Bigger usually is better. — Bitter Crank

He he.... :smile:

Alright now, cut it out, there are many children present.

You have failed to rip my position to pieces or demolish it, as you claimed. You haven't even scratched the surface. — S

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you would have complied with the very easy and simple instructions I've provided to you about 4 times now.

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. What we've learned is that, at the best, your level of motivation for such an inquiry is extremely low. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And there's also nothing wrong with an old fellow who has already typed all this up about a billion times over 20 years declining to spoon feed you analysis you don't actually want so that you can burp it back up on my shoes. Sorry, you missed this boat, and should have caught me ten years ago when I was foolish enough to engage in such operations.

I've provided you with all the clarity on your position that you currently deserve or desire. I've taught you that you don't actually want an effective challenge to your position. And I'm placing my hand on your shoulder to assure you that there's nothing at all wrong with that.

A more likely explanation is that humans have imaginations and adopt the norm of the society they find themselves in. — Harry Hindu

Ok, I hear you, you're content to ignore the well established real world fact that every other species of life ever discovered can perceive only a limited slice of reality and is blind to the rest.

One point in Kavanaugh's favor, even if he is guilty as charged is...

The voters of the United States elected as their leader someone for whom there is even more evidence of sexual misconduct. The democratic process has devalued personal morality, dignified demeanor, the protection of women, and prioritized other concerns. The people have spoken. Trump is just doing what he was elected to do.

Long live the Pervert Party, we are on the march!

Where is the debate over whether or not atheists should be allowed to express their views?And where is the push to make sure that atheists only express their views in a way that is perceived as legitimate according to standards imposed by theists? — Ram

He's nailed you guys, man up and admit it.

That said, again, no forum on the Net is obligated to be fair. I've been booted from every Catholic site I've ever visited I think, and it's their right to do so, they don't owe me squat.

This isn't a very interesting topic either. — unenlightened

This made me laugh! Thank you.

Thanks for sharing your history Crank. I don't really know if the comparison is apt, but you sort of remind me of a good friend of mine who was raised Amish. I like the vibe. So ok, we won't send you out to the barn to get the coal to keep the forum furnace going, agreed.

I had another related incident when I was awake. I was about 16, and surfing by myself. A big afternoon storm came up so I got out of the water and sat under an overhang on the nearby beach house (vacant) to wait for the storm to pass.

I was bored while sitting there so for something to do I played a game, and asked God to give me a sign if he existed. (I was on the edge of walking away from my Catholic upbringing at the time). I waited, I waited, I waited. Nothing. More waiting. More nothing. Ok, who cares, no big deal, the storm passed, I went back to surfing. It wasn't a big event, just more of an idle teenage day dream, quickly set aside and forgotten.

Well, almost. Fifty years later I can't remember anything else about that day, that week, that month. I'm not entirely sure what year it was. I don't remember whether the surf was any good that day. But the memory of asking that question remains with me to this day.

This proves nothing at all, but suggests that if there is a God he probably has his own schedule, his own way of making a point, his own way of answering questions.

t isn't hard at all to imagine how a person immersed in a culture where it was believed that the world was infested with benign and malignant small gods could be both comforted and terrorized frequently. Imagining spirits seems like something humans are just primed to do -- unless otherwise instructed. — Bitter Crank

There's a logical basis for the idea that vast numbers of humans have imagined spirits because something like spirits really do exist. Every species on the planet is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there. And, every species is largely blind beyond it's niche.

It seems entirely possible to me that there are things going on over our heads that we don't have the equipment to perceive, given that this is true for every other species of life ever discovered. It's actually wildly speculative to assume that this couldn't be true, given the pile of evidence that suggests it just might be.

I don't mean something supernatural necessarily, but phenomena within the laws of nature that are just not accessible to us. Again, every species of life ever discovered sees only a slice of reality. Why not us too?

The logical flaw of those who would reject this is the idea that because we can see more of reality than other animals, we can therefore have a complete picture, that what we see is what is real. Ok, that could be, but how about this.....

Prove it.

Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. — Pattern-chaser

Ok, fair enough. I would agree that a failure of many commentaries, including a number of my own, is to oversimplify the subject to "thought vs. non-thought". It's likely more useful to compare the situation to the volume controls on my TV, which range from 0-100.

Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. — Pattern-chaser

Why not? If love works in helping a person enhance their life, it's logical to love. If a belief works in the same way, again logical.

it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. — Pattern-chaser

All philosophy forums seem to suffer from the rampant misconception that religion is primarily a matter of ideological assertions. Many posters aren't even interested in understanding religion, they just want something to debunk and religious assertions seem like an easy target.

you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts — Pattern-chaser

In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. Understandable, but not very sophisticated. However, we might keep in mind that many posters (most?) are young men, and nobody is born knowing everything about everything.

It (religion) is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. — Pattern-chaser

No, that's wrong. If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake and move on. I don't have all day for this you know. :smile:

I'll pass. — S

Thanks what I was looking for, a clear straightforward unambiguous answer. Thank you! Huge time saver.

The question is whether one is open to persuasion, not whether one has an opinion. — unenlightened

Perhaps Frank's point was that we have little evidence in this thread that anyone is open to persuasion. And so it is in the Congress as well. Because we're all human beings. Politicians are a mirror of the public, and we don't like what the mirror reveals, so we yell at the mirror.

How many participants in this thread seek the truth rather than a chance to express their pre-manufactured opinions in the pithiest way possible? — frank

Yea!! :up:

It is permitted for atheists to proselytize and not permitted for theists to promote their beliefs. — Ram

Yes, that is pretty common on all philosophy forums. We should however observe that everybody has every right to manage their own forum in any manner they choose, and that no crime is being committed by them doing so. If we don't like the way a particular forum is being managed, the solution it to keep on looking.

f atheism really has reason on its side, censoring theists shouldn't be necessary. — Ram

Agreed.

So, what makes a good thread a good thread? — Posty McPostface

I opine brilliantly and then everyone applauds loudly and celebrates my genius.

What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? — Purple Pond

We don't have compelling evidence of the supernatural, but one need look no farther than the history of science to find compelling evidence of vast ignorance. That doesn't prove the supernatural exists, but it does strongly suggest that an open mindedness to the seemingly impossible is in order.

Supposing you were sitting there in front of your computer contemplating your next post, and you heard, clear as a bell, a voice that said "Jack Jones" (or whatever you name is) "I am god and I am real and you are not imagining my voice. — Bitter Crank

Many years ago I had an experience something like that. I was sleeping and was shaken wide awake by a voice which said only, "I am here" in a deep masculine Jehovah-like voice. There was no mention of God, but that was the first reference that came to mind, due to the tone of the voice.

It didn't feel like a dream, but something very real. As example, I got up out of bed and explored the whole house to see if someone was actually there. Didn't find Baby Jesus hiding in a closet though, so eventually went back to bed.

I have no idea what if anything this experience might mean. It could mean that I ate too big of a burrito for dinner. But 40 years later, the memory remains.

The converse of installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court would be not installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court. Which would be nice for all parties involved, I imagine. — StreetlightX

No, that's so very wrong. We in the Pervert Party have already taken over the White House, and now we are moving on the Supreme Court. And of course it's been proven that we also occupy high positions throughout the corporate world, particularly in important opinion shaping media empires.

Sure, we've taken our losses, it was a shame to see Cosby go down, but these things happen in revolutions and we will NOT be deterred by any setback.

Once our take over is complete, all of us here will be able to publicly shake our peckers in the faces of all those sanctimonious politically correct moral superiority phonies who infect threads such as this one, and nobody will be able to stop us.

You're welcome! Long live the Pervert Party!

What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? — praxis

Without realizing it, you've just made Ossipoff's point, which was...

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Praxis is right, we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner, such as size, shape etc.

And thus, Ossipoff is right too, it isn't established that the rules of human reason apply to all of reality, because we don't even know what we mean by "all of reality".

If a person is willing to face this fact in a simple straightforward common sense manner, without trying to complicate it so they can look fancy....

The whole God debate comes crashing to the ground of it's own weight.

What conditions would they be? — S

That you go look up the conditions which have already been stated a couple of times.

1) hasn't happened because most of the stuff around "God exists" hasn't defined the state or the evidence we would see if God exists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

All this kind of logic dancing has been going on for at least the last 500 years, including by many brilliant minds, and still nobody on any side has proven anything. There's really little if anything that can be said on the God debate subject that hasn't already been said a million times, with no useful result.

The God debate is like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which simulate movement, but when we look a little closer we see the merry-go-round is going eternally round and round and round in the same small circle to nowhere.

So we might ask ourselves, do we wish to get off the merry-go-round, or keep going round and round in the same small circle? To each, their own.

Personally, I can't offer you any evidence for either belief or disbelief, and I doubt very much if you can, either. — Bitter Crank

But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.

1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.

There is an alternative to this stupidity.

1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use.

So, anyway, when are you going to rip my position to pieces — S

When you meet the conditions I set, so probably never. :smile:

Then you're a sensible chap, Bitter Crank. I'm not even sure whether those who have recently purported to disagree with it have any kind of problem with it. — S

You might wish to read what Bitter Crank said a bit more carefully. :smile:

I do not have any problems with your statement — Bitter Crank

That's not necessarily agreement with your position. Maybe it is, and he can clarify that to be so. I may be wrong, but I read him to be saying that he doesn't have any argument with whatever you want to believe. If you believe in Baby Jesus, my guess is he has no complaint with that either.

To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God — praxis

Ok, whatever, you win. Better now?

Is this supposed to resolve the contradiction? — praxis

I'm attempting to express a theory as to how the God idea came in to being.

I could do, and maybe I will, but I would like you to tell me in what way you think that your position differs from mine. — S

If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me.

Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality, — praxis

It's just a matter of focus. What am I focusing my attention on in any given moment, the world beyond my nose, or the symbols within my mind? Most of us are "lost in thought" most of the time and not really paying careful attention to reality, and thus not really connecting with it. Don't take my word for it, observe this in your own life.

God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality? — praxis

Great question. I do agree the God concept is just another thought, and creates the same distraction from reality as any other thoughts. In other threads I've commented that a great weakness of religion is that it often attempts to use thought, the very thing dividing us from reality, in it's search for reunification with God/reality.

So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. But this is asking too much for very many people, and so user friendly relatable concepts like God become the stand-in for reality. And then many folks get stuck in worshiping the symbol instead of what the symbol is pointing to.

Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it.

I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. — praxis

I didn't say you did.

My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.

Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in.

A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality — praxis

So what? So is a novel, or a play. Entirely fictional, but the good ones help us develop deeper insights in to our relationship with our lives.

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. — praxis

Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc.

Do you think that you can demolish my kind of atheism? — S

Yes, I can. So can Pattern Chaser it appears. But we can't detach your self image from atheism. And if that is necessary, then nothing will be accomplished until that task is completed.

If so, then be my guest. — S

If demolishing is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Otherwise, I'm going to try to be wise like Pattern Chaser and leave you in peace.

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S

If that satisfies, you, go with it. — Pattern Chaser

That could be the wisest advice.

If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.

Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call.

Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. — Pattern-chaser

Oh dear, I was with you until the last sentence. At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced.

The "regular agnostic" perspective typically accepts the core assumption of the God debate, that the point of the inquiry should be to move towards "The Answer", and thus further learning is suggested as part of that process. Ok, I'm not at war with this, to each their own etc.

I'm just suggesting there is another way to look at it. Instead of working within the assumptions that form the foundation of the God debate, the God debate and all it's assumptions can be discarded. Why keep looking for The Answer? Why not accept the results of the investigation (we are ignorant) and work with that?

There's a reason for that, don't you think? — S

Yes, there is a reason. Public atheism is a much younger enterprise than religion and has, generally speaking on average, not yet matured to the point of understanding that it too is based on faith. This is particularly true in younger commentators, for understandable reasons.

Here's how the process often works...

1) First, a sincere misunderstanding.

2) Next, the ego is attached to the misunderstanding.

3) Finally, any new information which might threaten that ego position is automatically rejected, leaving the user trapped in the misunderstanding.

The same thing often happens on the theist side (where it's easier for the atheist to see).

To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. — Pattern-chaser

Enthusiastically agree, except to quibble that we do have evidence. The best minds among us have conducted an extensive God debate inquiry over thousands of years and have developed evidence of something important. Nobody can prove anything on this topic, no matter how smart they are, or how hard they try. We are ignorant.

So we should believe. We should believe in what the investigation has uncovered, because the evidence for our ignorance is very compelling.

The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. Imagine some miners who were searching for gold but instead found silver. The rational miner says, "Ok, this silver is not what we were hoping to find, but here it is, and there's tons of it, so how can we profit from it?"

What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game — Number2018

Yes, and we are part of the game, which is why I shifted some of the focus to us.

As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. — S

This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison.

No it's about philosophical principles!!! — StreetlightX

It could be. If there were philosophers in attendance.

A general comment upon the value of philosophy....

In most human situations it's common for there to be one or more memorized group consensus positions which get repeated over and over again. Nobody has the time or ability to carefully think through literally every situation which arises, so we tend to often just pick a side, join a group consensus herd, and then wave that flag. This case seems a pretty good illustration of that, given that the vast majority of us probably had made up our minds on this situation before hearing any testimony, and whatever was said yesterday is simply being used to support the conclusion we'd already come to, based on what social grouping we typically associate ourselves with. This is the way of the world and it's never going to change so we have to accept it and keep on living.

However, this is not the way of philosophy, imho. The role of the philosopher is to examine and challenge any group consensus from the outside, not as a flag waving loyalist of any particular team. Any group consensus by anybody anywhere has the potential to be dramatically wrong, and so the philosopher provides a valuable function by kicking the tires of the group consensus, any group consensus, to see if that group consensus can withstand a determined assault.

Imho, philosophers diminish their role by simply repeating a group consensus being endlessly repeated on every cable TV channel, whatever that group consensus might be. While the polarized partisans chant their memorized slogans in the public square, the philosopher should be looking to explore some angle which is not already being examined. The philosopher should be looking to add something to the conversation.

A philosopher can, and perhaps should, function as an attorney for whatever position everyone else assumes without questioning to be incorrect. Just as with attorney's, the philosopher's own personal opinion is not what's important, but what matters instead is how well the philosopher can make the case that few of us wish to hear.

The current cultural melodrama being examined in this thread has predictably devolved in to the usual flag waving partisan political shouting match with everyone chanting memorized slogans they have absorbed from those around them. Such is the nature of the public square.

If philosophers are not able or willing to transcend these predictable patterns in some manner or another, there's really little to justify their existence.

Go ahead and say it the way you want to, Jake:
Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with God. — praxis

You will find it exceedingly difficult to shoehorn me in to the God debate, should that be your goal here. :smile:

My claim would be that it doesn't really matter whether we call it "reality" or "God" or something else. What matters is what relationship we have with where we find ourselves.

If the scriptures were just teachings, like fiction, connected to our reality only by symbolism, then everything would be categorized logically. Perhaps. — BrianW

Some of the ideological assertions of religion are probably best seen as simplified fiction used to teach sophisticated understandings to the widest possible audience. And of course some aspects of religion are just silly nonsense cooked up by mediocre clerics with too much time on their hands.

However, some aspects of religion, the most important aspects imho, can be reasonably said to be literally true. As example, the core teaching of Christianity is all about love, and love does work, a reality that anyone can examine and evaluate in the context of their own day to day life.

Perhaps hell is just a colorful illustration of what happens to us when we ignore love and go racing off in the other direction?

A few thoughts...

1) Religion is not science, but is better compared to art. As example, a play upon the stage can reveal deep truths about the human condition, even though the plot of the play is entirely fictional. The value of art is that it can be interpreted in many different ways, opening the door to much interesting investigation and dialog.

2) Hell certainly exists in the minds of many tormented human beings, and religious teachings on the subject many in some cases be referring to this reality. Though other religious people will simply be repeating memorized doctrinal dogmas.

3) Religion, even a single religion like Christianity, is a very big playing field with a great variety of interpretations contained within. It would be a mistake to assume that Christians (or any other religion) all believe a particular thing.

4) Please demonstrate that the poorly developed reasoning ability of single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies is a methodology proven to be qualified to analyze assertions about the ultimate nature of everything everywhere, such as is contained in the hell concept.