which position to hold if I haven't verified one or the other?
That claim requires no suspension of critical thinking. It can be verified through logic.
Well, the question of identity is one that has been pondered by people much smarter than myself over a large amount of time, and to my knowledge, there has not yet been a satisfactory answer developed. From which observable facts, exactly, can I extrapolate the conclusion "There is no self [to perfect]"? ] And while we're at it, how do you logically distinguish between parinirvana and samsaric death? To an observer, they will look exactly the same.
Yeah, from what I recall, Confucianism is a philosophical/political code of conduct designed to bring maximum virtue as defined by an individuals contribution to his society. I don't know much about Taoism, I was never really clear on what sets of beliefs are referred to as Taoism. But if the Tao of Pooh can be believed, it is a philosophy designed to maximum happiness? As far as I know, neither make any reference to what happens after death, as Christianity and Buddhism do. That, to me, is the fundamental difference between a religion and a philosophy. Religion attempts to answer questions that can not be answered using logic, due to their inscrutable nature.
loon, refers to a person who believes something which they can't verify for themselves.
Really? I would define someone who ONLY believes in that which they can (and have) verified for themselves as a loon. B/c practically speaking, you can't go through life without accepting some things on faith. I didn't verify that the restaurant I ate lunch at didn't poison my rice dish. I had no reason to believe they had, that was good enough for me. Most of the time, we make decisions and form beliefs based on our own estimate of probabilities. Same with God. There is no evidence proving or disproving God's existence; everyone forms their own opinion based on their personal calculation of the odds (or unthinkingly accept other people's opinions). You can't decide the question logically, which is why I find it weird that you seem to be implying that the logical choice is to not believe in God. What logic dictates believing an assertion false until it is proven true?
Yeah, I'm not Buddhist, so I probably don't understand it correctly. Hell, I am a Christian, and I doubt my understanding there, too :) But I think Buddhism makes no outrageous claims that require suspension of critical thinking to accept. is a bit much on the tail of There is no self to perfect.
But hey, if you feel that Buddhism is worthwhile, fine by me. If you want to distinguish it from the religions that you obviously think the world would be better off without, still fine by me. Just don't expect me to agree that your set of beliefs are better or more reasonable than mine just b/c you call them a philosophy.