Forum menu
No meaning in the rational world.
In your world, you mean....
No
the two positions " god exists" and "god does not exist" are not of equal value. One is rational one by definition as requiring faith is not. Religion has no foundation in reality.
I don’ think this is fair, we are disucssing religion, he is talking about theology. Are you saying they are the same thing?
To discuss religion without rejecting theology would be to do so from a point of ignorance, no?
No mate that is literally incorrect. Lots of evidence for the contrary.
Hm. Further reading required.
Have we considered that some people actually need faith as opposed to knowledge?
Need? They might want it.
the two positions ” god exists” and “god does not exist” are not of equal value. One is rational one by definition as requiring faith is not. Religion has no foundation in reality.
Those are your values though aren't they?
Further reading required.
There's a Wikipedia page about biblical inerrancy and also one about the history of creationism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism?wprov=sfla1
<blockquoteActually buddhism perhaps does have something to teach us in the west.
Accept your place, better luck next time round?
I'm amazed this thread is still open.
To OP though, it's not for me, but thank you for the offer and I hope it goes well!
Perhaps time to end this thread now. I see that the usual suspects are beginning to pile in with ignorant attacks on anyone with the ‘incorrect’ view.
It isn't really possible to have a rational debate when one side's position is rooted in irrationality. The best one can hope for is that the sides agree to tolerate, or even ignore each other. This is made difficult by the history - I'm not aware of any instances of religious people's lives being impacted by the non-religious (except maybe in the USSR), but we have centuries of experience of things going the other way.
It isn’t really possible to have a rational debate when one side’s position is rooted in irrationality.
Right but that's not what this is about.
What is it about then?
Accept your place, better luck next time round?
Lolz
What is it about then?
Well the more prosaic questions I think are these:
1. Does God exist?
2. Did God create the universe?
And I think people are a bit preoccupied with those, because I don't think they are answerable as formulated there. So you can easily come down on the 'no' side without much thought or work. But to me those aren't the interesting questions, which include:
3. What could God be? What would pantheistic gods be?
4. Do people actually want to know? Is faith preferable to knowledge?
5. What do religious stories and creation myths really mean to people and why are they valuable?
6. Does the idea of faith have value?
7. Is rationalism incompatible with faith? (I guess this summarises questions 3-6)
1) No
2) NO
3) See above - non existant
4)No - either side
5)they are only valuable to believers
6) No
7) Yes
3. What could God be? What would pantheistic gods be?
4. Do people actually want to know? Is faith preferable to knowledge?
5. What do religious stories and creation myths really mean to people and why are they valuable?
6. Does the idea of faith have value?
7. Is rationalism incompatible with faith? (I guess this summarises questions 3-6)
Well this covers what we have repeated earlier. Who cares about 3-7 when its all imaginary sky fairies anyway?
Plus discussing 3-7 whilst pretending that 1 and 2 are not important just allows 1 and 2 to be forgotten about. Its part of a big con to make you forget 1 and 2, or eventually accept 1 and 2, because 3-7 are so important in human history.
It is using the desire to have a conclusion as justification for the exisitence of the conclusion. It is a basic failure of any science experiment, a massive logical fallacy knows as "affirming the consequent", or colloquially "Putting the cart before the horse".
The whole set up of the idea of the virtual chat is asking us to abandon the idea of logic at the entry point.
Hence my objection to giving theology any credence whatsover. I feel like it has the same danger as letting the double glazing salesman in to Grandmas house when she has just taken delivery of a new chequebook.
PS 3-7 is exaclty what I thought it was about, and the fact that it seems prudent to some to leave out 1 and 2 as "less interesting" is exactly why I am here.
I've been presented with this method several times before.
It is very similar to the Alpha Project which one of my friends got sucked in to. If it wasn't "christianity" then it would be seen as a cult.
IMO with limited knowledge ...
1. Does God exist?
Yes, if it is defined as cosmic conscious energy force whatever. Otherwise don't know as it is too difficult for people to comprehend.
2. Did God create the universe?
Yes, if there is some form of hierarchy in cosmic conscious energy force.
3. What could God be? What would pantheistic gods be?
Conscious energy force. Energy force.
4. Do people actually want to know? Is faith preferable to knowledge?
I am not too bothered but when the time is right I will or want to know. They are both knowledge to me.
5. What do religious stories and creation myths really mean to people and why are they valuable?
A way to explain a concept and gaining knowlege.
6. Does the idea of faith have value?
Everything has a value but that value is different for different people coz we are unique.
7. Is rationalism incompatible with faith? (I guess this summarises questions 3-6)
No, if the logic can be established.
Are you Buddhist Chewk? Didn’t Buddha reject the idea of a creationist god? Interesting piece on it here
https://qz.com/india/1585631/the-ancient-connections-between-atheism-buddhism-and-hinduism/
Plus discussing 3-7 whilst pretending that 1 and 2 are not important just allows 1 and 2 to be forgotten about.
No, not in the least. That's not even what I said. I said the questions were prosaic and the answers are not very interesting.
It is using the desire to have a conclusion as justification for the exisitence of the conclusion.
You do know that I'm an atheist, right? And yet I'm stil interested. Because regardless of the answer to 1 and 2, the other questions still affect humans, and I am a human.
I could put it another way: Maybe it's not actually about the origin of the universe after all?
Hence my objection to giving theology any credence whatsover.
To me it is similar to studying history or philosophy.
To me it is similar to studying history or philosophy.
I think that is the best way to put it. It is a very interesting subject to discuss. I think a few posters have misconstrued SR’s original post and idea to be honest.
Im not sure how they have managed it. It’s a spectacular trick to pull off especially given how much money and power it has taken from the faithful
Con men still do it.
Is rationalism incompatible with faith?
People are irrational all the time. Also you could make the Platonic argument that reason is just memory. We have faith in numbers, we have faith that peoples accounts of things are real, we take on faith our reasoning, we take our senses on faith irrespective of the fact that our brains aren't actually connected directly to the outside world.
Humans can only be lied to successfully because our natural instinct is to believe, to have faith the people around us tell the truth, otherwise you can't live a co-dependent existence which has made us so successful as a species.
Maybe a slight tangent, but it all boils down to this (whether you believe in anything or not) doesn't it?
So it's decided then, we'll consult Holly.
People are irrational all the time.
I 100% agree with this, but we still aim to be rational, just because people are irrational does not mean we should abdicate sense.
I feel about rationalism the same way I feel about rascism, sexism, xenophobia. I strive to not be racist, but I know that I sometimes am unintentionally, and being aware of it helps me to not be like that next time. The rational side of me does not want to be racist. Same with rationalism, I think I am probably rational about 1% of the time, but I strive to be more so. Just because people are racist all the time does not make it ok to accept rascism.
So for me accepting an irrational argument is as offensive as accepting a rascist argument.
Also you could make the Platonic argument that reason is just memory. We have faith in numbers, we have faith that peoples accounts of things are real, we take on faith our reasoning, we take our senses on faith irrespective of the fact that our brains aren’t actually connected directly to the outside world.
Humans can only be lied to successfully because our natural instinct is to believe, to have faith the people around us tell the truth, otherwise you can’t live a co-dependent existence which has made us so successful as a species.
I think we all choose who we believe, and we do so irrationally - this ties back to the above.
EG Poor black witness vs white rich witness in court. We have to check our bias in this situation very carefully.
So for me accepting an irrational argument is as offensive as accepting a rascist argument.
The assertion that God exists because of XYZ evidence is not necessarily rational.
But no-one here is trying to assert that, and I don't think that's necessarily the point of theology. I'm more concerned with the value of faith in general, which can be assessed rationally, and how important rationality actually is.
Why do you strive to be rational?
The assertion that God exists because of XYZ evidence is not necessarily rational.
I am trying to understand what you mean?
Does it mean that to beleive in god you probably have to be irrational?
But no-one here is trying to assert that,
But you keep giving it equal credence with the opposite
I think we all choose who we believe, and we do so irrationally
Yes, that makes sense, I think you're right in that most folks struggle with exactly what you've described I certainly recognise myself there.
But you keep giving it equal credence with the opposite
No, it's a question I'm not even asking.
Does it mean that to beleive in god you probably have to be irrational?
I'm saying that you have to want to believe, ultimately, same as anything else.
Are you Buddhist Chewk? Didn’t Buddha reject the idea of a creationist god? Interesting piece on it here
Yes, Buddha did. He explained that very clearly. I am a Buddhist so my view does not conflict with Buddha's teaching.
I am only using the term loosely as reference to all God(s), while they refer them as cosmic energy force which is logical.
My answer is for those that consider cosmic energy force as a definition and a way to define God, bear in mind they (God(s)) are "in charge" so try to accommodate their views too.
Anybody who likes to pretend that Buddhists are somehow free of the kinds of hypocrisy that drip drip drip from all of the other religions, only needs to look at Sri Lankan Monks and their links to the JVP in the 1980's.
Religion is cancer.
MOlgrips - you do keep treating " there is a god" and "there is no god" as positions of equal validity hence you keep on coming to conclusions that cannot be supported
I just hope in a few hundred years religion doesn't exist and people will look back and wonder wtf people were doing still having religious beliefs in the 21st century and just dismissing it as the last vestige of a primeval need for us to think there needs to be some higher purpose to our existence. It makes as much sense for the main religion to be Sun worship than some divine entity...
only needs to look at Sri Lankan Monks and their links to the JVP in the 1980’s.
Religion is cancer.
I don’t think that any humans are guaranteed free from hypocrisy? Isn’t ‘but hypocrisy’ somewhat of a strawman argument? Isn’t Nationalism the ‘cancer’ in your example?
MOlgrips – you do keep treating ” there is a god” and “there is no god” as positions of equal validity hence you keep on coming to conclusions that cannot be supported
Well, maybe, but not for the reasons you think. My real point is wether or not you think it's valid isn't important to the rest of the discussion that I'm actually trying to have. Or do put it another way, exploring the arguments is more interesting to me than what your conclusions are. What you believe is far less interesting to me than why you believe it.
But in any case, the existence or otherwise of a God or gods is nothing to do with many of the things I've talked about, see my questions above. What I'm really interested in is humanity and they clearly exist... well, I believe so anyway.
I just hope in a few hundred years religion doesn’t exist and people will look back and wonder wtf people were doing still having religious beliefs in the 21st century
Unfortunately there is no chance of that happening. Religion has made a small number of people and organisations a huge amount of money and power. The will do anything to keep that. You only have to look through history up to the present day to see that religions are happy to go to war to maintain thier wealth and power over their believers. Look at the Middle East, until recently look at Northern Ireland. Look at how the heads of these religions get seats in government (House of Lords in our case) just because they have been promoted to the high ranks of their religions.
You only have to look through history up to the present day to see that religions are happy to go to war to maintain thier wealth and power over their believers. Look at the Middle East, until recently look at Northern Ireland.
Hmm I don't think that's how it happened....
Unfortunately there is no chance of that happening. Religion has made a small number of people and organisations a huge amount of money and power. The will do anything to keep that. You only have to look through history up to the present day to see that religions are happy to go to war to maintain thier wealth and power over their believers. Look at the Middle East, until recently look at Northern Ireland. Look at how the heads of these religions get seats in government (House of Lords in our case) just because they have been promoted to the high ranks of their religions.
Going full circle, this is my basic objection to religion, I can't understand how any caring person in good conscience can have anything to do with religion. Given all the bad and damage and the flawed premise of its foundation. Its like sayng the KKK also does good and we should respect other peoples opinions (note they actually do good, for their members). Lets study why people feel the need to join the KKK. Millions have been and are still attracted to these types of organisations. Forget the basic premise of total and utter rascist arseholism for a minute and study what a white only world would look like, what attracts people to a white only world, is ignoring that the lack of evidence of skin colour having any affect on ability, compatible with rationalism and humanity. If we dress it up in an acadmeic way and call it "raceology" it sounds legit and we can carry on pushing our bullshit aims.
The perpetuation of theology is a last gasp of religion to try and keep the flag flying in the face of being utterly found out. What dissponts me is that so long after the enlightenment we are still dealing with the fallout of the continued struggling existence of religion.
To me those directly involved (eg SR and any other staff) and the apologists (molgrips etc) are just supporting a regime that is fundamentally bad and wrong. I feel like it is a sort of stockholm syndrome. They are categorically not bad people, and have only good intentions, but sometimes those intentions lead to the wrong place.
Given all the bad and damage and the flawed premise of its foundation
Religion isn't one organisation, it's a concept. Or are you conflating religion with say, the Catholic Church?
And I'm not an apologist. I don't condone or excuse bad things being done. Many have been, this is manifestly true. But my point is that many bad things are done in general and the ideal of faith itself is not the cause of this.
I'm trying to separate the human need for faith from the actions of various churches throughout history.
the human need for faith
I don't believe this exists as a "need". We all have a need for answers. Thats not faith.
Otherwise you could say there is a human need for rascism, rape, war, arseholeness, making CO2. All these happen too.
I don't think you can witness a phenomena and ascribe a motivation too it that easily.
ideal of faith itself is not the cause of this.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this, if you can abandon reason to believe in a deity than you can use that abandonment to get people to do all sorts of stuff. (eg the holocaust) These things are so intertwined. One begets the other. Thats a fundamental of my objection and skeptism.
In Russia right now Putin is using (or possibly working hand in hand with) the head of the orthodox church to drive nationalism and war.
I’m trying to separate the human need for faith from the actions of various churches throughout history.
You cannot as they share too much. I disagree there is a need for faith in the divine.
If you can abandon reason to believe in a deity
Humans can abandon all reason and take drugs of unknown provenance, or drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol, or eat so much that they effect their health, or smoke, or do a million and other things that otherwise make no sense. All you're describing there is that people who have faith are as human as the rest of the world.
So religion is like taking drugs? Interesting arguement. It certainly tickles the same parts of th ebrain
Humans can abandon all reason and take drugs of unknown provenance, or drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol, or eat so much that they effect their health, or smoke, or do a million and other things that otherwise make no sense. All you’re describing there is that people who have faith are as human as the rest of the world.
My takeaway here is :
a) religion has the same value as drugs, alcohol, fags and KFC. I can't disagree.
b) You are happy to forgive any crime or misdemenour that is human, which is all crimes. I do disagree.
EDIT - I am just being trite.
Reality is that you have just acknowledged that humans are easily led. I agree. Does not undermine any of my arguments, your statement is just whataboutery.