I have always thought that human judgements are flawed and also located within worldviews or value systems, so they are not much more than positions held based on presuppositions which may or may not appeal to others. Do we have any reason to believe that a judgement is much more than the production of a kind of art form?

Games are useful for development. This is well known. As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

Interesting. Apart from playing Monopoly when I was a small child decades ago, I have never played any kind of game - no cards; video games; chess; whatever. I have never had any interest in games or in sport, so I am curious about this.

A). How would we “prove” gods existence if we could only observe it through collective faith?
B). Would money be our god or the thing we worship in that we all ascribe to the existence of this arbitrary paper value.
C). Is scientific method and the existence of god mutually irreconcilable in this case as science depends on objective measurement? — Benj96

I think many people hold a view that much of our lived experience is the product of subjective communities of belief/agreement.

For me it seems (amongst other interpretations) that things which often don't have intrinsic meaning hold a significant status in people's lives because they are located within some tradition or established practice. There is nothing to investigate or 'prove' as such - what we can identify is behavior associated with these traditions. It doesn't require a transcendental foundation.

And if so do we not increasingly limit the depth of knowledge we can attain with scientific method. — Benj96

I was under the impression that there was no scientific method. The idea seems archaic.

The idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles for conducting the business of science meets considerable difficulty when confronted with the results of historical research. We find, then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other. It becomes evident that such violations are not accidental events, they are not results of insufficient knowledge or of inattention which might have been avoided. On the contrary, we see that they are necessary for progress. Indeed, one of the most striking features of recent discussions in the history and philosophy of science is the realization that events and developments, such as the invention of atomism in antiquity, the Copernican Revolution, the rise of modern atomism (kinetic theory; dispersion theory; stereochemistry; quantum theory), the gradual emergence of the wave theory of light, occurred only because some thinkers either decided not to be bound be certain 'obvious' methodological rules, or because they unwittingly broke them.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Against Method

I cannot justifiably say any claim is NOT data, nor can I say it's data that points to a precise meaning, therefore all claims are justifiable. — Varde

Maybe you need to provide an example of this principal in action. There are some claims for which there is no good evidence. Can you eat battery acid to combat a vitamin B deficiency?

Perhaps you're just making a joke but I think intelligence shouldn't be used as a scapegoat. — Judaka

Don't see it as a scapegoating (which is the wrong word - I think you mean 'excuse' here), see it as a partial explanation. I don't think people are evil, this is a word I find unhelpful. What is generally the case is people behave according to their capacity and the situation. We are tribal apes and this frequently causes us problems.

And so there's an inevitable clash between a culture that isn't good at being a nation-state vs. cultures that know a kind of nationalism that Americans don't really have for lack of the religious, ethnic, or even linguistic unity to pass for a nation.

Is any of that true? — frank

Well this is one of various 'official stories' available about geopolitics that you can accept or reject, depending on your presuppositions - i.e., how you feel about the IMF; the UN; liberalism and corporate control of governments. Personally it sounds Panglossian.

Maybe it depends on how you assess Trump. Is he an anomaly? — frank

Isn't Trump the natural consequence of showbiz increasingly domaining the political process, along with an inchoate hatred of elites and professional politics? Wasn't Trump ultimately good for corporations?

Can we really say that humans are essentially good and merely possess the possibility of being tempted by power? — Judaka

Power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand. —Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

I would never say humans are essentially good, or essentially bad. We seem to be, for the most part, stupid apes. There's no such thing as 'power' per say - this phenomenon is always subject to situational variations. The power of a tribal warlord being quite different to the power of a Prime Minister or a CEO.

He didnt think this, because for him language is not a tool for referring to things. Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, — Joshs

Nice - what would be a good example of this?

Why do you have to rely on John? — Moses

Who says I rely on John? I already mentioned Bishop Spong. As it happens, I have read much of the Bible - I grew up in the Baptist tradition. I also undertook Biblical studies for four years. Some people think it's just atheists who find the Bible inherently problematic.

The Bible is full of dreadful things

The Bible was written between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, and it's filled with the knowledge that people had in that period of time, some of which you and I rejected long ago. The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. Those ideas are absurd. — Bishop John Shelby Spong

I think your position that Bible defends rape is not tenable when we look to the text and consider that just because the Bible describes slavery doesn't mean that it supports slavery. — Moses

This is why I don't debate Bible versus with people. Even my friend John (who is a Catholic priest) describes the Bible as 'mostly barbaric'. Bishop John Shelby Spong did a lot of the hard thinking here.

continuously confabulating – mostly commensurate and often commiserating stories about having / being (transcendent, immaterial) "souls" "minds" "selves" "identities" "persons" ... that are each individually – subjectively – a brain blind to itself being a brain. — 180 Proof

It's like an endlessly spinning wheel sometimes. It may not be good philosophy but I sometimes think less is more. Like my mum used to say: Just shut up and get on with it!

Doesn't 'rational justification' count as meeting a burden of proof - this latter term is archaic English. Isn't proof traditionally just an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition? Or sufficient warrant? We run into a lot of trouble around here regarding terms like true, fact, evidence, proof...

So? We all know this already but it makes no practical difference. We make choices and do things. What's that Woody Allen joke - "If I had been born in Poland, or Berlin, I'd be a lampshade today." Still not sure how it relates to the word 'real'.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

I find questions like these to be unhelpful to my experience. We are our behavior and choices. Putting the word 'real' in front of other words is rarely useful.

I think Nick's point may be that one is not convinced there are good reasons to accept the proposition that gods exist. This is not the same thing as saying they do not exist or are false.

(Legally a person is found not guilty which does not mean they did not do it, only that the case for their guilt was not made.)

I would say this model amounts to being an atheist regarding your belief, but an agnostic in terms of your knowledge. This a position held by a lot of atheists I know, including me.

fuzzy concept — Relativist

Ok. Not much different from saying it is incoherent. Incoherent meaning it is unclear, contradictory and muddled or fuzzy. :smile:

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe? — Relativist

Not very inspiring. I can read god's report card now, from when he was a little god at school. 'He has ability, but lacks discipline to complete tasks properly.'

I agree that the notion of god is incoherent and I think that this is the idea's strength for a lot of believers. You can fill the gap with whatever you need or may be lacking in your life. God then becomes a reflection of your personal preferences, like the ultimate invisible friend. God is whatever believers want it to be, which explains why believers are all over the place and so inconsistent in terms of doctrine and dogma and morality.

Yet their very own bible warns them against this behaviour. — whollyrolling

Not that believers ever follow or even much read their Bibles. There are passages encouraging evangelism (below) and it's a very old tradition, including the significant missionary work here in Australia where so many Aboriginal children were taken from parents and often put into Christian orphanages. I've worked with many of the victims over the past 30 years.

Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus says, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

American Atheists rely on extremism to condemn whole populations. They find rare instances and paint them as status quo. — whollyrolling

I'll take your word for it, I don't know them. The list covers variations of many things atheists accept around the world. Many also held by a primary influence on my early thinking; Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong of Newark, who wrote one of the most damning indictments of Christianity called Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (amongst others).

But essentially you and I have demonstrated a key issue here: different values. What could be more disruptive to people and their relationships? I think much of this list is accurate. You do not. So we're probably stuck. How are such values differences resolved? Is it even possible? Trying to debate this further could be as relentlessly futile as attempting to explain why the French think Jerry Lewis is funny.

The list, whatever you may think of its merits, demonstrates that there are larger cultural and values issues inherent in the god belief caper.

Thanks for your interest and well argued responses.

Also, a Christian will not likely engage in debate or other antics with an Atheist, as they find it idle or unappealing, fruitless — whollyrolling

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

There are literally many thousands of apologists (Christian and Muslim) eagerly debating atheists - even on Tik Tok. Plus there are Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons knocking on doors every day all over the world looking to convert.

An Atheist, on the other hand, has contempt for something that doesn't exist and for anyone who says it exists — whollyrolling

Some Atheists are cunts. We know that. I think the issue that upsets and angers atheists are the political and social philosophies of Islam and Christianity - the attitudes towards women and gay people and the changing of laws to suit a religious worldview and what can be taught in schools.

Some examples (I don't agree with all) of disliked religious worldview positions cribbed from American Atheists include:

. The discouragement of rational, critical thought. 
2. Vilification of homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning their children, murder, and suicide.
 3. Women treated like second-class citizens based on religious teachings.
 4. Children growing up to hate and fear science and scientists, because science disproves their parents’ religion – leading to appalling scientific illiteracy. 
5. Tens of thousands tortured and killed as witches (a practice which still continues today).
6. People aren’t making the most of this life because of their belief in an afterlife.
7. People dying because they believe their faith makes them immune to snake venom, or other lethal aspects of reality.
8. People dying – and letting their children die – because their religion forbids accepting medical help.
9. People choked, starved, poisoned, or beaten to death during exorcisms.
10. Genital mutilation of babies endorsed by religious texts.
11. Psychological and physiological conditions blamed on demons, preventing believers from seeking medical care for themselves and their children.
12. People disowning family members for leaving their religion.
13. Friendships and romances severed or never started over religious differences.
14. “Abstinence-only” sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies – often leading to ill-fated “emergency” marriages.
15. Women having septic abortions—or being forced to have unwanted children they resent—because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.
16. Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.
17. The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans (“They’re devil-worshipers!”)
18. Children spending the period of their lives when the brain is most receptive to learning new information reading, rereading, and even memorizing religious texts.
19. People who believe the world is about to end neglect their education, are not financially responsible, and in extreme cases take part in mass suicides.
20. Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.
21. Wives told they will be tortured forever if they leave their abusive husbands (and vice versa).
22. Holy wars – followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.
23. The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.
24. Slavery condoned by religious texts.
25. Children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they’ll be too frightened to even question religion.
26. Terminal patients in constant agony who would end their lives if they didn’t believe it would result in eternal torture.
 27. School boards having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. 
28. Persecution of “heretics”/scientists, like Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) and Galileo Galilei.
 29. Blue laws forcing other businesses to stay closed or limit sales, while churches can generate more revenue.
 30. Mayors, senators, and presidents voted into office not because they’re right for the job, but because of their religious beliefs. 
31. Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).
32. People accepting visual and auditory hallucinations unquestioningly as divine, sometimes with fatal results.
 33. Discrimination against atheists, such as laws stating they may not hold public office or testify in court, or in half a dozen countries around the world, laws requiring their execution
 34. Missionaries destroying/converting smaller, “heathen” religions and cultures.
35. Hardship compounded by the guilt required to reconcile the idea of a fair god with reality (“why is God punishing me? What have I done wrong? Don’t I have enough faith?”).
 36. Human achievements—from skillful surgery to to emergency landings—attributed to gods instead of to the people actually responsible.
 37. Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer their suffering as a gift to her god. 
38. Tens of billions annually in the US alone spent to build, maintain, and staff houses of worship.
 39. Grief and horror caused by the belief that dead friends and family members are tortured as punishment for disbelief.
 40. Natural disasters and other tragedies used to claim God is displeased and present demands to avoid similar events (it’s like terrorism, but without having to plan or do anything)

**

I get that there are atheists, especially in theocracies and in countries where religions have significant influence, who are irritable or pissed. The biggest disputes between people are those where values clash. What the list demonstrates is that there are many potential issues at stake when it comes to a belief in god/s and what this can mean more broadly. That's all.

What you may often find in Atheists is a kind of seething contempt for religion and religious people, — whollyrolling

Hope you don't mind me responding too.

I agree. They often do. Of course religious people often have seething contempt for atheists. They are often both held as flawed positions.

Atheism has no meaning, or it is a religion as I've suggested elsewhere, it can't go both ways. — whollyrolling

Interesting idea. I think all ideas have meaning, even if they are ostensibly about nothing. If you lack belief in a creator deity that is likely to be a trigger for all sorts of potential beliefs or actions.

I used to call myself an atheist, but as you and others are demonstrating here, that doesn't really fit does it? — whollyrolling

I think it does fit. You're an atheist with a particular way of looking at it. Nothing wrong with that. Would your notion of an ideal atheist (if you'll forgive the term) remain silent on the issue?

If someone wants to call atheism religious, it may not be strictly accurate, but I don't have a problem with that. There are lots of things people are religious about that don't involve god/s - sport is a popular example. I have a friend who says he is religious about movies and goes to see a film each week at the same day and time. Like a church service. But there's no god...

If people are passionate about a belief that's great whether it be secular or theistic. Indifference and boredom are much less appealing modes to me. But none of this means that going to cinema or being an atheist is the same thing as being a Catholic or observant Jew. Religion is used here to denote passion and dedication.

Where Aboriginal children taken away from their parents in the name of science or religion? — Hillary

Christian culture and missionaries tended to take children and stick them in church orphanages where there was often abuse, but this is a separate issue.

I don't talk about universities. I talk about schools where the children go by force of law. — Hillary

Same story at schools. Science isn't all that popular. But we should let people get back to the OP topic.

Maybe. I think most things people do are fucked because people do them.

the young people are turned into colorless replicators of the knowledge crammed into their minds, as if computers are programmed. — Hillary

I hire a lot of new graduates from university, I have rarely met any who care much for science. I don't think science is all that popular. Certainly not in Australia. In fact I'd say we are living in anti-science times. Maybe it's different where you live.

Like it is true for scientifically thinking atheists. — Hillary

Exactly - that's what I am saying - if you think you have better ideas and can help people, you want to share it with others. Bingo! :up:

Yes, I understand that. But you make it appear as if atheism doesn't suffer from the same defects as religion. — Hillary

I never said that, and that wasn't what we were discussing, but you may be right about this, atheism isn't quite as dreadful to other people. Good point. :up:

And this doesn't happen in science? — Hillary

Who's talking about science? I was addressing this below which is clearly missing a large part of the story.

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play. — Hillary

Interesting perspective. We're too far apart in world-views to even start a discussion on this. Thanks for clarifying your idea. :wink:

What you said is that the arts, politics or law reform groups could be classified as "religions"? — SpaceDweller

I don't think it would be meaningful to describe them as religions, but you can if you want. It is a natural thing for organizations to engage in marketing their ideas and ideals. Many organizations do it, especially political and social action movements.

Sure they do, but we are talking about atheism taking the role of theism here, which makes atheism invalid. — SpaceDweller

I don't understand the connection. Sounds like you have a real problem with atheism if it doesn't correspond to your idea of what atheism is.

Feminism seeks to change minds and educate the world too - I guess you would see that as a religion then?

Do you see any group which seeks to influence people's thinking as religious because of this advocacy work?

Tell me more about why you think this way, I'm interested in how you arrived at this - are there any other thinkers who hold this position that you can cite?

An elegant and acute appraisal.

Therefore there are 2 kinds of atheism, one based on disbelief, and one based on belief accompanied by spread of their belief. — SpaceDweller

I think there are many types of atheism. Including religious or mystical atheism (atheist idealism). And there are atheists who embrace supernatural forces like astrology or ghosts. I think most beliefs come with the desire to spread a message or engage in public advocacy. This is true for religions especially (evangelism), secular beliefs systems, the arts, politics and law reform groups. This is a natural thing in a pluralistic society.

Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations? — Hanover

No, that maybe too strong, I was being a bit flip and more aphoristic. But there is a poetic sense in which this is true. It is often nearly impossible to define core beliefs for any given institution. How can we say something is the case if the situational vagaries produce variations so great?

I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, — Hanover

I wasn't trying to argue this so staunchly. As you know, people tend to think that institutions or positions are monolithic and that there is 'one' Catholicism or one atheism. This is a problematic approach and it is always worth remembering that a KKK member and Bishop Desmond Tutu (when alive) could both be said to be members of the same faith, with the same founding beliefs and yet have almost nothing in common.

I hear you. I wasn't talking about subminimal messages or indoctrination, just advertising or socialization as part of life. We tend to value the things culture tells us to value (unless we fancy ourselves as outliers).

There's that nice quote by Francois de La Rochefoucauld - People would never fall in love if they hadn't heard love talked about.

A wanting or a craving is a psychological need that one has no control over, like thirst. — L'éléphant

Is this correct? Can cravings or needs not be engineered by socialization or marketing which generate needs where naturally, there might not be any, or only a bud of interest that never sprouts?

The glorious and liberating feeling of bathing in the soothing shining light of the eternal divine intelligences, who, in their great wisdom and in honest selfishness, have created the cosmos and all life in it, so it can continue their blissful heavenly play. — Hillary

Religions don't have that much in common either. Even within the one faith, they have often knocked off each other in endless vicious schism infighting about doctrine and dogma. As it turns out theists can't agree about god/s. Catholic versus Protestant, Evangelical versus Liberal, Christian versus Muslim, Hindu versus Sikh, Sunni versus Shite.... There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another.

Thanks Enrique - so you come to this issue via lived experience? That can be a valuable lens.

Namely, would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable?
I'd love to hear about how you would approach this statement! — ratgambling

'It is better to live than to never exist' is a simple question of meaning - most young people find themselves exploring it at some point. What answer you settle on will depend upon experience, not logic - your personal situation, your value system and the status of your mental health. It's pretty easy to see how a personal situation can land you to accept one answer over another.

Fair point. :up:

What formal qualifications do you have in this area?

Trust me I don't believe in this goody-two shoes Christian all loving God. — Moses

:up:

Sorry, I had you for a run of the mill apologist... I disagree about the Bible being of any use today re morality, but I don't have the inclination to explore this again.