Theism/Gnosticism? [Archive]

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th November 2010, 06:45

But seriously..why does God have to be falsifiable?

Because it's really fucking tiring to hear the constant apologetics for why the universe is so resoundingly godless - there is no hint of purpose or design to be found anywhere in the universe at large. Goddists constantly move the goalposts and make excuses for the ever-absent God, when they could clinch the matter for ever more simply by presenting some solid evidence, yet they consistently fail to do so - in fact, some even attempt to place God beyond the reach of scientific enquiry, a surefire sign of intellectual dishonesty.

And you need evidence for your belief why?

Beliefs not based on evidence can be dangerously misleading.

God has lots of psychological and emotional benefits.

I'm given to understand that's not actually God, but belief in God. Some people apparently need comforting delusions to be happy and healthy, but I reckon they would still be better of overall with the truth.

I know people who would probably be unable to cope without some belief in a higher power. So for lots of people its not irrelevant, and superstition isnt always a bad thing.

Actually, I think it's horrifying if what you say is true - that there are people pout there who are so infantilised and mentally crippled that they could not cope without the security blanket of superstitious beliefs.

Such people should not be patronised with the elitist notion that believers should be free to wallow in their superstition - they should be mentally prepared for a life without God.

Post-Something

12th November 2010, 06:59

Because it's really fucking tiring to hear the constant apologetics for why the universe is so resoundingly godless - there is no hint of purpose or design to be found anywhere in the universe at large. Goddists constantly move the goalposts and make excuses for the ever-absent God, when they could clinch the matter for ever more simply by presenting some solid evidence, yet they consistently fail to do so - in fact, some even attempt to place God beyond the reach of scientific enquiry, a surefire sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Beliefs not based on evidence can be dangerously misleading.

I'm given to understand that's not actually God, but belief in God. Some people apparently need comforting delusions to be happy and healthy, but I reckon they would still be better of overall with the truth.

Actually, I think it's horrifying if what you say is true - that there are people pout there who are so infantilised and mentally crippled that they could not cope without the security blanket of superstitious beliefs.

Such people should not be patronised with the elitist notion that believers should be free to wallow in their superstition - they should be mentally prepared for a life without God.

I mostly agree with you apart from two main points:

1. I dont think that some people would be better off overall with the idea of a Godless world. I think that for some people it is the one thing that keeps them going, and it works. Of course, it doesnt work for everyone, but it is in my opinion a legitimate coping mechanism.

2. I dont think most people are mentally prepared for life without a God. We still live in a world largely dominated by religious values. Imagine if we actually completely rid the world of these conceptions? We would have to rearange our entire moral framework to take our species off the pedastol, and raise the environment and animals upto a higher level of appreciation. The reprecussions of that would be a far different world from what we could imagine. We would no longer be able to morally condemn something like infanticide, and we would have to take into consideration animals wishes not to be eaten. As well as totally reordering the way we use resources.

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th November 2010, 07:10

1. I dont think that some people would be better off overall with the idea of a Godless world. I think that for some people it is the one thing that keeps them going, and it works. Of course, it doesnt work for everyone, but it is in my opinion a legitimate coping mechanism.

What exactly is so terrible about the world that one needs to invent a fictional being in order to cope?

2. I dont think most people are mentally prepared for life without a God. We still live in a world largely dominated by religious values. Imagine if we actually completely rid the world of these conceptions? We would have to rearange our entire moral framework to take our species off the pedastol, and raise the environment and animals upto a higher level of appreciation.

No we wouldn't. Humans come first or humans become extinct, it's fairly simple.

The reprecussions of that would be a far different world from what we could imagine. We would no longer be able to morally condemn something like infanticide, and we would have to take into consideration animals wishes not to be eaten. As well as totally reordering the way we use resources.

Infanticide would still be deplorable under a secular moral system, as it is indicative of a deeper problem, perhaps mental health issues, or desperation brought about by extreme circumstances. People do not kill other people, especially their own children, without some underlying motivation.

Post-Something

12th November 2010, 07:26

What exactly is so terrible about the world that one needs to invent a fictional being in order to cope?

Lonliness? The promise of a better life afterwards? A richer sense of meaning?
You dont think somebody in jail for a long period of time, somebody with cancer who cant come to terms with their mortality, somebody stuck in a difficult marriage, that people who are in a difficult position cant posit a God, because its not falsifiable?

No we wouldn't. Humans come first or humans become extinct, it's fairly simple.

This isnt a question of extinction. Were clearly not threatened by changing the way we treat animals and the world.

Infanticide would still be deplorable under a secular moral system, as it is indicative of a deeper problem, perhaps mental health issues, or desperation brought about by extreme circumstances. People do not kill other people, especially their own children, without some underlying motivation.

How can it be? The earth is over populated as it is. If a mother gives birth to a child, and realizes that actually, she will not be able to take care of him, and there arent any organisations which can help her, what is wrong with simply killing it?
How about we take out the mother at all, and say orphans were left in the hands of some state funded organisation, what would be wrong with them simply saying, actually, its probably best not to bother?

Property Is Robbery

12th November 2010, 08:02

OK, but then we have a number of issues:

1) "God" needs to defined in a consistent and falsifiable manner.

2) Once defined, we need evidence for this entity or those like it.

3) If the evidence cannot be found or is beyond science, the whole "God" issue is at best irrelevant and at worst a backdoor for superstition.

He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. One's own views are personal and don't need to be defended to others

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th November 2010, 08:55

Lonliness?

Real people have the benefit of actually existing and being able to provide real support - from emotional to financial. Prayers to God don't address the root causes of loneliness.

The promise of a better life afterwards?

That promise is a lie, promulgated by those with a direct interest in deterring meaningful change in this world. People who base their lives on lies are avoiding the real problems.

A richer sense of meaning?

Why isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it?

You dont think somebody in jail for a long period of time, somebody with cancer who cant come to terms with their mortality, somebody stuck in a difficult marriage, that people who are in a difficult position cant posit a God, because its not falsifiable?

Yes! People shouldn't turn to false comforts that do nothing to address the cause of their problems, whether those false comforts be drinking or praying. People enduring grevious suffering need and deserve better.

This isnt a question of extinction. Were clearly not threatened by changing the way we treat animals and the world.

That's not what you originally stated - you were much more specific. You mentioned "take[ing] our species off the pedastol [sic]", implying that human concerns would no longer be the prime issue.

How can it be? The earth is over populated as it is.

If overpopulation really is a problem (which I don't believe it is), then there are multiple ways of dealing with the issue, all of them more humane than killing already living children.

If a mother gives birth to a child, and realizes that actually, she will not be able to take care of him, and there arent any organisations which can help her, what is wrong with simply killing it?

Because she can leave the child at a hospital, or on a rich person's doorstep, like in the bad old days.

How about we take out the mother at all, and say orphans were left in the hands of some state funded organisation, what would be wrong with them simply saying, actually, its probably best not to bother?

Because streets full of starving orphans make people with the merest ounce of compassion very angry, and that anger can manifest itself in multiple forms, from the establishment of charities and the welfare state to violent attacks against the authorities.

Your hypothetical scenarios are ignorant of the realities of society and human psychology. Rules against wanton murder exist in pretty much all societies, including atheist ones. This indicates that morality is something both more fundamental and seperate from religion. The mere fact that there are non-violent, moral and law-abiding atheists puts the lie to the religionist canard that we need religion in order to provide a foundation for our morals. Or worse, it makes the alleged necessity of religion something only for those "unwashed masses" incapable of forming their own morality on a rational basis - an insult to human dignity if there ever was one.

Furthermore, since the vast majority of people are not usually psychopaths or sadists, seeing other people in pain and suffering is itself hurtful, and there's only so many times one can just avert their eyes.

He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. One's own views are personal and don't need to be defended to others

This is a forum; if people don't want their ideas to be criticised, then they shouldn't post them for everyone to read. Further, if such views really were "personal", then they wouldn't mention them in the first place.

Post-Something

12th November 2010, 12:07

Real people have the benefit of actually existing and being able to provide real support - from emotional to financial. Prayers to God don't address the root causes of loneliness.

Lonliness is much more than than not having people around you. Lonliness can also affect you when you are unable to communicate with anyone the things that matter most to you. The more someone grows the less likely they are to make strong friendships in the traditional sense. Its very easy in modern society to get alienated, and even the most popular people can feel extremely lonely at the end of the day. If you read testimonies with converts to various religions, its as if they have a direct link with a friends who is looking out for them, and understands them. Thats a very hard feeling to recreate in real life.

That promise is a lie, promulgated by those with a direct interest in deterring meaningful change in this world. People who base their lives on lies are avoiding the real problems.

Aw come on..

Why isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it?

That works for some people, but not everyone.

Yes! People shouldn't turn to false comforts that do nothing to address the cause of their problems, whether those false comforts be drinking or praying. People enduring grevious suffering need and deserve better.

Its not so simple, and its not just a way for people to give up responsibility in situations which overwhelm them. Many people draw strength from religion which they probably couldnt have gotten any other way.

That's not what you originally stated - you were much more specific. You mentioned "take[ing] our species off the pedastol [sic]", implying that human concerns would no longer be the prime issue.

Ok, fair enough. What I meant by that was the traditional christian view that the world and everything on it are here for humans to take advantage of. But human concerns, should they really be seen as the prime issue and motivating force of our action?

If overpopulation really is a problem (which I don't believe it is), then there are multiple ways of dealing with the issue, all of them more humane than killing already living children.

This is a hypothetical scenario, Im just giving these issues as background rationalizations that people could offer. You could probably come up with a more plausible one with the same decision being made.

Because she can leave the child at a hospital, or on a rich person's doorstep, like in the bad old days.

Thats dodging the point

Because streets full of starving orphans make people with the merest ounce of compassion very angry, and that anger can manifest itself in multiple forms, from the establishment of charities and the welfare state to violent attacks against the authorities.

Your hypothetical scenarios are ignorant of the realities of society and human psychology. Rules against wanton murder exist in pretty much all societies, including atheist ones. This indicates that morality is something both more fundamental and seperate from religion. The mere fact that there are non-violent, moral and law-abiding atheists puts the lie to the religionist canard that we need religion in order to provide a foundation for our morals. Or worse, it makes the alleged necessity of religion something only for those "unwashed masses" incapable of forming their own morality on a rational basis - an insult to human dignity if there ever was one.

Furthermore, since the vast majority of people are not usually psychopaths or sadists, seeing other people in pain and suffering is itself hurtful, and there's only so many times one can just avert their eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Look up infanticide. Its something that was quite often practiced. Even in Ancient Greece. In fact, they had a special hill designated for where mothers would go to leave their children to die. You think even the great moral figures of the time, like Aristotle and Plato cared? No, because the human species just doesnt really matter that much. This is a christian value that is historically traceable, and you have to anticipate that people are going to rebel against the ever increasing secularization of society. And they should be allowed to, its their own choice. Compassion? Aversion to suffering? charity? Who were the biggest exponents of these values?

Revolution starts with U

12th November 2010, 18:48

Compassion? Aversion to suffering? charity? Who were the biggest exponents of these values?

Buddhists :D

In all seriousness tho. Compassion existed before christianity. Aversion to suffering did as well. Charity is an age old concept. None of these were created by christians. And there popularization didn't really kick off till the secular revolution of the past 2 centuries.
Unless of course you are saying feudal lords and spanish inquisitors were "compassionate and charitable people with an aversion to suffering."

Post-Something

12th November 2010, 19:08

Buddhists :D

In all seriousness tho. Compassion existed before christianity. Aversion to suffering did as well. Charity is an age old concept. None of these were created by christians. And there popularization didn't really kick off till the secular revolution of the past 2 centuries.
Unless of course you are saying feudal lords and spanish inquisitors were "compassionate and charitable people with an aversion to suffering."

Ok, youre right, but you have to admit that the way we understand the world now still owes a lot to the christian worldview. probably in more ways than we can know.

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th November 2010, 20:07

Lonliness is much more than than not having people around you. Lonliness can also affect you when you are unable to communicate with anyone the things that matter most to you. The more someone grows the less likely they are to make strong friendships in the traditional sense. Its very easy in modern society to get alienated, and even the most popular people can feel extremely lonely at the end of the day. If you read testimonies with converts to various religions, its as if they have a direct link with a friends who is looking out for them, and understands them. Thats a very hard feeling to recreate in real life.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea for people to settle for the booby prize of attempting to commune with a universe that does not and cannot care. The newly converted may gush about their supposed personal relationship with their chosen deity (why not any other?), but they are quite literally deluding themselves - there is nobody listening and any answers they get are entirely the creations of their own mind or that of their clergyman, whether they realise it or not.

Aw come on..

So you think its acceptable that people should take all the shit they do in life without a murmur of complaint, because they've been fed by a bunch of sclerotic priests the line not to rock the boat in case they ruin their chances at eternal bliss? I don't. I think it's deplorable that people waste so much physical and mental energy, in the only life they'll ever get, chasing some phantasm of a dream of a promise that everything will be alright after they die - which is convenient enough because nobody's going to come back and embarass the holy men, fakirs and psychics by contradicting them.

That works for some people, but not everyone.

You're not even curious as to why some people feel the need to create kitschy myths and gawky superstitions? Don't you think it's absurd to fog up the lenses of one's worldview with patently untrue bullshit? Aren't you outraged that such tendencies aren't just tolerated, but encouraged despite the fact that they render one vulnerable to snake oil salesmen, paranoid conspiracy theories, lecherous and venal clergy of all cloths, and the denial of science and medicine?

Its not so simple, and its not just a way for people to give up responsibility in situations which overwhelm them. Many people draw strength from religion which they probably couldnt have gotten any other way.

Do they really? Or is it the social networks and associated benefits that helped them, because there are secular alternatives to those as well.

Ok, fair enough. What I meant by that was the traditional christian view that the world and everything on it are here for humans to take advantage of. But human concerns, should they really be seen as the prime issue and motivating force of our action?

Absolutely, yes! We are extremely social animals; other humans are the biggest influence on our individual lives. Humanity's issues are everybody's issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Look up infanticide. Its something that was quite often practiced. Even in Ancient Greece. In fact, they had a special hill designated for where mothers would go to leave their children to die. You think even the great moral figures of the time, like Aristotle and Plato cared? No, because the human species just doesnt really matter that much.

No, it's because times were harder back then... much harder. A woman who did not abandon her child under certain circumstances would most likely suffer greviously or die herself, or face ostracism from her community which would also likely result in her death.

Nowadays things tend to be more civilised, with hospitals, orphanages, foster carers and so on. It's not perfect by any means, but it sure beats leaving babies outside to die of exposure.

This is a christian value that is historically traceable, and you have to anticipate that people are going to rebel against the ever increasing secularization of society. And they should be allowed to, its their own choice.

Society is becoming increasingly secular because more and more people are becoming secular.

Compassion? Aversion to suffering? charity? Who were the biggest exponents of these values?

Christians pay plenty of lip service to that kind of talk, but the secular welfare state, even in its increasingly amputated condition, achieves more than Christian charity could ever hope for.

Revolution starts with U

13th November 2010, 02:37

Ok, youre right, but you have to admit that the way we understand the world now still owes a lot to the christian worldview. probably in more ways than we can know.

I won't deny that. I think it was far more important to open up critical thinking, and multiculturalism (and no, not cultural relativism, per se), than to be a christian tho. Don't get me wrong, Jesus is a great guy. And I'm sure much of my worldview is framed in christian ethics that I don't even realize. But I have never seen being christian as anything redeeming, growing up a catholic.

Rafiq

13th November 2010, 02:41

It's not that ridiculous for someone to believe in God.

Now, I am not talking about being Religious, just believing a greater being.

Post-Something

14th November 2010, 23:36

Man..I wrote all my response, then it got deleted...round number 2:

That doesn't mean it's a good idea for people to settle for the booby prize of attempting to commune with a universe that does not and cannot care. The newly converted may gush about their supposed personal relationship with their chosen deity (why not any other?), but they are quite literally deluding themselves - there is nobody listening and any answers they get are entirely the creations of their own mind or that of their clergyman, whether they realise it or not.

So what if they are deluding themselves? Whats wrong with that? When I lie in bed at night, and I hear rain on the roof, I tell myself its a guy having an incredibly long piss on the wall outside. It makes me feel creative, and I laugh. When I listen to Johnny Cash and I'm walking down the street, I like to think hes singing to me. Its delusion. So what? Anything that helps people get to sleep at night isnt completely bad.

So you think its acceptable that people should take all the shit they do in life without a murmur of complaint, because they've been fed by a bunch of sclerotic priests the line not to rock the boat in case they ruin their chances at eternal bliss? I don't. I think it's deplorable that people waste so much physical and mental energy, in the only life they'll ever get, chasing some phantasm of a dream of a promise that everything will be alright after they die - which is convenient enough because nobody's going to come back and embarass the holy men, fakirs and psychics by contradicting them.

Why not? Surely thats what you and me both do. I mean, youre an Anarchist for Gods sake, thatll never happen in youre lifetime, but you still chase the dream of a better future and put in the physical and mental energy to make it happen. I mean, if history has show us anything, according to you, were the most wasteful of all, right?

You're not even curious as to why some people feel the need to create kitschy myths and gawky superstitions? Don't you think it's absurd to fog up the lenses of one's worldview with patently untrue bullshit? Aren't you outraged that such tendencies aren't just tolerated, but encouraged despite the fact that they render one vulnerable to snake oil salesmen, paranoid conspiracy theories, lecherous and venal clergy of all cloths, and the denial of science and medicine?

Yeah, Im curious about it. Im doing a course on religion at university, so I Am curious about why it happens. It is strange isnt it? But everyone does it, and I dont necessarily think its a bad thing to fog up the lenses of ones worldview. I think its quite normal, and I think it can make life a lot better and more tolerable. I mean, youre doing it just now in this debate by assuming that we should allign our actions with what is true, rather than what is enjoyable or meaningful to us. Happens all the time.

Do they really? Or is it the social networks and associated benefits that helped them, because there are secular alternatives to those as well.

Yeah, the social networks have something to do with it, but I mean even just the belief by itself. A person who comes to a new city alone for the first time, its a frightening thing. If they know nobody, or the language, religion can be a very driving force in helping them get through the tough time. Or even just a person who is afraid to leave the home, lots of strength to keep going.

Absolutely, yes! We are extremely social animals; other humans are the biggest influence on our individual lives. Humanity's issues are everybody's issues.

Ok, this is a different debate, so Ill stick to religion and forget this, but I think there have been events which have maybe signalled to us to rethink that idea, like DDT and Chernobyl, but Ill skip it.

No, it's because times were harder back then... much harder. A woman who did not abandon her child under certain circumstances would most likely suffer greviously or die herself, or face ostracism from her community which would also likely result in her death.

Nowadays things tend to be more civilised, with hospitals, orphanages, foster carers and so on. It's not perfect by any means, but it sure beats leaving babies outside to die of exposure.

Ok, I understand, but Im asking a different question. What Im really getting at is how the value of human life itself shifts once you remove God from the equation. Surely you would agree with me that we would fall a great deal from the original "life is sacred" mantra? What if someone just isnt prepared to accept that? Why burst their bubble? Theyve got one life like you said, why ruin it for them?

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th November 2010, 23:58

So what if they are deluding themselves? Whats wrong with that? When I lie in bed at night, and I hear rain on the roof, I tell myself its a guy having an incredibly long piss on the wall outside. It makes me feel creative, and I laugh. When I listen to Johnny Cash and I'm walking down the street, I like to think hes singing to me. Its delusion. So what? Anything that helps people get to sleep at night isnt completely bad.

But you don't seriously believe that someone is pissing against your wall all night. You don't seriously believe that Johnny Cash is singing to you. Those are both idle fantasies, and cannot be compared to sincere religious belief, where someone accepts the existence of God just like you or I would accept the existence of trees.

Why not? Surely thats what you and me both do. I mean, youre an Anarchist for Gods sake, thatll never happen in youre lifetime, but you still chase the dream of a better future and put in the physical and mental energy to make it happen. I mean, if history has show us anything, according to you, were the most wasteful of all, right?

No. I don't do anything with the expectation that I will get some reward after I die. I may put my effort into things that may not come into fruition until I after I die, but in that case I will not be around to enjoy it. So why do I do it? Because pushing for a classless society is the strategy with the greatest chance of actually improving the majority's lives, and hence my own. I realise that my welfare is tied in with the welfare of my fellow workers, so that is what I advocate.

Yeah, Im curious about it. Im doing a course on religion at university, so I Am curious about why it happens. It is strange isnt it? But everyone does it, and I dont necessarily think its a bad thing to fog up the lenses of ones worldview. I think its quite normal, and I think it can make life a lot better and more tolerable. I mean, youre doing it just now in this debate by assuming that we should allign our actions with what is true, rather than what is enjoyable or meaningful to us. Happens all the time.

The problem is that reality does not care about what is enjoyable or meaningful to us. Straying too far from reality will get you bitten on the arse! It's fine to pretend and play-act and suspend one's disbelief in certain circumstances (like reading a book or watching a film), but when it comes to beliefs about the real world, things go a hell of a lot more smoothly if they accord with what reality actually is.

Yeah, the social networks have something to do with it, but I mean even just the belief by itself. A person who comes to a new city alone for the first time, its a frightening thing. If they know nobody, or the language, religion can be a very driving force in helping them get through the tough time. Or even just a person who is afraid to leave the home, lots of strength to keep going.

The difference being that there are plenty of other sources of strength that do not require you to check your brains and critical thinking at the door.

Ok, this is a different debate, so Ill stick to religion and forget this, but I think there have been events which have maybe signalled to us to rethink that idea, like DDT and Chernobyl, but Ill skip it.

You mean DDT which can reduce the incidence of malaria, and Chernobyl which has been the only major accident in the history of nuclear power generation? Most major industries would kill to have a safety record as good as nuclear power.

Ok, I understand, but Im asking a different question. What Im really getting at is how the value of human life itself shifts once you remove God from the equation. Surely you would agree with me that we would fall a great deal from the original "life is sacred" mantra? What if someone just isnt prepared to accept that? Why burst their bubble? Theyve got one life like you said, why ruin it for them?

If a person realises that this is the only life they are going to get, then it becomes all the more important to spend one's time wisely. This extends to other people as well; by murdering an innocent, you are extinguishing a literal lifetime of possibilities in which that person could have made a real difference to the lives of their friends and family and/or the wider community.

Black Sheep

16th November 2010, 13:18

It's not that ridiculous for someone to believe in God.

Now, I am not talking about being Religious, just believing a greater being.
It is as ridiculous as believing in the celestial teapot orbiting the Sun.
In fact it is more ridiculous than that, given god's and religion's pattern throughout history, the god of the gaps rationalization,non falsifiability, etc

It always amazes me, that rational people- communists for fuck's sake! - abandon all critical thinking and skepticism when god is concerned.

Post-Something

16th November 2010, 21:31

Sorry for taking so long, Ive been a bit busy.

But you don't seriously believe that someone is pissing against your wall all night. You don't seriously believe that Johnny Cash is singing to you. Those are both idle fantasies, and cannot be compared to sincere religious belief, where someone accepts the existence of God just like you or I would accept the existence of trees.

No, I dont believe that in the same way that I believe in trees, youre right. And there probably isnt an example I can use which would capture the enormity of religious belief. But I think the example does highlight something important about the nature of belief. Many people experience a kind of turning point which they decide that they have to just accept the fact of God. As if they know its a choice between a better or a worse existence for them. There is a decision involved, and it completely changes the way people experience the world. Take trees, like you say, I could look at it and hear what scientists say, that it grows uses a process of photosynthesis, that its leaves have a certain number of layers and that its bark is made of certain number of atomic structures. But that doesnt really matter to me as an individual who in everyday life isnt involved in biology or any other scientific discipline. So what would be the problem if I decided that actually, I prefer to understand trees in a different way? Or if I somehow incorporate them into my life philosophy? Whats the point of looking at things realistically in this context? Why are you so against the idea of people straying to far into their own "fantasies"? Surely it is a good thing as long as it keeps them happy?

You used the word delusion a while back, and it stuck in my mind. What is wrong with a delusion? Wouldnt you agree that its just another acceptable form of human coping mechanism? And why do you think that people who are deluded have to be rid of this delusion? Heres an example to illustrate my point:

Imagine your uncle fought in a war and he had returned a much different person. Information comes to you, with photographic evidence, that he had taken many lives abroad. You try to bring it up but it seems that his memory has repressed this incident very deep inside his mind. What possible reason would you have to convince him that he had killed all of those people?

No. I don't do anything with the expectation that I will get some reward after I die. I may put my effort into things that may not come into fruition until I after I die, but in that case I will not be around to enjoy it. So why do I do it? Because pushing for a classless society is the strategy with the greatest chance of actually improving the majority's lives, and hence my own. I realise that my welfare is tied in with the welfare of my fellow workers, so that is what I advocate.

Ok, fair enough.

The problem is that reality does not care about what is enjoyable or meaningful to us. Straying too far from reality will get you bitten on the arse! It's fine to pretend and play-act and suspend one's disbelief in certain circumstances (like reading a book or watching a film), but when it comes to beliefs about the real world, things go a hell of a lot more smoothly if they accord with what reality actually is.

Ahh, this doesnt apply. This is about the poster believing in a God, without even referencing a religion! There is plenty of space for an individual to think about the world without going against the "laws of nature". Think of how many belief systems and world views exist? Think of how many inventions that have worked despite being built with a now laughable understanding of nature? Almost everything an individual will likely come into contact with in his life can be interpreted from the perspective that there is a God, so there is no problem in my opinion for the OP. You say that the problem is that reality does not care about what is enjoyable or meaningful to us, I think the problem is that you care too much about reality.

The difference being that there are plenty of other sources of strength that do not require you to check your brains and critical thinking at the door.

Like what?

If a person realises that this is the only life they are going to get, then it becomes all the more important to spend one's time wisely. This extends to other people as well; by murdering an innocent, you are extinguishing a literal lifetime of possibilities in which that person could have made a real difference to the lives of their friends and family and/or the wider community.

The problem is how you define a person. Are infants really people? If you take the lifetime of possibilities argument, Im sure youre familiar with the traditional argument against abortion, and then that doesnt justify why you wouldnt be against abortion itself?

ÑóẊîöŉ

17th November 2010, 14:13

No, I dont believe that in the same way that I believe in trees, youre right. And there probably isnt an example I can use which would capture the enormity of religious belief. But I think the example does highlight something important about the nature of belief. Many people experience a kind of turning point which they decide that they have to just accept the fact of God. As if they know its a choice between a better or a worse existence for them. There is a decision involved, and it completely changes the way people experience the world. Take trees, like you say, I could look at it and hear what scientists say, that it grows uses a process of photosynthesis, that its leaves have a certain number of layers and that its bark is made of certain number of atomic structures. But that doesnt really matter to me as an individual who in everyday life isnt involved in biology or any other scientific discipline. So what would be the problem if I decided that actually, I prefer to understand trees in a different way? Or if I somehow incorporate them into my life philosophy? Whats the point of looking at things realistically in this context? Why are you so against the idea of people straying to far into their own "fantasies"? Surely it is a good thing as long as it keeps them happy?

Because their happiness comes at the cost of perpetuating falsehood and the direct support of enemies of reason, one of the best weapons against having the wool pulled over our eyes.

If there is something about reality that makes us unhappy, surely it would be better to actually do something about it, rather than try to pretend it doesn't exist?

You used the word delusion a while back, and it stuck in my mind. What is wrong with a delusion? Wouldnt you agree that its just another acceptable form of human coping mechanism? And why do you think that people who are deluded have to be rid of this delusion? Heres an example to illustrate my point:

Imagine your uncle fought in a war and he had returned a much different person. Information comes to you, with photographic evidence, that he had taken many lives abroad. You try to bring it up but it seems that his memory has repressed this incident very deep inside his mind. What possible reason would you have to convince him that he had killed all of those people?

So that he can realise why he is being punished for the crimes he committed. Sure, I'd be upset, but why the fuck should I let my feelings prevent justice being served?

Indeed, for all I know, my uncle could be a liar, merely pretending to repress the memories for which we have photographic evidence for.

That is why evidence is important - because people lie, or can be mistaken, or delude themselves in some fashion.

Ahh, this doesnt apply. This is about the poster believing in a God, without even referencing a religion! There is plenty of space for an individual to think about the world without going against the "laws of nature". Think of how many belief systems and world views exist? Think of how many inventions that have worked despite being built with a now laughable understanding of nature? Almost everything an individual will likely come into contact with in his life can be interpreted from the perspective that there is a God, so there is no problem in my opinion for the OP. You say that the problem is that reality does not care about what is enjoyable or meaningful to us, I think the problem is that you care too much about reality.

Just because the consequences of a given false belief about reality are not immediately apparent, does not mean they don't exist.

How the fuck can one "care too much" about reality? It happens to be the only thing that truly matters - it's where we all live, not in some fantasy land where benevolent spirits provide everything we need.

Like what?

Friends. If you don't have any, make some. Join a club of some kind or regularly hang out somewhere. Sooner or later you'll start talking to someone and end up striking up a friendship, with a real person who may one day help you out when you really need it. Unlike God, who won't do jack shit if you ask for his help because he doesn't exist.

The problem is how you define a person. Are infants really people? If you take the lifetime of possibilities argument, Im sure youre familiar with the traditional argument against abortion, and then that doesnt justify why you wouldnt be against abortion itself?

Infants are people, just people who haven't fully developed yet. Foetuses aren't people, and it's never certain that they will be people either. Since late-term abortions are the exception rather than the norm, it's disingenuous to be against abortion for that reason.

Post-Something

17th November 2010, 15:52

Because their happiness comes at the cost of perpetuating falsehood and the direct support of enemies of reason, one of the best weapons against having the wool pulled over our eyes.

If there is something about reality that makes us unhappy, surely it would be better to actually do something about it, rather than try to pretend it doesn't exist?

Avoiding falsehood is nothing in comparison to happiness. If thats the price to pay, then at best you just have a clash of values, and Im sure youre aware that most people would choose the latter if the choice was a big enough impact on their lives.

For a lot of people, doing something about it isnt an option, because its already been done. Take for example, somebody who feels he has committed a terrible act; like a murder, incest, or cheated somebody in some huge way. Nomatter what you can bring up about the justice system and punishment, in the end, he may not forgive himself. Thats a terrible feeling. For some people, the worst feeling. Many people say only way out of this is to accept the existence of a higher power, for obvious reasons. Dont you think something as puny as reason and the rigidity of how you view the world pales in comparison? Doesnt it just seem like dogma to support reason and the search for truth in situations like these?

So that he can realise why he is being punished for the crimes he committed. Sure, I'd be upset, but why the fuck should I let my feelings prevent justice being served?

This isnt about justice! Thats a completely different sphere of thought to this right now. The example wasnt that he was going to be taken to court for what he did, or anything like that. Say he was defending his hometown, or anything, but this is not a court issue. Just everyday people dealing with how to live their lives.

Indeed, for all I know, my uncle could be a liar, merely pretending to repress the memories for which we have photographic evidence for.

That is why evidence is important - because people lie, or can be mistaken, or delude themselves in some fashion.

See above.

Just because the consequences of a given false belief about reality are not immediately apparent, does not mean they don't exist.

What possible consequences is someone going to face by believing in God? Hes just a tiny blip of existence in the universe who decided to look at his surroudings slightly differently, he wont matter in any way, believe me.

How the fuck can one "care too much" about reality? It happens to be the only thing that truly matters - it's where we all live, not in some fantasy land where benevolent spirits provide everything we need.

By the very nature of our existence, reality has to be interpreted. What matters to us isnt where we all live, its how we intepret it and ourselves. What really matters to most people isnt the fact that we rotate around the sun, or that sound travels in waves, or that were made largely from carbon. No, its things like, avoiding our own mortality, achieving a level of success within our community, creating meaning in our life, feeling that we have significance etc etc.

Friends. If you don't have any, make some. Join a club of some kind or regularly hang out somewhere. Sooner or later you'll start talking to someone and end up striking up a friendship, with a real person who may one day help you out when you really need it. Unlike God, who won't do jack shit if you ask for his help because he doesn't exist.

Friends are good, but true friends are hard to make. And like I said before, many people are lonely, in that they cant communicate the things that really matter them as people. Its very hard to find a friend which can help deal with the kind of anxieties the religion just slides over.

Infants are people, just people who haven't fully developed yet. Foetuses aren't people, and it's never certain that they will be people either. Since late-term abortions are the exception rather than the norm, it's disingenuous to be against abortion for that reason.

Infants cant even distinguish between themselves and objects. Many animals have a better understanding and emotional development than infants, yet we dont mind putting them down. And why isnt it ever certain that a foetus will be a person?

ÑóẊîöŉ

17th November 2010, 17:25

Avoiding falsehood is nothing in comparison to happiness. If thats the price to pay, then at best you just have a clash of values, and Im sure youre aware that most people would choose the latter if the choice was a big enough impact on their lives.

Avoiding falsehood is a pre-requisite of long-term happiness. Delusions may be temporarily comforting, but when they clash against reality, reality always wins and the result is never a happy one. Much better to avoid it in the first place by not holding to delusions.

For a lot of people, doing something about it isnt an option, because its already been done. Take for example, somebody who feels he has committed a terrible act; like a murder, incest, or cheated somebody in some huge way. Nomatter what you can bring up about the justice system and punishment, in the end, he may not forgive himself. Thats a terrible feeling. For some people, the worst feeling. Many people say only way out of this is to accept the existence of a higher power, for obvious reasons.

It usually translates to "give money to my church and God will forgive you" - an obvious scam, preying on the emotionally weakened.

This isnt about justice! Thats a completely different sphere of thought to this right now. The example wasnt that he was going to be taken to court for what he did, or anything like that. Say he was defending his hometown, or anything, but this is not a court issue. Just everyday people dealing with how to live their lives.

If he was acting in self-defence then there is no problem, apart from the fact that he's suffering from some extreme memory loss, which should be treated if at all possible.

What possible consequences is someone going to face by believing in God? Hes just a tiny blip of existence in the universe who decided to look at his surroudings slightly differently, he wont matter in any way, believe me.

There is a vast difference between seeing the universe as the deliberate creation of an intentional being, and seeing the universe as the consequence of the mindless churning of physics - in the former, everything has a reason for being. In the latter, there is no meaning at all in the universe beyond which that we create.

It's where the whole idea that humans should not "play God" comes from.

By the very nature of our existence, reality has to be interpreted. What matters to us isnt where we all live, its how we intepret it and ourselves. What really matters to most people isnt the fact that we rotate around the sun, or that sound travels in waves, or that were made largely from carbon. No, its things like, avoiding our own mortality, achieving a level of success within our community, creating meaning in our life, feeling that we have significance etc etc.

Achieving things like that is a lot easier the more facts we are in possession of, as opposed to myths.

Friends are good, but true friends are hard to make. And like I said before, many people are lonely, in that they cant communicate the things that really matter them as people. Its very hard to find a friend which can help deal with the kind of anxieties the religion just slides over.

That's the problem; religion doesn't deal with problem, it just cloaks them or gives excuses as to why they "can't" be solved.

Infants cant even distinguish between themselves and objects. Many animals have a better understanding and emotional development than infants, yet we dont mind putting them down. And why isnt it ever certain that a foetus will be a person?

Haven't you ever heard of a miscarriage? Or a congenital defect that results in a terminal birth? Animals will never naturally develop into people.