Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Svartalf]

Is it a personal attack if I suspect that he's actually an exi5tentialist?

[Coito ergo sum]

If you proceed with your rationale, then there is no reason to disbelieve anything.

And why is it necessary to disbelieve anything? Can you not simply have no opinion on a subject because you have no evidence that satisfies your need for proof? "I have no opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of God" is a far more rational response than "God doesn't exist because theists don't prove he exists." That is, after all, what actual "atheism" means, isn't it? What you're telling me is that you're not an atheist, who has a simple "lack of belief in gods," rather you are an "explicit" religious Atheist who positively asserts that God does not exist, but does so without any critically robust evidence of that claim, which makes it a religious belief every bit as much as the belief that God does exist.

Well, I'll tell you, maybe we're saying the same thing. When I say I don't believe in gods, what I mean is that I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. However, I don't just have "no opinion" on things about which I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. Example - Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't just say I have "no opinion" on him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. I don't believe in him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. That's the same thing for life on Pluto. I don't believe in life on Pluto, because there is no evidence of life on Pluto that satisfies my need for proof. Similarly, I don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence that satisfies my need for proof.

That doesn't forestall the possibility that there may come a time when evidence arises. The religious are the ones who say "I believe and I will always believe in God, and I don't believe and I will never believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor." I'm open to proof of their existence. The God believers are not. I don't believe in them, because there is no evidence for them. The God believers believe in God irrespective of the lack of evidence, and don't believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor because they have no evidence that satisfies the need for proof.

Everything is plausible and all of science is no more substantiated than magic. We might not be privy to the evidence that the universe is upside down and sideways, and consists of trapezoidal shaped particles, each named Fred, which create reality by playing word games and charades among themselves.

After all, you might not be privy to the evidence.

Indeed. And God may be an advanced, non-corporeal intelligence inhabiting a neighboring membrane universe who created this membrane universe and injected a monoblock of infinitely compressed matter into it as a high-school science experiment...and you may not be privy to that evidence.

[/quote]

A god might be. But, at the moment, there is no reason to believe that, because there is no evidence sufficient to satisfy my need for proof. So, I don't believe it. I might later, though, if the evidence changes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is it a personal attack if I suspect that he's actually an exi5tentialist?

Yes, on exi5tentialist.

[apophenia]

When my granddad died the priest at the funeral said, "John is up there with God now." This is claiming special knowledge he can't possibly know. There is no way he could know that. We didn't mention to him my granddad was an atheist. According to the priest's own religion he should be in hell now.

Now I don't have proof the priest doesn't have special knowledge but I somehow seriously doubt it. The priest made the claim and it is he that should provide evidence that he is privvy to information I'm not.

Except in this case, it isn't the preist making the claim, but Coito, as a premise in his argument against the church. Bluntly speaking, I don't think they have any special knowledge, but I'm not going to include that as a premise of any substantial argument I choose to make either, at least not without better support. At minimum, it's tactically unwise.

The only assertion I made was that priests are human beings.

It's my business that their religious organizations fleece them, con them, and fuck their kids. It's my business that their religions are insidious and snake their way into the halls of government, seeking to strengthen and enrich themselves by grasping the reigns of government power.

They don't know that. And, the fact that they claim to know it, but can't, makes them untrustworthy.

No, you even provided a definition of fleece to underscore your contention that priests and the church were guilty of fraud, fleecing old ladies, conning people, and fucking their children. It doesn't follow from them being human beings that they are doing all of these things. I'm not even going to bring up the element of intent, which you haven't even addressed. You have faith that they are normal human beings — no, let me correct that — you not only assert it, you bring it in as an unquestioned assumption, "Well, I start with the assumption that they are human beings, and that priests are normal human beings, to the same extent as the general population." Awfully convenient of you to include your conclusion as an assumption in your premises (where's that graphic of the pathological liar I made up...). Anyway, it doesn't really matter — you can leave the goalposts where they now sit — because you whole argument from the get go has been one long strawman.

[JimC]

We don't know if we're better off with or without religion, or any specific religion since they are just accidents of history.



But I suspect we'll be much better off once religion is more widely regarded as bollocks.

IMO, the green bit (Roman advancement of scientific knowledge) is more about practical improvements in technology, rather than science. Pragmatic chap, your Roman...

Otherwise, me likey.

Religion poisons everything.

Fuck off anybody who says otherwise.

[JimC]

You ask if they have special knowledge. They don't, they have faith, and because of that, they act as if they knew when they don't.

Bingo.

They don't know.

They act as if they do.

And, they tell others that they do know, and hold their hand out for money.

[JimC]

...Well, that may be true. Being in a hole in the ground decomposing may indeed be a "better place" than suffering in agony in a hospital bed.

Except being dead is not being in a place. Being dead is not being. If you are dead you exist only in the past tense. You are not in a 'hole in the ground', since the synapses and other essentials of the neural processes that once formed your thoughts and experience are nothing but worthless mush - it's that mush that's in a hole in the ground, you are in the past.

So the most honest thing that could be said to a grieving relative is "he's no longer in the bad place of suffering in agony in the hospital bed", but the reason he's no longer there is because he's no longer.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...That depends on your definition of "being," or perhaps "nothingness."...

Ah, so I was right earlier - you are a postmodernist.

...Are "you" nothing more than the electrical signals racing around your brain, or are "you" the sum of your parts, or more than the sum of your parts?..

You say these things as if they were contradictory to each other - which they are not.

Yes - I am electrical signals (and maybe other physical processes) occurring in a material brain.
Yes - I am the sum of my parts insofar as there are only the physical material parts, and no extra "supernatural" component is required, nor can be justified.
Yes - I am 'more' than the sum of my parts insofar as the net working arrangement of these parts is something I (and I like to hope, some others) value more than I'd value such parts in a non-working arrangement - just as one values a working computer more than a pile of silica-sand, metal ores and fossil hydrocarbons (except more strongly so).

...You can say that the physical body of "you" is "being" in the ground while the other aspects of "you" may now reside somewhere else, from heaven to the quantum foam...

I can say (or rather others could - I wouldn't be in a position to - or in any position) that my body is in the ground - but there is neither reason or justification in saying any other aspect of me is anywhere, since there is no reason or justification in saying in saying there ever was any other aspect of me beyond the working arrangement of things that have irreparably ceased to be in that working arrangement.

...Seems more sensitive and respectful of the feelings of the survivors to be somewhat less...precise...about it. Funerals are, after all, for those who are still alive.

If those who are still alive know the truth anyway, then it is more sensitive and respectful of their feelings not to lie to them. Any christian who says to someone they know to be an atheist that their dead loved one is in a better place is saying those words for their own benefit - not the grieving person's.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they claim it, and I have no idea because I'm not privy to the special knowledge either.

So just where would you draw the line? What claims would be so extreme that you wouldn't give someone the benefit of the doubt simply because they claim it?

Suppose I were to claim "special knowledge" that most people claiming "special knowledge" were talking crap? Do I get the benefit of the doubt from you?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...IMO, the green bit (Roman advancement of scientific knowledge) is more about practical improvements in technology, rather than science. Pragmatic chap, your Roman...

Although Greek enlightenment did continue under Roman rule - until the Jewish-Zombie death-cult started persecuting it.

[Seth]

There isn't any evidence.

No, there isn't any evidence that you're aware of that you are willing to give credence to. There is, however, evidence.

What is it?

Ask them. I believe the church has archives going back thousands of years documenting their evidence of God.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Seth]

If you proceed with your rationale, then there is no reason to disbelieve anything.

And why is it necessary to disbelieve anything? Can you not simply have no opinion on a subject because you have no evidence that satisfies your need for proof? "I have no opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of God" is a far more rational response than "God doesn't exist because theists don't prove he exists." That is, after all, what actual "atheism" means, isn't it? What you're telling me is that you're not an atheist, who has a simple "lack of belief in gods," rather you are an "explicit" religious Atheist who positively asserts that God does not exist, but does so without any critically robust evidence of that claim, which makes it a religious belief every bit as much as the belief that God does exist.

Well, I'll tell you, maybe we're saying the same thing. When I say I don't believe in gods, what I mean is that I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof.

Exactly. I only ask you to recognize that YOUR need for proof is not necessarily the only metric upon which a belief may be based, even a rational belief.

However, I don't just have "no opinion" on things about which I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. Example - Santa Claus. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't just say I have "no opinion" on him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. I don't believe in him because I have no evidence that satisfies my need for proof. That's the same thing for life on Pluto. I don't believe in life on Pluto, because there is no evidence of life on Pluto that satisfies my need for proof. Similarly, I don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence that satisfies my need for proof.

Right. But what you're doing is assessing the probabilities of the truth value of the claim and you're assigning a degree of confidence in the truth-value of the claim based on what you know about the proposition. This is the definition of "belief." And belief is an essential component of religion.

be·lief
 
 /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

That doesn't forestall the possibility that there may come a time when evidence arises.

Correct. Nor does it impeach the possibility that there is evidence that you are not aware of or that you are aware of but in which you do not place sufficient confidence in to call it a belief that is in fact true. One can have a false belief based on mistake, error, ignorance or rejection of the evidence.

The religious are the ones who say "I believe and I will always believe in God, and I don't believe and I will never believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor." I'm open to proof of their existence. The God believers are not.

Correct. But that may be because they have evidence that they find compelling that you do not. But it cannot be said by you that there is "no evidence" because you are neither necessarily privy to what evidence there is, nor are you omniscient and therefore able to claim justifiably that you have knowledge of all the possible evidence demonstrating that God exists. So any claim you make in that regard must be qualified by your own fallibility and ignorance, and thus, because you are simply assigning a degree of confidence in the truth value of what evidence you do (or do not) know of, you are merely expressing a belief, not a fact.

I don't believe in them, because there is no evidence for them.

No, YOU are UNAWARE of any evidence for them. That's substantially different from the claim that there is "no evidence for them."

The God believers believe in God irrespective of the lack of evidence,

Many of them would tell you that they see evidence of God all around them, every day, in every object that exists. Others would tell you of their personal experiences with what they believe is God. The church might refer you to various "miracles" that are well documented but unexplained by science. So, contrary to your claim, there is evidence, it's just that your belief in that evidence is slight. That does not however mean that there is "no evidence."

and don't believe in Ahura-Mazda or Thor because they have no evidence that satisfies the need for proof.

That is correct. But the qualifier "that satisfies the[ir] need for proof" is a required part of the statement which makes it true.

Everything is plausible and all of science is no more substantiated than magic. We might not be privy to the evidence that the universe is upside down and sideways, and consists of trapezoidal shaped particles, each named Fred, which create reality by playing word games and charades among themselves.

After all, you might not be privy to the evidence.

Indeed. And God may be an advanced, non-corporeal intelligence inhabiting a neighboring membrane universe who created this membrane universe and injected a monoblock of infinitely compressed matter into it as a high-school science experiment...and you may not be privy to that evidence.

[/quote]

A god might be. But, at the moment, there is no reason to believe that, because there is no evidence sufficient to satisfy my need for proof. So, I don't believe it. I might later, though, if the evidence changes.

Well, this may be true for you, but only because YOUR "need for proof" is a self-imposed limitation that doesn't exist for everyone else. Others may have a lower standard of proof than you do, which does not make their conclusions necessarily or axiomatically incorrect because they may have access to proofs that you are not privy to, perhaps in part because you choose not to examine the body of evidence that does exist.

As for your inevitable question "where is it?" I refer you to the Vatican archives.

[Seth]

...That depends on your definition of "being," or perhaps "nothingness."...

Ah, so I was right earlier - you are a postmodernist.

...Are "you" nothing more than the electrical signals racing around your brain, or are "you" the sum of your parts, or more than the sum of your parts?..

You say these things as if they were contradictory to each other - which they are not.

Yes - I am electrical signals (and maybe other physical processes) occurring in a material brain.
Yes - I am the sum of my parts insofar as there are only the physical material parts, and no extra "supernatural" component is required, nor can be justified.
Yes - I am 'more' than the sum of my parts insofar as the net working arrangement of these parts is something I (and I like to hope, some others) value more than I'd value such parts in a non-working arrangement - just as one values a working computer more than a pile of silica-sand, metal ores and fossil hydrocarbons (except more strongly so).

The word "supernatural" is often used as code by scientists (and others) who actually mean "I don't understand how it works." That's been the case for many thousands of years.

What's your evidence that some of those parts of "you" that you do not completely understand (like, oh, conciousness) do not endure after the death of the physical body? After all, a computer program, which is substantially less complex, endures the turning off of the computer. What evidence do you have that "you" are not writ large on the memory media of the universe?

...You can say that the physical body of "you" is "being" in the ground while the other aspects of "you" may now reside somewhere else, from heaven to the quantum foam...

I can say (or rather others could - I wouldn't be in a position to - or in any position) that my body is in the ground - but there is neither reason or justification in saying any other aspect of me is anywhere, since there is no reason or justification in saying in saying there ever was any other aspect of me beyond the working arrangement of things that have irreparably ceased to be in that working arrangement.

You mean there is no reason or justification THAT YOU CAN THINK OF... That points only to a poverty of imagination on your part, because I can think of several ways in which "you" might endure the destruction of your body. Do I have evidence that such mechanisms exist? No, not at the moment, but nothing I can think of would necessarily violate any known physical laws of the universe and therefore would not be "supernatural," merely not understood or observable by our present scientific level of advancement.

...Seems more sensitive and respectful of the feelings of the survivors to be somewhat less...precise...about it. Funerals are, after all, for those who are still alive.

If those who are still alive know the truth anyway, then it is more sensitive and respectful of their feelings not to lie to them. Any christian who says to someone they know to be an atheist that their dead loved one is in a better place is saying those words for their own benefit - not the grieving person's.

How so? Atheists may be wrong, after all.

[Seth]

Seth, I'm assuming you're following this line of reasoning for sport or something as I know you're not stupid enough to believe it. Atheists have no obligation to prove the non-existence of something for which there is and has never been any credible, objective evidence. Just because millions of people have believed something for thousands of years, it doesn't shift the burden of proof. They still have the burden of proof and will continue to do so until they provide some verifiable evidence.

Of course I am. I'm merely rigorously analyzing the logic (or lack thereof) of the arguments presented here by Atheists. The notion of "burden of proof" is a scientific conceit, not a philosophical one. If I make a claim in a debate, it's up to you to refute it if you can. If the examination is an examination of the scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, then the burden of proof notion might apply in a formal sense.

But we're talking about more than just science here, we're talking about religion, which is also about philosophy, psychology, sociology and history.

The existence of God may be, as Dawkins suggests (and with which I agree) a matter for science to determine, but religion is something else, something more and something not necessarily amenable to scientific analysis and not, it must be said, axiomatically theistic in nature. It's important to separate religion and theism because one can be religious (and many Atheists are) about something without holding theistic beliefs.

People believe in God whether or not God actually exists, and that belief cannot simply be discounted or discarded, no matter how delusional one who does not believe might think that belief is, because it's a valid belief to the 80 percent of the world's population that holds it in one way or another. There are reasons why religion is so pervasive and persistent in human history, and I believe that it's because there is a great deal of social utility to religious belief. Therefore, to revile religion without careful examination of the reasons why it exists and persists is not indicative of clear, rational or even science-based thinking, it's just a shallow-minded bigotry that exploits pat answers and canards that have little moral, logical or philosophical value.

Dawkins asks the question why people cannot be satisfied with the beauty of "reality" and science as it exists, and it's a valid question, but I suspect that the answer is not one he can understand; human beings are spiritual beings. This is not to claim that there are "spirits" or "souls," merely that humans, as a species, believe that there is more to the universe than that which we observe. Not that which we can observe, but that which we DO observe, or have the knowledge, skill and technology to observe at this time.

Most of the highly-intelligent believers I've discussed such things with seem to have more expansive and less rigid minds than the atheists I'm acquainted with. They are less concerned about cold, hard facts and choose (or are able) to see the world and our place in it, and in the universe, in a much broader way that's not tied to the conceits and constraints of hard science. And they like it that way. It gives them hope, comfort and solace. This aspect of religion probably explains why Dawkins is puzzled about why more people aren't satisfied with the physical universe and choose to go beyond that rigid framework into the metaphysical universe.

Whether they are correct or incorrect about the metaphysical universe, they appear to be happier and more contented than Atheists, which is in my opinion one of the primary functions of religion and theism: they offer emotional support that cold, hard physics doesn't, and people need more than Dawkins boring predictability and inevitable "natural" processes that provide no hope, no future, no comfort and no chance of wonder at the unknown. Once the physics of the universe are explained by science, then there is quite literally no mysteries left to look forward to. For Dawkinsians, it's all random evolutionary processes, biological certainties and death with no hope for something beyond death. How boring. How pointless and useless our lives become when they are reduced to biology and physics and all the promise of theism is debunked and destroyed. That's not what most people want to believe their lives are about I think, which is why they look for more, for continuation and something beyond their mundane lives.

It's my experience that people of faith tend to be more visionary and capable of imagination than atheists, and they seem less afraid to be unsure about things, and have faith in that which they cannot themselves see, feel, taste or hear. And I sympathize with them when they pity those who are narrow-minded and demand evidence for everything they experience, which bars them from the wonders of imagination, IMHO.

Nor does the narrow-minded atheist take on life explain why there are so many legitimate scientists who have no problem reconciling their belief in God with their positions as scientists and researchers. Evidently they know something that your run-of-the-mill narrow-minded Atheist does not know.

So, you can drone on about burdens of proof all you like, and it means quite literally nothing to those who believe in something greater than the physical universe as described by Dawkins. They have all the proof they need and most of them that I know shake their heads in pity of those who are so incapable of expansive thought that they are tied to cold reason and atheism. They find Atheists to be mostly sad-sacks who appear to be deeply unhappy and dissatisfied with life, so much so that they feel compelled to attack the beliefs of theists because they have nothing better to do than tear down, and seem incapable of being positive and building others up. And I concur with that estimation of the vast majority of Atheists, who are fundamentally nihilists by nature, are mostly crashing bores at best and annoying pests most often, and positive blights on society in some cases, like Dawkins'.

They can never leave well enough alone and allow other people to go about their spiritual lives free from the nihilistic attacks of Atheists who seem to want to drag everyone else down into their pointless, useless level of existence.

And that I think is why Atheists remain, and will remain, marginalized, disliked, distrusted and despised, especially when they trot out the "burden of proof" canard as if it's some universal law of nature or prosecution awaits theists who decline to play that game.

What it boils down to is that they have their beliefs, and they don't owe you or any other Atheist an explanation or any "proofs" at all regarding their religious beliefs. Atheists use this burden-of-proof canard like it's a blunt instrument that somehow proves their assertions merely because theists decline to cooperate with them.

But it doesn't. The fact that a theist might not provide what you or any other Atheist might consider to be critically-robust objective evidence of the existence of God does not, contrary to some assertions, provide any evidence whatsoever pointing either towards or away from the objective existence of God. It just means that theists aren't playing the Atheist's game, which Atheists absolutely hate because it short-circuits their entire contrived argument about "proofs" of God's existence.

And I can't blame theists at all for declining to play those games, because they are sophistic word-games and thinly-veiled ad hominem masquerading as pseudo-legitimate interest in critical examination of what evidence might exist on the subject.

Frankly, when it comes to the Atheists found on this and other like discussion fora, Jesus Christ could descend from the heavens on a beam of light and appear on the Tonight Show, perform miracles and confirm everything Christians say about him and most Atheists (the religious variety) would reject that evidence too. As I understand it, Jesus was fully aware of this tendency and he spoke about the nature of unbelievers at some length, explaining that they are so bound up in their own minds that nothing would ever convince them that the Son of God was dropping by for coffee and a chat.

And that's not skepticism, that's religious bigotry and blindered adherence to Atheist religious dogma every bit as narrow-minded as the very worst evangelical religious fundamentalist known to history.