Support NeoGAF

[artredis1980]

If everything is made of something, then surely your god is made of something... where did your god come from?

same place your God came from. Always there.

 

[Bulla564]

Clearly that wasn't a case study, it was a generalised model...

Well, I AM talking about the generalised model.

 

[Grug]

same place your God came from. Always there.

So you falsely criticize atheists for having a "just is" mentality.

Then you basically go on to say that your god "just is".

You're entitled to your faith, but your attempts to justify it with logic have come full circle and bitten you in the bum.

 

[Fatbot]

Oh, so you don't think computers, airplanes or penicillin are beneficial? Interesting.

Not from any objective standpoint. Value is just attributed by people, it's not an intrinsic property of an object. I don't think any of those things are beneficial in of themselves.

No shit they are nothing but tools. They are very useful tools that were created through the application of the scientific method. Desire alone did not make these things pop into existence.

Desire alone did indeed pop these things into existence. They at one point were just formalized ideas under the innate desire of man to do things. The scientific method was created before it was ever applied. It was just an idea built upon empiricism, which was just another idea.

 

[hadareud]

Not from any objective standpoint. Value is just attributed by people, it's not an intrinsic property of an object. I don't think any of those things are beneficial in of themselves.




Desire alone did indeed pop these things into existence. They at one point were just formalized ideas under the innate desire of man to do things. The scientific method was created before it was ever applied. It was just an idea built upon empiricism, which was just another idea.

medicine is extremely beneficial from an objective standpoint. Unfortunately your standpoint isn't objective.

 

[Diffense]

The tooth fairy analogy is completely apt. It represents the way belief is shaped by a lack of information/knowledge.

Just because we can't explain something, doesn't mean we have to plug the gaps with gods/tooth fairies... and even if we do plug those gaps, it doesn't make it true.

Well, a dollar wasn't there and then it was there.
The working conclusion that it was put there seems perfectly appropriate and hardly juvenile.

Who put it there, is definitely a question that follows naturally.
And one might be misled in this, especially if an authority figure told you the "tooth fairy" did it.

However, arguing against the existence of God on the basis of your analogy is equivalent to seeing a dollar under your pillow
and glibly accepting this as the obvious spontaneous production of a dollar from the material in your pillowcase!
For this child, the idea of it being put there never enters his mind.
It is inconceivable that someone could have put it there!
How strange such a mindset would be!

 

[Fatbot]

So you falsely criticize atheists for having a "just is" mentality.

Then you basically go on to say that your god "just is".

You're entitled to your faith, but your attempts to justify it with logic have come full circle and bitten you in the bum.

That's where it all lies right now as far as any kind of "truth" is concerned. I sympathize with atheists because I do indeed think it seems more logical to say the Universe has no need of design.

I think it's interesting though to think in almost 2000 years we still have a fundamentally dualistic view of the Universe, the same one propose by Aristostle.

 

[eznark]

So here I am; bored, tired, and thinking about the world as I fall asleep and I can't help but wonder why people are Christians and believe in god? Is it social pressure? Family pressure? Do you go just to tell people that you went to church today? Is it a routine?

Would you change your beliefs if there was overwhelming evidence against it? Would you just dismiss it? Do you like going to church? Do you use it to meet girls?




Please has a reasonable discussion. I'd like to see peoples thoughts on this!

why are going to church and believing in God synonymous in the OP?

 

[speculawyer]

Okay, so... If I tried for years and years to fit my personal experiences into my Irish Catholic tradition that I loved and felt safe in and was rewarded for pursuing, and then only found people who understood and shared my experiences in a group dedicated to mystical Islam and now I agonize about family drama and how I can't do Salat right yet, does the sacrifice of convenience that I've made earn me the right to not be scorned as an imbecile?

For fuck's sake.

You certainly are part of a small minority of people that have adopted a different religion by personal experience.

However, you can still be scorned as an imbecile.

Spoiler

(As we all can.)

 

[speculawyer]

Not from any objective standpoint. Value is just attributed by people, it's not an intrinsic property of an object. I don't think any of those things are beneficial in of themselves..

Are you not a person? :lol

 

[artredis1980]

So you falsely criticize atheists for having a "just is" mentality.

Then you basically go on to say that your god "just is".

You're entitled to your faith, but your attempts to justify it with logic have come full circle and bitten you in the bum.

The difference is, atheists say God is not needed to have one exist or have physics being applied in our daily lives, but people like me who believe in God is that everthing physical like you and natural like science exists because of God, it was his creation. It is just my belief.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Not from any objective standpoint. Value is just attributed by people, it's not an intrinsic property of an object. I don't think any of those things are beneficial in of themselves.

Okay. I see what you are arguing and I do agree with you to a certain extent. Unfortunately, your point is tangential. My initial point (to which you responded) was in response to a post by Bulla where he tried to remove his religious viewpoint from any scientific scrutiny. The point I'd hoped to make was that it is interesting that most people enjoy the fruits of the scientific method in just about every area of their life, but for some reason this reason and evidence based system that yields so much is not allowed to work on religion. It is special pleading or hypocrisy or something.

 

[tabsina]

.

 

[Fatbot]

medicine is extremely beneficial from an objective standpoint. Unfortunately your standpoint isn't objective.

It's not beneficial to the dead. It's not beneficial to those who don't need it or can't use it or those who it doesn't work for.

I'm not really interested in redefining objectivity to mean "what works for most people" but I understand thats what the word pretty much means these days.

 

[hadareud]

It's not beneficial to the dead. It's not beneficial to those who don't need it or can't use it or those who it doesn't work for.

I'm not really interested in redefining objectivity to mean "what works for most people" but I understand thats what the word pretty much means these days.

the piss poor design of our bodies isn't beneficial to the dead either I'm afraid.

 

[hc2]

I believe in a higher power. No face, no name, just something greater than myself. Religion done "right" (as defined by me) is a power for good- same as faith can be. But my definition of "good" and "right" is not the same as others'. I think tolerance is the most important thing about faith.

 

[Fatbot]

Okay. I see what you are arguing and I do agree with you to a certain extent. Unfortunately, your point is tangential. My initial point (to which you responded) was in response to a post by Bulla where he tried to remove his religious viewpoint from any scientific scrutiny. The point I'd hoped to make was that it is interesting that most people enjoy the fruits of the scientific method in just about every area of their life, but for some reason this reason and evidence based system that yields so much is not allowed to work on religion. It is special pleading or hypocrisy or something.

Yeah, and while I sympathize with theists on the internet I agree with you. You can't have your cake and eat it to and it saddens me to see the problem arise time and time again. I may even personally wish there is something divine (not supernatural) about the will of man but to me it has no value as stepping stone towards progress.

And to see this already devolve into "evolution is just a theory" shows that science still can't get a fair shake.

 

[Count Dookkake]

It's not beneficial to the dead. It's not beneficial to those who don't need it or can't use it or those who it doesn't work for.

I'm not really interested in redefining objectivity to mean "what works for most people" but I understand thats what the word pretty much means these days.

Since you want to be such a wriggly worm , I will remind you that the dead aren't people. It is sort of like demanding that medicine be useful to a table or a rock. Also, medicine is can be beneficial to people who don't need it or can't use it: they can profit from it, enjoy an "alutruisitic" rush from administering it, have more stable communities due to less sick days and untimely death, etc.

This is really quite tangential and silly.

 

[Fatbot]

Since you want to be such a wriggly worm , I will remind you that the dead aren't people. It is sort of like demanding that medicine be useful to a table or a rock. Also, medicine is can be beneficial to people who don't need it or can't use it: they can profit from it, enjoy an "alutruisitic" rush from administering it, have more stable communities due to less sick days and untimely death, etc.

This is really quite tangential and silly.

Yeah it is, which is why its fruitless argument. There could be a God but that doesn't mean there IS one. To be objective it has to be useful to everything that CAN deem it useful, not just everything.

The same logic can apply to every example you listed about medicine.

The bit about the dead is a play on the idea because the argument for medicine is so old. Someone is always dying in a 3rd world country to lack of medicine so when I say "dead" I mean someone who just died due to lack of medicine, not someone who has been dead for 100 years.

The fundamental problem as said I said in an earlier post is that man desires objective meaning along with objective reality. From any logical or philosophical standpoint this is an inescapable problem for our species. The compartmentilization of meaning and value is a product of the 20th century and is reflective of our societies' failure to build or frame a working ideology by ourselves.

 

[Fatbot]

the piss poor design of our bodies isn't beneficial to the dead either I'm afraid.

The inability of medicine to be effective is not the fault of our body. Thats like saying its the cars fault for not being able to run off chocolate sauce.

 

[Count Dookkake]

tangent

Very well.

Why are you telling me this?

 

[Fatbot]

Very well.

Why are you telling me this?

You kept it going with your "dead aren't people" bit. I just threw in the last part about objectivity being a desired property amongst all beliefs regardless of our inability to find objectivity outside of math and other simple language.

 

[hadareud]

The inability of medicine to be effective is not the fault of our body. Thats like saying its the cars fault for not being able to run off chocolate sauce.

pseudo philosophy doesn't cover the fact that your posts are highly self contradictory.

 

[Fatbot]

pseudo philosophy doesn't cover the fact that your posts are highly self contradictory.

And how is that?

 

[hadareud]

And how is that?

if medicine isn't beneficial from an objective point of view there is no reason for it to deal with the bodies shortcomings

if science is unable to improve upon our lives and health objectively that must mean perfection has already been reached and it is impossible to improve upon it.

 

[soul creator]

and, as always, the definition of "god" is so vague, that it ends up causing people to argue for multiple wildly different things. Small example:

I believe in a higher power. No face, no name, just something greater than myself. Religion done "right" (as defined by me) is a power for good- same as faith can be. But my definition of "good" and "right" is not the same as others'. I think tolerance is the most important thing about faith.

Not sure if you're specifically saying a higher power is your version of "god" or not, but this just shows how odd "spiritual" thinking can be. "No face, no name, just something greater than myself". What does that even mean? How do you measure "greater than myself"? A whale is much larger than I am, does that count? A rat is "greater" than me when it comes to reproductive rates, does that count?" What does this "higher power" even do? Sure, it sounds all pretty and nice, but "higher power" doesn't actually say anything.

Of course, if we're just speaking metaphorically, and just referring to feelings, then I have no problem with that, as metaphors are not supposed to be rigorous or anything. But when the vast majority of people in our society talk about "god", they're not just talking about vague feelings. They're talking about a "thing". And if they are talking about feelings...why not just call them wonderful feelings, rather than things like "higher power" and "god". Seems like that just confuses the issue. It's funny to me how the word "god" can be anything from "vague happy feelings" to "invisible being in the sky that creates universes and cares about who you have sex with".

It makes the word and the concept in general pretty damn pointless. And why questions like "why do you believe in god" are mostly meaningless. Unless we can agree on what a term actually means in the first place, what's the point in discussing it?

 

[Fatbot]

if medicine isn't beneficial from an objective point of view there is no reason for it to deal with the bodies shortcomings .

It's not an either/or proposition. Tons of medicine is used everyday from an exploratory method to see if it works. There are many medicines with short term benefits and bad long term effects. Chemotherapy is a good example. benefits are only attributed, not derived unlike objectivity. They can be attributed by a group or an individual.

Just because billions of people find eating meat beneficial does not make it beneficial as a vegetarian would likely argue. And just because something can be beneficial does not mean it is beneficial. Objectivity on other hand has to be beneficial from all logical points of view.

Another thing is "medicine" is a pretty vague term to begin with. If you call acupuncture or herbal healing medicine I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of people on both sides saying how it was worthless and others saying how it totally solved their problems.

if science is unable to improve upon our lives and health objectively that must mean perfection has already been reached and it is impossible to improve upon it.

Again, it is not an either/or proposition. You can pursue an ideal with the belief that it improves on something without thinking that perfection actually exists in any format.

Many people believe in pursuing equality even though equality does not actually exist outisde of mathematics.

 

[msv]

Well, a dollar wasn't there and then it was there.
The working conclusion that it was put there seems perfectly appropriate and hardly juvenile.

Who put it there, is definitely a question that follows naturally.
And one might be misled in this, especially if an authority figure told you the "tooth fairy" did it.

However, arguing against the existence of God on the basis of your analogy is equivalent to seeing a dollar under your pillow
and glibly accepting this as the obvious spontaneous production of a dollar from the material in your pillowcase!For this child, the idea of it being put there never enters his mind.
It is inconceivable that someone could have put it there!
How strange such a mindset would be!

Wat. Get a hold of yourself, you're arguing that arguing against something is the same as arguing for something. Arguing for god and arguing for the explanations of appearance of the dollar is the analogy to be made.

 

[Master Z]

I believe in Gods but my theory is that these "Gods" are actually Extra Terrestrial beings who for tens of thousands of years have been monitoring, perhaps even influencing our development. Looking at various ancient civilizations and tribes I noticed that most have detailed art or language describing other wordly beings.

Then you have the mainline religions of today like Christianity and Islam where many unexplainable events supposedly happened. Virgin birth, death and resurrection, ascension, angels, voice of God etc. These events could simply have been the work of highly sophisticated alien technology. Looking at the Hieroglyphics of ancient societies it's pretty clear that they were in contact or had knowledge of Extra Terrestrials and I believe that most, if not all of the world's ancient mysteries or religions are directly tied to these E.T.'s.

I don't have any hard evidence that I can point to other than ancient hieroglyphics but when I take the ancient's confirmation of E.T.'s and the fantasical events that happened in various religions and put two and two together, the theory of Gods being E.T.'s makes sense to me.

 

[Mash]

I believe in Gods but my theory is that these "Gods" are actually Extra Terrestrial beings who for tens of thousands of years have been monitoring, perhaps even influencing our development. Looking at various ancient civilizations and tribes I noticed that most have detailed art or language describing other wordly beings.

Then you have the mainline religions of today like Christianity and Islam where many unexplainable events supposedly happened. Virgin birth, death and resurrection, ascension, angels, voice of God etc. These events could simply have been the work of highly sophisticated alien technology. Looking at the Hieroglyphics of ancient societies it's pretty clear that they were in contact or had knowledge of Extra Terrestrials and I believe that most, if not all of the world's ancient mysteries or religions are directly tied to these E.T.'s.

I don't have any hard evidence that I can point to other than ancient hieroglyphics but when I take the ancient's confirmation of E.T.'s and the fantasical events that happened in various religions and put two and two together, the theory of Gods being E.T.'s makes sense to me.

 

[Bulla564]

the piss poor design of our bodies isn't beneficial to the dead either I'm afraid.

As opposed to the design of what? the most highly complex and efficient computer ever made by man? because such computer can barely approach the capabilities of a single human cell, let alone millions of different cells working together to let you think, type, poop, and make fun of your body design in neogaf.

 

[Master Z]

Lol. Go look up the ancient Sumerians, Mayans and Egyptians... oh and you're going to have to let go of the Christian doctrine that all of that is evil/witchcraft.

 

[Nexus Zero]

that are simply there for evolutionists to even out the odds for that one LUCKY mutation that allowed one species to persist.

That's how religion works, not science.

 

[Diffense]

Wat. Get a hold of yourself, you're arguing that arguing against something is the same as arguing for something. Arguing for god and arguing for the explanations of appearance of the dollar is the analogy to be made.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
The OP explained what his application of the analogy meant.
I'm not implying that the OP meant anything other than what he said.
I just applied a variation of it to the case of those who dismiss the God possibility right away.

 

[Diffense]

As opposed to the design of what? the most highly complex and efficient computer ever made by man? because such computer can barely approach the capabilities of a single human cell, let alone millions of different cells working together to let you think, type, poop, and make fun of your body design in neogaf.

The quote on the poor design of the body made me laugh too.
Naturally, we can't even conceive of anything greater than the human brain.
What position are we in to critique the design of the human body...ha ha

 

[Bulla564]

That's how religion works, not science.

I guess both then...

 

[joshcryer]

Because it pisses off atheists whose beliefs are exactly opposite!

 

[hc2]

and, as always, the definition of "god" is so vague, that it ends up causing people to argue for multiple wildly different things. Small example:



Not sure if you're specifically saying a higher power is your version of "god" or not, but this just shows how odd "spiritual" thinking can be. "No face, no name, just something greater than myself". What does that even mean? How do you measure "greater than myself"? A whale is much larger than I am, does that count? A rat is "greater" than me when it comes to reproductive rates, does that count?" What does this "higher power" even do? Sure, it sounds all pretty and nice, but "higher power" doesn't actually say anything.

Of course, if we're just speaking metaphorically, and just referring to feelings, then I have no problem with that, as metaphors are not supposed to be rigorous or anything. But when the vast majority of people in our society talk about "god", they're not just talking about vague feelings. They're talking about a "thing". And if they are talking about feelings...why not just call them wonderful feelings, rather than things like "higher power" and "god". Seems like that just confuses the issue. It's funny to me how the word "god" can be anything from "vague happy feelings" to "invisible being in the sky that creates universes and cares about who you have sex with".

It makes the word and the concept in general pretty damn pointless. And why questions like "why do you believe in god" are mostly meaningless. Unless we can agree on what a term actually means in the first place, what's the point in discussing it?

See, we fall in a trap of trying to define /God/higher power/Mohamed/etc in our terms which leads us to "personalize" the concept. And when we personalize our concept, it has boundaries. Sometimes those boundaries are violated and we may become angry/resentful. Kind of defeats the purpose of spirituality. So you can have your concepts and I will keep mine, thank you.
My personal concept is of a universal essence/spirit. I believe we can tap into the power of this essence/spirit/whatever at certain times to change reality or time. Not a lot but maybe just a very tiny bit. This is why I pray/meditate to see if I can tap into it and change myself or my reality. It may be the prayer is just changing my concept of reality but whatever it does, it has worked in the past. And it is nice to have something greater than myself to hand off problems to I cannot handle myself.

 

[Druz]

INFORMATION IS ELITIST!

Why aren't people more pissed about the lack of belief in Thor? I thought Zeus and the Sun God were winners also...

 

[speculawyer]

Because it pisses off atheists whose beliefs are exactly opposite!

meh . . . I don't care what you believe.

I just care when your beliefs impinge on my freedoms, waste my tax dollars, put me in danger, or other such things.

 

[speculawyer]

INFORMATION IS ELITIST!

Why aren't people more pissed about the lack of belief in Thor? I thought Zeus and the Sun God were winners also...

I once had some guy try to tell me that of course Jesus is the real savior . . . just look at the way we mark our years.

I then told him I worship Thor because of Thor's-day (Thursday). :lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday#Origins_of_the_name

 

[Herpes Reasons]

i support any religion that doesn't recognize women as equals to men. And men are head of any hierarchy. Women can't taste the head, but never be one.

 

[LunaticPuma]

Something had to start the big bang.

(No, I'm not joking, this is actually part of my reason for believing.)

 

[malek4980]

Then you have the mainline religions of today like Christianity and Islam where many unexplainable events supposedly happened. Virgin birth, death and resurrection, ascension, angels, voice of God etc. These events could simply have been the work of highly sophisticated alien technology.

Or they could be made up events that don't require explanations. There is no reason to evoke aliens to explain things that never happened.

Looking at the Hieroglyphics of ancient societies it's pretty clear that they were in contact or had knowledge of Extra Terrestrials and I believe that most, if not all of the world's ancient mysteries or religions are directly tied to these E.T.'s.

The only thing these hieroglyphics prove is that they believed in sky gods. Their beliefs don't prove that these gods are real or from another planet. For instance, in the Western world there is a great deal of literature on angels. The only thing these writings prove is that some Westerners believe in angels. Their beliefs don't prove that these angels are real or from another world.

 

[malek4980]

Something had to start the big bang.

(No, I'm not joking, this is actually part of my reason for believing.)

And why would that thing be called God? And wouldn't God's existence need an explanation too?

 

[hadareud]

As opposed to the design of what? the most highly complex and efficient computer ever made by man? because such computer can barely approach the capabilities of a single human cell, let alone millions of different cells working together to let you think, type, poop, and make fun of your body design in neogaf.

how does pointing out another design limitation of the human body prove your point though?

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm basically an atheist in terms of the memes I hold... but in the study of mystical traditions (vedanta, buddhism, sufism) I have felt the notions that probably led to the inspiration of monotheism. I think they're possibly valid... not confirmed by any means, but possible.

I think 99.99999% of theists are just superstitionists passed on with idea baggage from their parents and society, though.

If there is a God, most God believers are right by accident. (of course it could be god's plan to indoctrinate people with the belief of his existance.... my point is that they arrive at this conclusion by illogical means)

 

[Evlar]

As far as I'm concerned any "design" argument for the existence of God, or any other argument that depends on typical syllogistic reasoning, is bound to failure. Arguing that way misses the point.

 

[Bulla564]

how does pointing out another design limitation of the human body prove your point though?

That perhaps you should think it through, next time you want to label as "poorly designed", when it is something that your limited mind can't even come close to replicating. Comparing the references you have to make judgements of design, the human body is FAR from being a poor example.

 

[Mash]

I'm basically an atheist in terms of the memes I hold... but in the study of mystical traditions (vedanta, buddhism, sufism) I have felt the notions that probably led to the inspiration of monotheism. I think they're possibly valid... not confirmed by any means, but possible.

I think 99.99999% of theists are just superstitionists passed on with idea baggage from their parents and society, though.

If there is a God, most God believers are right by accident. (of course it could be god's plan to indoctrinate people with the belief of his existance.... my point is that they arrive at this conclusion by illogical means)

Nice post. I agree with most of your sentiments here. Especially the bolded part but for me specifically through philosophy, I've always thought that is what Nietzsche was describing in the Birth of Tragedy about the Dionysian consciousness.