What If There Is a God?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, attacks are made on the premise that god's existence is not definative either way and, allowing for that, we still need to deal with the evil behaviours of people using their belief as justification.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would not object to that.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are doing that with your Scientology example Phil. What I think about their beliefs is not relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your stance is that no claim is ridiculous then of course you are right. On the assumption that the word applies to some claims then knowing if scientology fits your level of application gives others a sense of your gauge on the usage.

[ QUOTE ]
Look guys. Here is the logical point I'm getting at in a nutshell. This is what I see the Atheists sometimes doing.

A. If X is true then you are ridiculous.
T. Of course. But I'm not ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so it's only some atheists some times that bug you.

But what if you don't personalize it. What about when the atheist says "your belief in scientology is ridiculous because ..."
If the theist wants to whine, "oh, you nasty person, you just called me ridiculous, I'm not ridiculous, I'm a nice person ...mommy,mommmy" then I see your point.

Non-ridiculous people can have ridiculous ideas. I may tell a friend, "now you're being rude" that does not mean "you are a rude person" ( I have no friends that are rude people) just that one action was. To rise to the level of a ridiculous person or a rude person it needs to permeate a fair amount of their being. Some people manage that.

luckyme

[Ben K]

Well, we're on the same side then, although I suspected that from all the god is love stuff before where I would say many similar things just not using the word god.

You realise how much work there is to do in getting christians and the rest to change (or even caveat as in my last post) some of their beliefs?? This is why some people attack god's existence - to try and sow some doubt, enough doubt to allow the evil things to be shown up and changed.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

You realise how much work there is to do in getting christians and the rest to change (or even caveat as in my last post) some of their beliefs??

[/ QUOTE ]

Expand a bit on that.
It can't be you're expecting, "I believe in god and he has left messages for me and he takes actions in the world and asking for them helps but I realize I'm not sure there is one so some of the harder to swallow positions he seems to want I'll water down."
That would make a theist admitting judging for himself, same as I do. ( of course that's what they do, cloaked in their religion of choice, but, boy, could a person admit it in the context of a revealed religion?)
You can see why I'm asking for some clarification of what you are hoping for.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if you don't personalize it. What about when the atheist says "your belief in scientology is ridiculous because ..."


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that. Give all the Yada Yada Yada reasons you want. I personally would not be able to give you corresponding Scientology Yida's to your Yada's and keep a straight face. I don't know how they do it, but oh well.

The problem is not with the personalization though. The logical point I'm getting at is the Proclamation of the Premise. Argue all you want to support your premise. But when you draw conclusions based on your premise and then proclaim the conclusions are verified because they logically follow, that is illogical. They are not verified. When you claim they are you are merely proclaiming your premise. PLEASE think about this. Do you understand that logical point? Please somebody tell me they are actually paying attention.

An expanded version of Proclaming the Premise:



A. "Religion should be abolished".
T. "Why"?
A. "Because it's irrational".
T. "It's not irrational. You are being irrational to say so."
A. "I have good reasons for saying so. They are Yada Yada Yada Yada".
T. "Yada Yida, Yada Yida, Yada Yida, Yada Yida."
A. "Your Yida's are irrational".
T. "Your Yada to my Yida is irrational."
A. "Well now you're obviously being irrational and ridiculous. And the fact you can't see that proves you are irrational. Therefore Religion should be abolished."

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we're on the same side then, although I suspected that from all the god is love stuff before where I would say many similar things just not using the word god.

You realise how much work there is to do in getting christians and the rest to change (or even caveat as in my last post) some of their beliefs?? This is why some people attack god's existence - to try and sow some doubt, enough doubt to allow the evil things to be shown up and changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree there's a tremendous amount of work to be done, and not just with Christians. The problem is how best to accomplish our mutual goals. My personal intuition tells me that attacking the fundamental belief in some kind of God, or Source of Existence, or Source of Meaning to Existence, or whatever is not the best approach. In my view the best approach is to encourage the seeking of Common Ground.

PairTheBoard

[oe39]

how would they make any progress?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
how would they make any progress?

[/ QUOTE ]

By continuing to discuss the premise. It gets even worse when the Proclamation of the Premise results in circular logic.

The Proclamation of the Premise goes like this.

Premise ==> Conclusion
Therefore, Conclusion.

It gets worse when it goes like this,

Premise ==> Conclusion ==> Premise
Therefore, Premise

For example:

Premise = "There is no God"
Conclusion = "Believing in God is silly"

Although now I'm starting to see people argue that Believing in God is silly even if there is a God.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Although now I'm starting to see people argue that Believing in God is silly even if there is a God.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a clarity of thought issue.

My neighbor believes Carrot Top is alive because my neighbors lawn is cut every day. Seems silly to me. If you feel Carrot Tops existence proves my neighbor right ... oh, well.

luckyme

[Ben K]

LuckyMe - I see why you're asking for expansion and that bit you've put in quotes is not what I'm asking. I would split that quote up:

"I believe in god"

"Some people have told me that he has left messages for me...."

There is a distinct and very wide gap between believing in god and accepting that the words of humans - who had no way of evidencing their conversations with god - are direct instructions from god. There has to be huge amounts of doubt purely from the fact some people are deceptive and that we all have met people who are very deceptive. In fact, as this forum is a sub forum from a poker site, surely we should be more aware of this point than anyone.

Essentially. That first quote is unarguable. The second one, however, is very arguable. Even accepting that the people who wrote the holy books may be running an agenda of their own and not quoting god correctly gives good grounds for changing some of the nutty behaviours religion inspires. We could, here, avoid the caveat on gods existence entirely by merely acknowledging that the people who wrote the books are fallible. For the value it has (i.e. nil) I would happily say god existed provided the behaviour that was proported in god's name was all good. You could almost say my rejection of god's existence is a moral decision (almost 'cos the lack of evidence thing is pretty convincing for me).

What I'm expecting is a disconnect between 'god exists' and 'god says do x' either by encouraging doubt about the existence of god or by encouraging doubt about the truthfullness of the holy words 'inspired' by god.

PairTheBoard - I wasn't particularly singling out christians, but it's the religion we're most familiar with here. I think I agree that attacking the underlying belief in god is not the best approach but more because it's a distraction away from the arguement against the consequences of that belief (which is the actual problem, believe what you like in the privacy of your own head) and is easily stalemated, than because of any issues with running into stubborness. I think working for a common ground is a good idea. I haven't seen any material that comes close to the moral teachings of christianity that does not refer to some supernatural entity and this is perhaps the biggest flaw of atheism. Every week, christians meet and get a small lecture on good, moral behaviour. Even if some of that teaching is off, the overall message is positive. On the contrast, once you've chucked out the god idea, most atheists stop the church going and therefore lose the little lectures on good, moral behaviour. What's more, is that these lectures don't get replaced.

Theists often resist the arguments against the existence of god, or the plausibility of their holy books, not (my opinion here, ok?) because they disagree with the argument as such but because they can't see how the good stuff will get replaced without the underlying assumption of god's existence. Thus we get posts like "omg, you atheists must have no morals" or "if I were an atheist, I'd get pissed and kill people because morality becomes relative" and other rubbish. That's bull, because the behaviours that work in society to maximise the utility of you and everyone else don't, generally, involve getting pissed everyday and killling people.

Just got back from the club, a bit pissed. Hope this is clear. Back in a few hours if not.....