A rational approach to finding value in Religion and Spirituality

[GuzzyBone]

My personal journey to becoming passionately invested in the study and application of Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism, True Free Market (whatever you prefer to call it) started before I found FreeDomainRadio and Stefan Molyneux's discussions, and naturally evolved from seeing the futility and underlying hypocrisy in Libertarianism (which I once loudly proclaimed to hold truth). I was only recently recommended to this website and since have been avidly reading all of the free books, listening to podcasts, and watching the videos with enthusiasm. I truly admire Molyneux's dedication to the search of empirical truth and attempt to use critical thought as honestly, openly, and objectively as possible. Though one thing that always strikes me is the strong bent towards proclaiming religion, spirituality, and the "supernatural", as mere hocus-pocus irrational superstition with no inherent value what-so-ever. A few arguments against this strong absolute dismissal come to mind, and I thought I would share these mixed with my own personal experiences, of course using reason, evidence, and critical analysis where possible.

1. Why do so many people believe in these things?

It is easy to dismiss this and come up with psychological and sociological explanations for the phenomenon of human consensus towards religious or spiritual belief patterns, but an objective approach requires at least attempting to "walk a mile in the shoes" of one so involved in this culture, rather than merely trying to psycho-analyze them to fit whatever label or mold we wish to place groups of individuals into.

["They believe in God because they are crazy, and they are crazy because of this, this, and this... I can prove that delusion exists, and they can't prove to ME that God exists, therefore they must be delusional!])

None of this accounts for the personal first-hand experience, sharing of personal testimony, nor bothers to even attempt to legitimately consider the possibility of a pattern that has been proven to them through consistency of evidence. Rather, most discussions of Religion from an Athiest or critical perspective seem to come from an entirely OUTSIDE point of view where proof is dismissed as personal, therefore not credible or admissible, or merely worthless.

2. Why are people so passionate about these things?

It is again easy to dismiss this as group enthusiasm, social control mechanisms, modern cult-like ostracism pressures, etc... but this is a purely outside view that doesn't take into consideration the possibility that these belief systems may have been proven (to the believer) to have a lasting profoundly positive impact on their lives.

3. Why has it lasted for so long?

Current real world and historical examples are often used and considered admissible in a debate or critical analysis, despite historical texts being subject to all sorts of variables of bias, perspective, conquest, culture and propaganda... but when it comes to religion or spirituality, then historical testimony, documents and belief is dismissed as outright inadmissible or disregarded as being absolutely "archaic" propaganda, superstition, or mechanisms of social control. This biased viewpoint completely ignores the weight of historical documentation and the value in reviewing the past with some level of objective respect to our forebearers who developed methods of survival that have allowed us to live, breathe and walk the earth.

4. Why is it found universally in nearly every culture and with common threads?

The prevalence of near-identical patterns of thought, cultural metaphors, and spiritual symbolism in cultures that are disconnected by geography and genealogy can not be underestimated or dismissed so easily. God, deities, divine intervention, other so-called "superstitions" have been an integral part of humanities systems of survival, regardless of what landmass they sprouted on. It is hard to imagine this would be merely a mass hysteria, delusion, or mechanism of social control by small minorities. While the expansion and spread of government ideologies can be traced through history, the universally acknowledged properties of spirituality appear to have no original source and seem to be intrinsically linked with the rise of thinking man.

This is a general overview of my problems with the Athiest echo chamber or the personally-offended biased "blame game" of vitriol that I witness all too often.

I will happily elaborate and provide evidence specifically relating to my own personal experiences with religious, spiritual, supernatural belief systems. If personal testimony, observation, and experiences do not qualify as having any value of evidence to you, then the word of your fellow man should hold no weight in any argument and you may as well move on.

I personally identify myself with the teachings of Christianity, and I will elaborate further very soon. but so far I've typed a lot. I believe a large portion of Athiest criticism is directed at the inconsistency and exploits of people who identify with these teachings/beliefs rather than the actual teachings, beliefs, messages as whole.

[Jeridan Kowal]

Hey Guzzy, cool topic and definitely important to us all.

I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and tried to adhere to the beliefs as closely as possible before becoming a hard atheist around 4-5 years ago. Just letting you know my background to frame the rest of my comments.

I agree that most atheists I meet are wholly dismissive of any and all religiosity. Little to no compassion for the "lesser minds" they perceive the religious to be is administered. 

This is a pretty good podcast regarding useful attributes atheists/liberals/statists tend to leave behind with religion. 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2927/an-atheist-apologizes-to-christians-call-in-show-march-4th-2015

With that being said, it may be prudent to consider the atrocities carried out under the guise of religious piety. Things like the Inquisition, Catholic endorsement of the Nazis, public dehumanization of gays/lesbians, and all the sexual assaults against children under the "protection" of religious institutions.
Of course, this is not to say there are no well-meaning and virtuous religious people. These examples of evil/hypocrisy appear within politics and religions alike. But the outrage at this sort of behaviour does play some part in the attitude of any atheist.

 

Now you mentioned the commonality of religious belief or spiritual practice throughout our evolutionary history. This is a point more in favour of atheism on the whole. This is because so many religious texts claim to hold the singular truth given to them by the only god. The mere fact that so many religions would develop and be in stark contrast to each other doesn't inspire confidence in a unified or a multi-faceted truth.

 

The lives of human beings are clearly enriched by ritual, community, and contemplation. Things of this nature are espoused by religions. But these qualities no longer require rigid dedication to an egoistic deity outside the purview of our senses. Religious belief was useful to our tribal past because we required conformity to survive. It no longer serves the same purpose and often leads to social deformities.
 

I hope this wasn't too arrogant or grating. I certainly am not trying to place history on your shoulders in an attempt to blame.

[AynRand]

I'm confused by your post. Truth is the goal that we strive for in this community. Religions, or at least holy books have no compelling evidence to follow them. The lack of evidence combined with being definitionally false (omnipitant omnipresent is an oxymoron same as saying you have found a square circle) leads me to believe that very little truth has been placed in holy books.

None of your four points are arguments (although maybe they weren't meant to be arguments in which case my bad). They are essentially appeal to majority fallacies. If people can get a sense of morality from being "spiritual" then good for them, but I would rather search for truth.

 

I'm confused by the last paragraph where you say the "teachings, beliefs, and messages" are not being addressed from atheists. I disagree, granted that i'm only going off my own anecdotal evidence, but I believe that the atheist community is very vocal about expressing the immoralities of the old testament and new testament. In fact I believe that Hitchens made a very compelling lecture on how the 10 commandments are immoral, and why I think 6 or 7 of them shouldn't even be followed.

 

I realize that it is very difficult to understand a position by just identifing yourself as a christian, but I'm going to presume that you believe the bible was written by god or is inspired by god, or in line with gods thinking, or something to that effect. I realize that many christians do not believe the bible is related to god in any way, but I'm not exactly sure what they believe. If I am wrong, and you don't believe the bible is in line with gods thinking then please don't read my next paragraph.

 

The Bible is filled with what appears to be god morally justifing violations of the non agression principle. I'm sure I don't really need to go into to many details, but a lot of evil occurs in the bible.

[TheRobin]

All you really say is that you dismiss psychological explanations (which are based on what we KNOW about the human psyche) and then claim there's no good reason to dismiss religion otherwise.

 

But unless you make a case why the explanations are invalid to begin with or make the case that some of the religious claims are true, then you haven't really made an argument for the validity of religion.

[WasatchMan]

 

"It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. The absurdity becomes obvious the moment we swap the notion of God for some other consoling proposition: Imagine, for instance, that a man wants to believe that there is a diamond buried somewhere in his yard that is the size of a refrigerator. No doubt it would feel uncommonly good to believe this. Just imagine what would happen if he then followed the example of religious moderates and maintained this belief along pragmatic lines: When asked why he thinks that there is a diamond in his yard that is thousands of times larger than any yet discovered, he says things like, “This belief gives my life meaning,” or “My family and I enjoy digging for it on Sundays,” or “I wouldn’t want to live in a universe where there wasn’t a diamond buried in my backyard that is the size of a refrigerator.” Clearly these responses are inadequate. But they are worse than that. They are the responses of a madman or an idiot." - Sam Harris

[GuzzyBone]

With respect, I feel like my words are blowing in the wind. This is the wall of bias and shutdown that I experience far too often when attempting to discuss religion with self-proclaimed Athiests. It's as if they picture a sheep braying at them and they simply pat them on the head and say "i know, i know, that's nice little lamb, but you're just hungry". This kind of smugness and bias creates subjective and unproductive viewpoints that twists surface observations and ignorance into some mock parody of "evidence".

For example, the claim that "Religion is responsible for violence".
Which completely ignores that all religious violence through all history has unilaterally come from specific State Institutions or State-funded Groups.
- The Inquisition was STATE.
- The Crusades were STATE.
- The Catholic Church was STATE.
- The Conquest of Israel was STATE.
- Islamic Extremists are state-funded, state-created, and state-instigated.
These are all examples of STATE VIOLENCE exploiting and corrupting Religious teachings as the shield to morally and ethically justify their actions. If Religion wasn't the tool, they would simply use some other ethos like "common good"/marxism.

"Saying that Religion can produce violence therefore has no truth or value" is like saying "A gun can be used to kill someone, therefore guns have no utility or value."

State will use any ideology to justify their actions and persuade the tax cows, whether it's religion or not. Notice that "Fear", "Xenophobia", "Science", "Patriotism", "Liberation" has simply replaced the religious shield in the west as the current tool for justifying mass slaughter and the creation of suffering.

Using Religion as the scapegoat for State Violence completely ignores the observable fact that the vast majority of Religious people are the most peaceful, giving, empathetic, caring, and ethically-centric people throughout the world. They tend to have the strongest and healthiest family units and as a group will critically analyze their own actions against a set of ethical principles. Anyone who has not observed this has not spent very much time around many Protestant communities or other Religious groups (individual Cults maybe, but not something representative of the many religious adherents).

State involvement in Church has resulted in enormous corruption, as State has always been violent force and pure ethical hypocrisy. State is still consistently involved in the corruption of the Church and Religious Practice, for example: using tax-exemptions as a form of bribe to force Statist ideologies into something that is about introspection and is personal at it's core. Transforming the teachings of the bible (a mix of history, evolution of ethical philosophy, and astro-theological allegory) into a harsh strictly-literal viewpoint and punishment system through repetitive propaganda.

Where the bible teaches that immoral actions condemn your consciousness to a hellish future through abstract symbolism to describe something profound and universally agreed upon (That violence and immoral deeds create a corrupting and lasting "Hell on Earth" for everyone)...

State-influenced Hierarchies teach that you will literally burn in fire, in a literal prison with no chance of redemption, but this only happens in the next life.... despite the bible's entire foundation being about survival together in THIS life.

This is an example of the typical state mutilation and transfiguration of Religious teachings, that is used as a assumptive basis to argue against. Thus I say that Athiests do not argue against the teachings, they argue against the practice, specific factions, groups, etc...

Humanity is not going to live buy a book describing some faraway intangible life. More likely they are going to value a book that provides a mutually beneficial survival code for THIS life.

Furthermore, the bible is all about context. It is meant to be read as a whole (at first from cover to cover). It is a mostly chronological evolution of religious thought from various authors that were said to have been divinely inspired and describing powerful events that transformed human thought and morality. New ethics replaced old ethics, but of course Athiests almost always turn to the original archaic writings of the Old Testament as some kind of proof of hypocrisy despite it being mostly superceded.

Also, the original arguments I put forth were not arguments towards proving the value of religion. Merely that it should be assessed objectively and with respect to it's appeal to so many, the lauded testimonial benefits, the personal testimonies of so many, etc. Do witnesses hold know value to you? Are you so distrustful of the word of your fellow man that personal testimony means nothing to you?

A person's word used to be held to a higher standard. Oaths were taken with higher regard, and a person's word was often considered their contractual bond. It is a rather new phenomenon for the forked tongues to be on such a large scale. Personal testimony (witness) was considered one of the strongest weights of evidence for much of human culture.

Lastly for now, I will say this... You can use Violence to condemn or dismiss religion, but I could just as easily turn around and point to the rise of Science/Atheism and the righteous slaughter, immeasurable corruption, rampant spread of hedonism, promiscuity, broken homes, disease, poverty, and suffering that has followed in it's wake.

I COULD do that, but we all know that those are symptoms of STATE, not Science OR Religion.

[GuzzyBone]

PART I:

My personal journey into Religious or Spiritual thought is that, quite personal, but nonetheless I will share aspects in hopes that I will be treated as an equal and with respect, instead of being leveled with assumptions and dismissal.

I come from a mostly Athiest background. My mother's side of the family was very strictly Athiest (which today is more like nihilism, "we become dirt", "we are nothing but temporary matter").and my Father's side of the family was devoutly Protestant (My grandfather being a former preacher, and both grandparents being heavily involved in their church and mission work).

My mother kind of dominated most aspects of child raising despite being mostly emotionally and physically unavailable. Because of this, Athiesm was the main belief system that was taught in my house, when religion wasn't simply outright ignored that is... It wasn't pushed per se, but Atheism was encouraged, and belief in god was ostracized. I was taught to treat religious beliefs with the utmost respect though, but more from a fragility ("you might offend them") perspective. We prayed before meals and changed certain language around my Christian grandparents, but this was discouraged from continuing beyond their rare visits.

Whenever my Christian grandparents would visit, they would read to me from the bible and preach the benefits of the gospel to my young little ears. I was always extremely receptive too it. The stories and teachings seemed intuitive, natural, easy to understand, profound, inspiring, and the only mental blocks that I encountered was the programmed Atheist guilt that my Mother would not approve. Regardless of my Mother's Athiest leanings, my parents did instill a set of core empathetic values, but after my Grandparents would leave, I would be discouraged from continuing my interest.

My mother's work-before-family comprising sacrificial attitude meant that I would be tossed into a lot of camps, public schools, daycare, etc... and one time they let me join my Grandparents at a Christian Summer Camp for a week. The whole experience was very transformative and influential for me. At first I felt left out, like I was missing something due to my strongly programmed Atheist beliefs and lifestyle. I was in crisis mode and felt extremely uncomfortable despite nothing but inclusive interactions.

I sat down and had not a few personal equal-level critical talks with a Pastor about my apprehension and feelings. He provided relate-able, reason and evidence based discussion about God's role in my life, and Christianity as whole. It really spoke to profound foundational ethical truths that I had simply been ignoring in pursuit of hedonistic and self-centric philosophies. These talks very much influenced a conversion in my life to the Christian teachings, but as soon as camp was over I was discouraged from prayer and my mother made clear that my beliefs would be ostracized.

As I went into my teens I became a hateful, vengeful, resentful, sneaky, and rebellious person towards society as a whole. This occurred mostly as a response to the severe trauma of public school on an inquisitive and creative personality, and the largely irrational surrounding culture of institutions, schools, and camps, social groupings, etc...

I become very hedonistic, selfish, and had the typical teen notion of invincibility to consequence, and lust for structuring life as purely pleasure. My resentment simply made me vengeful, intellectually biased, and uncaring about an uncaring world, despite still having enormous empathetic feelings towards injustice in general.

I blamed institutions like organized religion for the problems of the world of course, as I fell into that whole leftist paradigm surface-layer blame-fest. I became devoutly Athiest and angry. I became extremely focused on my hatred and blame of religion for all the world's problems and injustice done to me. I won't even get into detail about the horrible thoughts I had towards religion as basically the "great enemy of our time".

As I went on through life eventually I had another profoundly transformative experience. Taking LSD for the first time. This demonized drug and the natural, fascinating, and friendly environment surrounding the trip itself was akin to cracking me out of an egg in one blow. The puzzling pieces of life all started to fit together in the micro and macrocosmic scale. I understood my spiritual relationship with the universe, the paradoxical nature of it all, and my insignificance/infinite potential. The psycho-active effects literally merely enhanced all experience and input, so I was literally seeing more, hearing more, feeling more, taking in more (sensory overload, but with the ability to process it all), and clearly seeing the thin lines where all these senses bleed together and interact. No single event in my life has been more profoundly transformative and positive than this experience, and what I learned will stay with me for the rest of my life. It was abundantly clear why this thing was illegal, because it is detrimental to all slave subjugation and power structures who wish to continue their evil.

This experience fit all the core pieces of reality into an easy-to-under core basic math equation where all things stem from. "ad infinitum Everything = Nothing = Everything = Nothing ad infinitum". While this may seem like crazy talk to you. It is the a basic breakdown of the concept of infinity. If everything exists, then nothing at all exists. If all possibilities exist at the exact same time, then nothing exists at all (because it is a 100% complete unmoving picture). This connection to and understanding of the infinite rendered the foundational truth that allowed (and continues to allow) me to understand any of the complex seemingly-irrational relationships and elements of life, in it's relation to the macro-cosmic and micro-cosmic scale. You may call it crazy, but it's been the most productive, enlightening, and empowering experience in my life. My passion for this understanding led me to try psychedelics of different varieties a few more times and not all experiences were positive (some were downright traumatizing, and I know why!), but all were educational.and helped me to see the evidence of underlying truths that are oft ignored.

END OF PART I of my journey to Christianity and how I can know the existence of God.

Please feel free to comment so far... I am happy to elaborate on the subjects I've brushed on. Sorry for so much text but I'm trying to help people understand that Christians are not coming from some brainwashed irrational world of unprovable superstition as I am sure most of you believe. Hopefully this will help open your minds a little bit to the idea that things are not always what they seem (and what trendy media would have you believe).

[AynRand]

I find this thread facinating, but I'm confused ss this thread supposed to be a discussion for evidence that supports or refutes the bible?

 

For example, the claim that "Religion is responsible for violence".
Which completely ignores that all religious violence through all history has unilaterally come from specific State Institutions or State-funded Groups.
- The Inquisition was STATE.
- The Crusades were STATE.
- The Catholic Church was STATE.
- The Conquest of Israel was STATE.
- Islamic Extremists are state-funded, state-created, and state-instigated.
These are all examples of STATE VIOLENCE exploiting and corrupting Religious teachings as the shield to morally and ethically justify their actions. If Religion wasn't the tool, they would simply use some other ethos like "common good"/marxism.

I'm interested you have pointed this out. Would you agree though that statist power and religion go hand in hand. By that I mean that many times religions will be used to justify statist power instances such as "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's". and many times states will use religion to justify it's actions for instance "god will create more earthquakes if we allow gay marriage so that's way gay people aren't allowed rights." My point to this is that religion was not necessarily a primary cause to these atrocious human events, but was a contributing factor. But again that doesn't matter as this is not solid evidence against the bible. What does matter is the evidence that can be provided whether or not the bible can be validated.

 

I'm sorry if I've mistaken your point of view, but I've interpreted your posts as you believe that parts of the bible are true when put in the correct historical context. Sorry if I've missed this part of your post, but again I'm working off the assumption that you believe the bible is somehow in line with god's thinking. So if god wanted death to gay people 4000 years ago wouldn't it still be reasonable to infer that gay people should be put to death today because god hasn't told us that he has revised his opinion?

[GuzzyBone]

I stated in my first post that my argument will rest on empiricism and evidence of my own experience and observations.

Empiricism is the theory that knowledge derives from sensory experience and observable phenomenon. What Athiests often overlook is that God and the supernatural can be experienced as an observable relationship to the world of nature and our personal lives. This is evident throughout all of history, contained within the testimony of countless people through history describing first-hand or life-long experiences. When enough people tell you that strawberries taste good, but you've never had a strawberry, there is a strong weight of evidence that Strawberries taste pretty damn good. This is not a majority fallacy, this is witness testimony, which holds weight and value in court of law, our relationships, and discerning truth.

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove to anyone that God exists, I am only trying to provide empirical perspective and rational observation to real-life phenomena and testimony. In other words, the weight of evidence should speak for itself, then anyone can form their own judgement of what they think is true. Because God is a personal relationship and guiding influence (were God to be arbitrarily forceful, we would have no free will), no one can force you to see his influence, you can only choose to look for yourself and examine his relationship to nature, your life, and your actions.

Remember my argument is that Religion and Spirituality have an inherent truth value to understanding ourselves and our relationship to the universe, outside of merely sociology and interpersonal relationships.

The majority of Athiest arguements come from a Statist perspective of one book with strict literal interpretation, one institution, one sect, "what this leader said", "what this group/person is doing", but I argue that God is a personally observable experience, which our understanding of has evolved through time and through culture and is therefore extremely context sensitive. The only real absolutes in regards to spirituality are those universally observed truths that can be found in nearly every major religion, and are often repetitively confirmed by science and nature.

No where in the bible does it say "Those who live in 2015 AD are strictly bound to interpret God as a holy trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit", but this is a symbolic understanding of the nature of God derived from the teachings. Religion has been an evolution of understanding from the very beginning, which is why the teachings of The Old Testament are superceded by added context of The New Testament.

The specific language of religion has always been open to evolution and interpretation, this is why it is described with relate-able allegory, story, fable, and the language of the stars (astrology). This is why it has changed through time, and yet each new development builds off of the last. Because an emotional connection to THE INFINITE is not something that can be easily explained with strict literal linguistic and scientific textbook definition. Like I've said it is something that mostly has to be EXPERIENCED to be fully understood.

I can elaborate on any part of this arguement if you wish and provide solid examples.

Do not confuse the actions of State and people with GOD, because you are merely taking responsibility off of the people for their actions as if they were not in control. I don't know of any religions that will preach that God makes everything happen with brute force according to his arbitrary whims. Instead, the emphasis is always on CHOICE and Free Will.

Just as a rational person doesn't blame a gun for murder, you should never blame a tool for understanding God for the actions of a person or group of people.

Religion (definition): A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that RELATE humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that AIM TO EXPLAIN the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.

Religion is a tool for understanding God. Religion is NOT God.

Also, I should add that a text or person can be divinely inspired and considered to contain the "Word of God", but it is still always written by a person. People are fallible, subject to sin, manipulation, emotional bias, and the mores of their time (Jesus even admitted to this). When bringing the will of God into text, it is still always going through a person. It doesn't just magically appear on a golden tablet (unless you are a known con artist like Joseph Smith). This is only forgotten with fanaticism, where the true delusion is not belief in God, but a delusion in the infallible perfection of humans.

Yes, religious fanaticism can give Religion a bad name and create emotional bias against it, just as people who use violence create emotional bias against Guns.

PART 2 of my personal testimony will be coming soon. You can read it yourself and form your own judgement. You will see that my story is much more interesting than whatever you expect. That I went from devout Athiest who believed their was no proof, reason, or evidence of God's existence, and then completely changed is because it was proven to me through empirical experience and critical analysis.

[AynRand]

Empiricism is the theory that knowledge derives from sensory experience and observable phenomenon. What Athiests often overlook is that God and the supernatural can be experienced as an observable relationship to the world of nature and our personal lives. This is evident throughout all of history, contained within the testimony of countless people through history describing first-hand or life-long experiences. When enough people tell you that strawberries taste good, but you've never had a strawberry, there is a strong weight of evidence that Strawberries taste pretty damn good. This is not a majority fallacy, this is witness testimony, which holds weight and value in court of law, our relationships, and discerning truth.

I'm sorry but once again this is not an argument (and again I'm sorry if this was not meant to be an argument in which case my bad again), but if you replace the word god in that paragraph with santa claus would you be pursuaded to believe in santa clause, or what if you replaced god with allah, or zeus?

 

What you seem to leave out in this is that the vast majority of people believe that they have had a close personal relationship to a diety that is entirely different from the one you believe in. Similar to saying a lot of people support my postion because they are human, and I'm a human has nothing to do with the original claim, but again even if every single person in the history of mankind believed in not only the deity you believe in but the specific interpretation of the holy book that you support that still would not be evidence for your god. People can be wrong, on many basic things. A good example is that just 130 years ago no one in all of history knew what DNA was. People had many beliefs on what encoded genetic information, but everyone is wrong.

 

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove to anyone that God exists, I am only trying to provide empirical perspective and rational observation to real-life phenomena and testimony. In other words, the weight of evidence should speak for itself, then anyone can form their own judgement of what they think is true. Because God is a personal relationship and guiding influence (were God to be arbitrarily forceful, we would have no free will), no one can force you to see his influence, you can only choose to look for yourself and examine his relationship to nature, your life, and your actions.

Forgive me for being cynical, but I do believe an underlying motive of yours is to not neccesarily convert atheists to christians, but to at least make a point that Christianity is a reasonable position to hold. You speak of evidence, and I must admit it has not been shown to me.

 

Sorry to plagurize Christopher Hitchens here but "saying that we have free will because our boss says we have free will makes a mockery of the whole idea".

 

 

No where in the bible does it say "Those who live in 2015 AD are strictly bound to interpret God as a holy trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit", but this is a symbolic understanding of the nature of God derived from the teachings. Religion has been an evolution of understanding from the very beginning, which is why the teachings of The Old Testament are superceded by added context of The New Testament.

 

Honestly this is embarassing, but I have never fully read the bible, so I won't argue in depth on what it says, but I am curious are you saying the the new testament cancels out the old testament. I believe that the ten commandments are only in the old testament does this mean they are no longer contingent to gods standard of morality? Also are you implying that the new testament is less immoral then the old because I do believe many verses will contradict that idea?

 

 

The specific language of religion has always been open to evolution and interpretation, this is why it is described with relate-able allegory, story, fable, and the language of the stars (astrology). This is why it has changed through time, and yet each new development builds off of the last. Because an emotional connection to THE INFINITE is not something that can be easily explained with strict literal linguistic and scientific textbook definition. Like I've said it is something that mostly has to be EXPERIENCED to be fully understood.

I am sorry but this sounds like meaningless platitudes. Would you mind explaining this a little better because again I think you could say this about literally any idea. Again I am searching for truth, and as I have little ways to find objective truth I have to rely on my senses, and since god in not immediately available to any of my senses evidence is needed to confirm his existence. I must say I feel left out that others can have such a close and personal relationship with a deity, and yet when I think thoughts in my mind nobody replies.

 

I'll try to respond to the rest of your points later, but I need to do homework now. I would like to thank you for opening up about your upbringing I find it very interesting.

[AynRand]

Do not confuse the actions of State and people with GOD, because you are merely taking responsibility off of the people for their actions as if they were not in control. I don't know of any religions that will preach that God makes everything happen with brute force according to his arbitrary whims. Instead, the emphasis is always on CHOICE and Free Will.

 

Just as a rational person doesn't blame a gun for murder, you should never blame a tool for understanding God for the actions of a person or group of people.

 

This quote makes me question your intentions. At any point did I say the people are not responsible for their actions? If an insane person truly believes that reading catcher in the rye will tell you to murder john lennon then I believe that person is responsible for his actions, however I would argue then that catcher in the rye will be a contributing factor to the death of john lennon, but the person is still responsible for all immoral acts done in the name of catcher in the rye. I will add that obviously that is a gross misinterpretation of catcher in the rye, and if the murderer had never read catcher in the rye then he would have used another medium to justify the murder of john lennon. But once again and this is the most important part I realize this is not evidence for or against the bible. None of the atrocious acts were supernatural in nature, and as a result I have not and never will use atrocious acts as inherently disproving the bible. This whole quote is a non sequiter. My only reason for being an atheist is lack of evidence supporting the bible or any holy book for that matter.

[GuzzyBone]

You are absolutely right, except for your belief in a lack of evidence to support the bible.

However, before I can even begin to share evidence, I must first dispell the myths. This is especially true because I have already been confronted with these myths as "evidence against" the truth or value of religion several times in this thread already (where folks attempt to use the violence of people, actions of people, and misinterpretations of people to disprove the opening arguments that I've already put forward).

If I were simply speaking to myself then sure I could jump right in to the evidence, but part of the argument I've already put forward is that Athiests generally put up a wall of myths or fallacies when confronted with the possibility of profound truth found within religion. I can't really move forward without first chiseling through this wall of myth, when it's being used to block so much of what I've already said.

"Would you agree though that statist power and religion go hand in hand"

This is what you said to me, and this is essentially the same as saying "violence and religion" go hand in hand, or "catcher in the rye and murder go hand in hand".

My answer of course is No. If Religion was out of the equation, Statists would use something else to justify their ethical violations. 

In the USA this is exactly what the State does. They use Fear, Xenophobia, Revenge, Might = Right, White Man's Burden, etc... instead of Religion.

[WasatchMan]

However, before I can even begin to share evidence, I must first dispell the myths. This is especially true because I have already been confronted with these myths as "evidence against" the truth or value of religion several times in this thread already (where folks attempt to use the violence of people, actions of people, and misinterpretations of people to disprove the opening arguments that I've already put forward).

 

If I were simply speaking to myself then sure I could jump right in to the evidence, but part of the argument I've already put forward is that Athiests generally put up a wall of myths or fallacies when confronted with the possibility of profound truth found within religion. I can't really move forward without first chiseling through this wall of myth, when it's being used to block so much of what I've already said.

 

hmmmm... which one of these is a wall of myths and/or fallacies and which one is demanding evidence...

 

[GuzzyBone]

The wall of myth is using a picture meme as if it provides any kind of argument or debate to the things I've already mentioned.

Ken Ham is not representative of all religious people and he didn't say it can't be proven. He is saying HE can't prove it to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you are willing to look for proof.
It's like if I said...

There is an oasis 3 miles away, but I can't ultimately prove it to you, you will have to see it for yourself.
I can take pictures of it, I can draw pictures of it, I show you books about it, I can show you people who have seen the oasis, I can show you people who enjoy the oasis, I can bring you a bucket of water from the oasis, and you can walk with me to the oasis, because there is definitely an oasis.

Bill Nye is not representative of all Athiests but he is basically saying...

But I just need proof that there is a oasis! Something that contradicts that I have never seen the oasis. Somethiing that contradicts my photos that we are in the middle of a desert. Something that contradicts that all I see is sand in every direction. Something that contradicts all these books and testimonies that "the oasis is bad", etc etc etc....

If you are trying to find God by using his creations to disprove him, you are not going to get very far.

If you are trying to use Religion as a scientific textbook with strict literal interpretation, you are missing the entire point. This is a book with proven real-world history mixed with blatant allegory and symbolism. If you conflate the two concepts into literal scientific interpretation, then you will definitely miss the bigger picture completely.

It's like saying Love doesn't exist because I can't see this thing called "Love", I can only see it's effects.

[AynRand]

"Would you agree though that statist power and religion go hand in hand"

 

This is what you said to me, and this is essentially the same as saying "violence and religion" go hand in hand, or "catcher in the rye and murder go hand in hand".

I will retract my statement because I did not word it as clearly as i should have, however I will stand by the sentiment I was trying to convey. Whether or not the holy books support what the state was doing and in my opinion holy books do support the state, but whether or not that is true, states cite religion as an excuse for what they do. Staes citing religion as an excuse does not inherently mean that religion perpetuates state violence, but I still believe religion is a contributing factor to the evils of statism. By this I mean states will tend to follow the path of least resistance to further their own power. Universally states have done this (with the exception of a few quote unquote "communist" countries including the soviet union) by allying themselves with the church in some form or another. Whether it be tax incentives or a establishing a national religion historically states support religion. Once again I realize this is not evidence against the bible, so I will emphasize that I did not mean to imply that this was, but I do support the sentiment behind "statist power and religion go hand in hand".

 

In addition I was curious what is your interpretation of "render unto ceaser what is ceaser's, and render unto god what is gods"?

[WasatchMan]

The wall of myth is using a picture meme as if it provides any kind of argument or debate to the things I've already mentioned.

 

Ken Ham is not representative of all religious people and he didn't say it can't be proven. He is saying HE can't prove it to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you are willing to look for proof.

It's like if I said...

 

There is an oasis 3 miles away, but I can't ultimately prove it to you, you will have to see it for yourself.

I can take pictures of it, I can draw pictures of it, I show you books about it, I can show you people who have seen the oasis, I can show you people who enjoy the oasis, I can bring you a bucket of water from the oasis, and you can walk with me to the oasis, because there is definitely an oasis.

 

Bill Nye is not representative of all Athiests but he is basically saying...

 

But I just need proof that there is a oasis! Something that contradicts that I have never seen the oasis. Somethiing that contradicts my photos that we are in the middle of a desert. Something that contradicts that all I see is sand in every direction. Something that contradicts all these books and testimonies that "the oasis is bad", etc etc etc....

 

If you are trying to find God by using his creations to disprove him, you are not going to get very far.

 

If you are trying to use Religion as a scientific textbook with strict literal interpretation, you are missing the entire point. This is a book with proven real-world history mixed with blatant allegory and symbolism. If you conflate the two concepts into literal scientific interpretation, then you will definitely miss the bigger picture completely.

 

It's like saying Love doesn't exist because I can't see this thing called "Love", I can only see it's effects.

 

It wasn't an argument, it was an example of a wall of myth and fallacious arguments that religious people use vs what someone who cares about truth uses.  You were making a claim and I was showing you an example of the opposite of your claim.  I am not the one that brought the need for proof into this conversation, you did when you brought up myths and the need to expel them. If we are not talking about things that can be proved than we are just talking about whims and emotions as substitute for reality.

[GuzzyBone]

There is common misconception that a Religion or the existence of God can not be proven. A large part of this thread is about trying to break through this myth.

If Bill Nye was truly interested in seeking truth, then he would heed the advice of millions of people and listen to their claims that God cannot be shown directly to you, you have to seek or see him for yourself. This is a fancy way of saying, "have any open mind, and take the appropriate steps towards RESEARCH".

Scientists and Athiests alike love to research only the actions of man as if this is supposed to have much bearing on whether or not there is a God. They will conflate things like "if God is life and love, then why is there Violence, Death and Hate". They will take that statement and accept it as proof at face value against religion, without bothering to hear the other side's perspective, rebuttal, or explanation.

I have seen a few of these pseudo-debates where they pick ONE GUY from the religious community, he tries to support his case (whether he is a good at explaining it or not) and then the Athiest will retort back with "Well you're just delusional, these are delusions"... Then they will turn around and use differing interpretations of God as if that is any kind of evidence against the existence of a God, but all this proves is that people interpret and interact with God differently depending on culture. The similarities between these religions go ignored, despite the similarities being far more numerous and valued than the minor differences.

From my perspective it's like watching one guy state his case, and the other guy says "Oh yeah, well you're just crazy, and look at all these other crazy people that I don't understand!"

The debate is not about the guy, or those people, it's about GOD, but the Athiest in his ignorance will continue to shut down all attempts to encourage him to actually research the subject and get involved in these communities. Not everything can be brought TO you, some things you have to see for yourself, but in the meantime if you keep your mind open to pursuing truth despite emotional bias and preconceived notions, then you may actually get somewhere to finding an objective answer.

To many Athiests the question of God is "self-evident" or should be "obvious", but when it comes to a subject as heady as religion... You might want to be more objectively curious, rather than trusting only your eyes, nose, mouth, and ears. Hear what people have to say, listen to actual testimony, find out what proved it to others, and then discern your own truth with all available evidence.

Anyway, this post was in response. I will put forward more arguments soon, but I've been talking with this community a lot for one day

Also, I would like to add that the strain of fanaticism that has corrupted something spiritual (emotional interpretation) into pure literal interpretation has definitely not helped Religious commentators make their case. This kind of close-minded worship of a book (written by man) instead of God himself has caused stagnation in the ability for Religious people to express themselves in a world that is increasingly demanding answers.

[WasatchMan]

There is common misconception that a Religion or the existence of God can not be proven. A large part of this thread is about trying to break through this myth.

 

 

Religion obviously exists, however God is an impossible entity, and is therefore not provable. 

 

If you have proof of God I would start there since this is a huge claim that even some of the most zealous believers do not make (because they can't prove it), and not waste time with your opinions about Atheist and Theist debates or your perceived irritations with atheist arguments. 

 

Just so you know, I find your walls of text almost void of any meaning, they come off as long ramblings of someones opinion with no substantive arguments. Like creating the strawman of an atheist in a debate, do you really think that would mean anything to someone who was an atheist?  Do you think making up a scenario of some caricature of an atheist in a debate would somehow come off as an argument?

 

I would recommend you review Stef's argument for god being an illogical construct:

 

[PatrickC]

I haven't the time just yet to read through this whole thread, but some of it struck me as quite interesting and hope I can add something interesting myself to this topic.

 

1. Why do so many people believe in these things?

 

This is just my opinion, mostly based on anecdotes and having processed my own religious upbringing in depth. I would say that many people can turn to religion so as to find an outlet for reasonableness. People enjoy a community that has strong ethical values that can help relieve them from indulging in otherwise dysfunctional and unhealthy patterns of behaviour. Behaviour that might otherwise have a detrimental effect on their future life. It gives them stability being around people that they see as helping them avoid acting out on these pathologies.

 

In which case I no longer hold the opinion that religious folk are delusional in their belief. They are delusional insofar as they aren't honest with others about what religion actually does for them. Religion tends to have a net positive effect on a persons life and is a ready made community which the wider world mostly allows them to indulge in, with relative impunity. It's a safe harbour so to speak.

[Troubador]

GuzzyBone I am a man of faith myself, but you have to appreciate when you are engaging in rational logical philosophical discourse the current paradigm precludes any discussion on the topic of God, because quite aside from the debates that rage around the subject one of the qualities almost always assigned to God/the divine/the Tao or whatever is it is unknowable. That actually pretty much renders any debate next to impossible unless you are exclusively discussing with those who accept the same suppositions (ie there is a god) and also frequently the same flavour as you do.

 

The premise of what you're discussing seems to me is for people to accept your personal experience of God (as well as others who say the same) as part of a body information that should be accepted by the wider atheist community. Can you not see how that leads to the precise same blind faith sate of affairs that allows the statism you so abhor in the first place? I like you arrive at faith from personal experience not necessarily from what I read out of some book, however I consider it the height of daftness if anyone were to hang the hat of their own religious thinking on the basis of my experiences, because for one human beings can be either or both deluded and insane, and you have to entertain the possibility thats us (ie people with faith).

 

Also and I am by no means trying insult you here but LSD is a fecking dangerous drug that can cause mental illness all by itself, now I am not one to tell you what you should or shouldn't put into your own body, but taking the idea LSD could lead you to God, if an impressionable person were to read that, it could case incalculable harm.

[AynRand]

There is common misconception that a Religion or the existence of God can not be proven. A large part of this thread is about trying to break through this myth.

I don't make the claim that god could not be proven. What I say is that their is insufficient evidence supporting your god hypothesis. I think you might be surprised to see that when you finally do make rational arguments then people will convert to your cause, but until a rational argument is put forward we will remain atheists.

 

 

If Bill Nye was truly interested in seeking truth, then he would heed the advice of millions of people and listen to their claims that God cannot be shown directly to you, you have to seek or see him for yourself. This is a fancy way of saying, "have any open mind, and take the appropriate steps towards RESEARCH".

I've interpreted this as meaning evidence is not necessary to prove god which I need not say more than I disagree with that. If god can not be shown directly to you then why would you support the notion of god?

 

 

The debate is not about the guy, or those people, it's about GOD, but the Athiest in his ignorance will continue to shut down all attempts to encourage him to actually research the subject and get involved in these communities.

What did you hope to accomplish by this line? Instead of saying this I would recommend saying something to the effect of "Atheists are wrong because of the non fallacious well reasoned logical sequence of" ...(then proceed with an actual argument). So far you have not mentioned a single argument in favor of the bible, and as a result I find it strange that you will call us atheists ignorant.

 

To many Athiests the question of God is "self-evident" or should be "obvious", but when it comes to a subject as heady as religion.

That's a mighty big assumption you just made there. Care to back that up with something existing in reality? Also which god do you refer to Zeus, Allah, Horus? My point is that again that is not an argument but a thinly veiled facade trying to distract us from the lack of arguments that you haven't presented.

 

 

Anyway, this post was in response. I will put forward more arguments soon, but I've been talking with this community a lot for one day

I eagerly look forward to an argument that you will hopefully eventually present.

[AynRand]

No where in the bible does it say "Those who live in 2015 AD are strictly bound to interpret God as a holy trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit", but this is a symbolic understanding of the nature of God derived from the teachings. Religion has been an evolution of understanding from the very beginning, which is why the teachings of The Old Testament are superceded by added context of The New Testament.

Sorry this is going to be a mean post. I make no real arguments here I'm just satisfying the jerk inside me. I apologize to anyone who takes offense by this post.  I'll probably remove this later, but a friend sent me this, and I just can't help myself.

 

"Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens" Psalms 119:89.

 

I'm certainly no biblical expert, or honestly even qualified to make any sort of judgment on the bible, but my interpretation of this verse is that the word of god is eternal and unchanging. Sorry to harp on this because I realize this thread is not about immorality in the bible, but again I can't help myself. So when god demands death to gay people 4000 years ago I believe that it is reasonable to infer that since his word is eternal, and he has given little indication of changing his mind that we should in fact kill gay people. Obviously that is a violation of the non aggression principle and as a result I would deem actions like that immoral, but I'm just saying that an interpretation of the bible is that people in 2015 AD are bound to the laws that god has demanded of his creation regardless of the date in which these laws were laid out. I hope you see the issue I'm trying to bring up.

[GuzzyBone]

I don't have all the time in the world to discuss this, and I am being bombarded with arguments and accusations that require in-depth discussion and analysis if you want to have any kind of objective perspective on this subject. I could try to keep this short and sweet but then communication ability would be diminished. So I am sorry if you are put off by a "wall of text", or feel that I am not moving fast enough or starting where you WANT me to start, but I already explained where I'm coming from several times and my time is limited. Before we can begin to actually objectively discuss evidence we have to start from an objective position and discard as much emotional bias as possible. This subject almost always devolves into an emotionally-charged hate fest, and largely due to walls of myth that create assumptions and misunderstandings from BOTH sides. Furthermore, I'm not trying to convert you, I'm simply trying to put forward my arguments for analysis and discussion. Get over this and learn patience because I am essentially debating against many people all by my lonesome (BTW I've said most of this already and goading me into repeating myself doesn't help move the conversation at all).

I will start by addressing Stefan's arguments in the video called "Proofs for God destroyed by a Philosophical Athiest".

Fallacy #1 -  "Existence" only consists of "observable matter/energy/effects"

Firstly he begins by setting a definition of "Existence" as pretty much what we can observe/experience ("OBSERVABLE matter/energy/effects") however we already know this to be nonsense since there are entire microcosms and macrocosms of worlds and events that we cannot even begin to observe or understand. We are breaching these worlds all the time and discovering new layers of what we call reality, especially in the fields of Quantum Physics, Microscopy, Astrophysics, Astronomy, etc...

The one thing that has been consistently agreed upon within almost all science, academic, mathematic, spiritual, and logic-based communities is that Reality or Existence is "to persist", something that "is", "to be", and that reality/energy/effects/matter/space/time/existence (ALL that persists) is INFINITE. Afterall, Existence is also called the "Space Time CONTINUUM". Existence is a fancy word for saying "That which IS", "what IS", not Stefan's special definition of "what can be seen". In fact, Stefan is the only person I have ever heard argue that existence is defined as "observable matter/effects", which is inherently absurd and implies that "The things that we don't know exist and we can't see, obviously don't exist". This implication is a contradictory statement, which he says at the beginning of the video can be "dismissed outright". Also, lack of evidence does not make ANY case a truth. So this is definition of "Existence" is doubly false.

Now if Stefan is referring to "objective material presence/effects" as "Existence" (including what we have not yet discovered) then he is completely excluding the realm of "thought" and "consciousness", and concluding these are "non-existant" or "unreal", however we all know that "thought" actually occurs and "consciousness" is a "real" phenomenon and thus these have some degree of actual persistence in reality, whether immaterial, observable, measurable or otherwise. This is particularly relevant when discussing the subject of God, because God is described as the "ultimate consciousness". If you define the realm of "thought" and "consciousness" as "non-existant" then you are creating a paradox and contradictory statement and admitting that something can persist (exist) but not exist at the same time.

Right off the bat his explanation of "Existence" is filled with contradiction and does not even remotely conform to common held belief, definition, or understanding.

As he says in the video: "Compared to what"

If you are comparing all of his arguments to this false definition of "Existence", then you are starting from an illogical paradigm.

FALLACY #2 - Paradox and Contradiction "don't exist"

Stefan doesn't really argue, but rather states that a "contradictory statement is irrelevant of material evidence".

He uses the example of the abstract concept of a "Square Circle" in attempt solidify his case, but this is also inherently absurd. Squares and Circles are abstract geometric mathematical measurements that do not exist outside of the realm of "thought". There is no such thing as a perfect circle or square in the material world or even a straight line for that matter, only the illusion and measurement of consistency (pattern recognition). No matter how symmetrical or perfect the measurement appears, eventually the closer you analyze it the more imperfection and inconsistency will emerge. Take for example, if I were to cut a piece of wood into a circle. Would this circle actually be in perfect dimensions? What if I were to microscopically analyze the texture of the edges, would they not form bumps and splinters that would render the circle imperfect and jagged? Math is an abstract language of measurement based on pattern recognition, not an objective material presence. So does that mean Math is not real?

He is contradicting his own definition of existence by using this illustrative example to suggest that a "square" and a "circle" actually do exist as separate material forms. Furthermore, since math is only an abstract concept based on perception, couldn't we simply draw a circle inside of a square and then proclaim it to be a "Square Circle". Yes, we could. This would form your material evidence. To deny it at that point is just willful.

Illustrating that abstract concepts do in fact exist in some form, is a bad way of disproving what he calls an immaterial or abstract concept ("God").

Self-contradiction is abundant in this video, but I still allow Stefan the opportunity to present evidence, because no argument (regardless of how contradictory) can be dismissed outright when empirical evidence can be presented.
 

Finally, this whole notion of contradiction and simultaneously existing paradox has been quite extensively explored in the relatively new field of Quantum Physics. Some studies have concluded with the hypothesis that this is a Paradoxical Reality, where the material can be both "real" and "unreal" simultaneously. The more we look into this field, the more the concept of paradox/contradiction is found not wholly independent of truth and reality, but rather a major defining quality.  If you desire more research, proof, or evidence on this subject, then I can elaborate further or help point you in the right direction.

Yes, paradox and contradiction can often render conversations awkward, moot, or unresolved, where both parties agree that they are both "right" and "wrong" at the same time. It can make conversation difficult and arguments seem pointless. For example in the greater picture, it is an accurate statement to say...

"God doesn't exist AND God does exist."  So in admitted truth, me and Stefan are BOTH right and BOTH wrong. However, adopting one side fully and absolutely is hardly what we could call "understanding truth".

If you are having trouble understanding the concept of Infinity (Paradox) as the ultimate and only constant physical law of the universe, or if you simply refuse to admit or believe it... Then I highly suggest researching this subject further, because it will truly liberate your understanding of how reality works to a degree that can rival philosophy, sociology, physics, theology, or any other field of study. It is quite the "ah-ha!" moment that puts all things into perspective.

This is really a heady and immense subject that should have a thread all to itself. Reality itself is an "impossibility" and this makes for excellent conversation.

A "rock" and "seagull" have an infinite amount in common (same as they differ). "Rock" and "Seagull" are just human words assigned to measure seemingly separate phenomenon.

Stefan using "2 + 2 = 5" as an example in this argument, is again taking math (a man-made abstract language based on relative measurement) in attempt to mislead people into believing that Math has any kind of material or existential substance outside of our minds.

"2 + 2" may not "equal five", but the amount of numbers between 1 and 2 is the same as the amount of numbers between 1 and 5 (Infinite numbers). Existence is not Math, in that Math is only a language for communication and measurement.

FALLACY #3 - Lack of evidence constitutes proof of anything.

If someone were to say to me that "Bigfoot exists", I cannot legitimately (or with any authenticity) turn around and state "Bigfoot does not exist because I have never seen him". This should be obvious, but I have to mention it anyway, because this fallacy is repeated throughout the video. You cannot form a hypothesis or conclusion that something does not exist, simply because you have no evidence one-way or another. You have to have some form of evidence to form any kind of substantial, authoritative or valid statement. Therefore the same burden of proof to proclaim that "God definitely does not exist" lies upon the Athiest, however "proof" of this statement is rarely submitted for review.

Bottomline: You cannot prove that something doesn't exist at all in some form, in some place, in some way, in some time.

An Athiest does not take a neutral stance like the Agnostic. They do not simply shrug their shoulders and admit that "I don't know if God exists", but rather they argue to have sufficient evidence that something does not exist at all (in any way, shape, or form).

If you can prove this statement, then by all means, prove it... but yes, this does require that you hunt throughout the entire universe (known and unknown) for eternity.

Say you were to scour the entire planet (inside and surface) to prove the validity of the statement "Bigfoot does not exist on this Earth". You would be excluding the possibility that you simply missed him and cannot be in all places at once. It is beyond human capability to prove this statement with conclusive evidence. The person would be lieing to themselves to say "I know that Bigfoot does not exist, FOR A FACT". The only truthful statement would be "I don't know if Bigfoot exists".

"THIS THING does not exist at all" is not an argument or a hypothesis. It is a blanket statement made with no human way to obtain proof of being an absolute truth (it cannot be tested). However, as I pointed out "Everything exists" AND "Nothing exists" (this is basic Infinity/Paradox theory), so the original blanket statement is misleading and made in ignorance.

FALLACY #4 - Immaterial Existence is "false"

We already established that immaterial things "exist" (thought/consciousness/gravity), whether a material source has been proven or not. We generally believe that the organ called a "brain" (observable matter) is the origin and source of "consciousness", but we have not proven that absence of a brain ends all thought/consciousness altogether. We have only proven that upon death, the person's "thoughts" cease to be observable to our senses. Again, lack of observable evidence does not prove anything, one way or another. We cannot make the conclusion that thought has stopped, purely because we no longer can see it's effects. We have to admit that we "don't know" if you are a person who requires reason and evidence to draw conclusions.

Stefan's statement: "Consciousness is empirically an effect of matter, in that no consciousness is ever present without a physical brain"

Better statement: "Consciousness empirically seems to be an effect of matter, in that human/animal consciousness has never been observed without the presence of a physical brain"

Honest and humble statement: "We don't actually know what consciousness is or how and why it occurs"

There are even studies that suggest that plants may actually have a form of consciousness (without brain). This field of study is rather new, but the results are interesting to say the least.

There is much that we don't know, haven't seen, and can't see. This does not make these things "unreal", or "false".

I already partially put forward that "Non-Existence" is a perfectly valid concept, and that one thing can simultaneously "exist" yet "not exist" at the same time. If you do not feel that the burden of proof has been met, we can discuss this further in a topic all of it's own. I will soon make a topic relating to exactly this subject.

FALLACY #5 - "God cannot be All-Knowing and All-Powerful"

I don't know how Stefan draws this conclusion, or based on what evidence or logic.

I do not recall anyone definitively putting forward the concept of human "Free Will" (as we understand it) upon God, but merely that he "IS" and "has observable effects".

We do not need to know how he works. When we try to describe it or understand it, we are limited by the constraints of human language and experience.

No one has claimed to be able to definitively explain, understand, or describe God. We do the best we can with what we have. If you want to open the rabbit hole that is the mind of God, go for it, but I doubt you will retain much sanity in the process.

Not understanding how something works, does not prove that it doesn't work. Yes, this is an "impossible" entity and we live in an "impossible" universe. Impossible is an abstract human concept that we use to describe our perceived limitations. People have defied what is deemed "impossible" all throughout history.

If God seems "impossible", this does not constitute any proof of whether or not he exists. YOU are not "All-Knowing", and existence is not limited by your understanding of what is and isn't possible. Look into the experiments that led to the coining of "The Observer Effect", the results certainly seemed "impossible" until they actually happened.

We once thought it impossible to fly. Are airplanes "impossible" or did they defy our perceived limitations of what is possible?

Is it "possible" that Science has already proven God's existence but that majority bias, emotional bias, and underlying philosophies (man knows all/state is god) inhibit research and undermine objective hypothesis? This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but this question does not constitute proof of anything in itself.

FALLACY #6 - God cannot be put "outside of time"

Why not? Is everything bound by time? What proof is there that nothing is outside of time?

Two major scientific developments/theories/discoveries are gaining legitimacy at this very moment. That time is "Infinite" and time is merely a "Perception". If time is "Infinite", then the question follows, does time exist as anything more than an illusion?. This is a much larger topic, and we could share and source studies and hypothesis in another post I will make soon. Does "history" exist as a concrete unchanging concept, or is "history" as subject to change and influence as the "future"? These are questions we can explore in another topic, but for now I'd like to keep this topic specifically about the existence of God.

The point I'm making is that you can't simply assume that nothing can be placed outside of our understanding of "time".

 

What about the theory that if you were to travel at the speed of light, you would arrive before you even started your journey?
Am I to assume then that "light does not exist at all"?

FALLACY #7 - God is defined as "consciousness without material form"

By whom? Most religions believe that God is "everything". Even the allegory and understanding of "Satan" or "Lucifer" is that he is an aspect of God (created from/by God). Within the majority of Religious communities, existence itself is considered the material form of God's consciousness. Stefan's cherry-picked definition of God is demonstrably false.

FALLACY #8 - God is defined as an "undetectable form of energy"

By whom? This notion that God's influence and presence is "undetectable" demonstrates a very large ignorance of religious belief and teachings.

Furthermore, "energy"?. Where is this "religious theory" put forward? Where is Stefan getting these alleged definitions? "Energy" has hardly even been defined in any consistent manner, because of it's many forms. It is mostly a catch-all to describe "change", "movement", or real "invisible forces/change" with "detectable effect".

FALLACY #9 - God is defined as the "most complex life/consciousness in existence"

Complex is a relative term. If you are uneducated something may seem "complex" to YOU, but "simple" to someone who has been educated.

Evolution does not necessarily produce complexity, but can also be said to simplify organisms into the best form of survival in their environment.

"God is complex" is a fancy way of saying God is "hard to understand". Complex is not a definite scientific measurement, it is a perception and is completely relative.

The concept of God seems "simple" to me, but could seem very "complex" to someone else. I can't believe Stefan actually put forward the notion of "complexity" as any kind of tangible or empirical constant. Complex is an abstract term.

See, this is why people use languages (symbology, astro-theology, allegory, parable, fable) other than Math, Science, Logic, History, and Linguistics. When describing the Infinite, it is best to use all tools available for a deeper understanding.

FALLACY #10 - Perhaps God exists "outside the Universe"?

Stefan, who actually made this argument? You? I do detect a man made of straw in our midst. Burn baby burn...

What is your definition of "Universe"?  Some people use it synonymously with "everything that is". Some scientists theorize and define that "the Universe" is a finite and limited space that exists within a larger and infinite Space Time Continuum.

God is almost always defined as "omnipresent" and "all that is", and is synonymous with "the Universe". So that was a nice little straw man you built there, but it only belongs to you.

I would say that God is the conclusion that the Universe is "Conscious", based on observable effects and pattern.

- THAT'S ENOUGH FOR NOW -

OK, at this point I've dedicated way too much time to just exposing the fallacies in Stefan's video... I haven't even had a chance to respond to other arguments put forward. I skimmed through the rest of the video but it is much of the same stuff regurgitated in different ways, but with a Stalin and a Dragon made of straw thrown in the mix for a good burn.

I've already sent to Michael a friendly request for the opportunity to debate this with Stefan on his radio show, so hopefully I will get the chance to challenge him on these positions.

Regardless of what I know or don't know, I can legitimately say that Stefan does not KNOW that "God doesn't exist", because "God doesn't exist" is a declarative and proclamatory statement which cannot be proven without omniscience.

Are you both Athiest and omniscient? Atheism requires the same level of Faith, Dogma, and suspension of disbelief that they charge Religion with.

Here's some quick rushed responses to other posts...

LSD. Is it dangerous? So says State. State is a known liar.

Scientifically LSD only increases the amount of input you receive from all your senses. It does not make you see "dragons", "elephants", or "goblins". It is a tool that can be used for good or ill. It is neutral. It is how you process the information and experience that matters. I am not responsible for how or if someone uses a neutral substance. I am not responsible for anyone's decisions. I have not encouraged or discouraged it's use. I stated that I have had both negative and positive experiences that have all been extreme LEARNING experiences.

Is it actually dangerous though? Life-threatening? No (it's practically non-toxic). Mind-changing? Yes, but the mind is subject to numerous factors beyond just a drug (environment, past, personality, etc). Psychedelics are some of the most harmless substances in the world if you are of sound mind, in a good place, know thyself, and have a good environment.

You know, people still believe hysterical myths like that LSD stays in your spine forever!

On evolution of religious thought... No, the gay people thing is superseded by the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus, just as circumcision is not a Christian practice (Jesus's crucifixion was the end of all blood sacrifice ritual) but a uniquely American and Jewish practice. You can take things out of context to build some straw men, and fanatics can twist words and the teachings of pacifism into hate speech all they want, but it doesn't actually prove anything other than ignorance and irresponsibility.

On building strawmen of Athiests... Yes, I admit it. I've been generalizing and stereotyping the Atheist community much as they do to Religious communities. People typically receive the kind of respect that they dish out. If you wish me to be held to a higher standard, then hold yourself to the same standards. The picture meme was very stereotypical of the Athiest community. Taking snippets out of context and broadcasting them to push an agenda. Don't be the stereotype, think for yourself.

On expecting Athiests to take personal witness and testimony of others as proof... Witness and testimony are considered valid evidence in a "court of law" and in most disputes. I don't expect anyone to take this evidence at face value, but rather to actually consider it, critically analyze it, and make determinations for themselves.

Hopefully I'll actually get to finishing my own personal testimony eventually. Remember, I used to be an Athiest and was proven wrong.

[shirgall]

On expecting Athiests to take personal witness and testimony of others as proof... Witness and testimony are considered valid evidence in a "court of law" and in most disputes. I don't expect anyone to take this evidence at face value, but rather to actually consider it, critically analyze it, and make determinations for themselves.

 

And that evidence is judged by a group of unbiased reasonable and prudent people that determines whether the witness observed what he or she said she observed. (By the way, you undermined your own quantum woo by going to the witness argument. Now you have to stick to observable phenomena that abide by the rules of space/time). And all sides of the matter get to bring expert witnesses to critically examine the observation that was testified. And, the witness faces severe penalties if they were lying, unless they are lying about sex and they are a sitting president.

 

Good luck finding unbiased juries to examine paranormal claims.

[AynRand]

I must admit this is an impressive wall of text given. I will try to respond to all of your points, but their is no way I can do that in a single post, so forgive the five or six little posts that I'll try to make throughout today. I noticed that you didn't make any arguments for the bible which is very interesting. I look forward to hearing those arguments. It appears you have just attacked several common atheistic questions which is fine, but I still look forward to reasons why we should follow the bible. Also I'd like to add that while I have not read the bible I have read (if you will excuse my language) a crapload of christian and muslim theology books, and would like to point out that I believe I have read the book you have taken several of your points from which is reasonable faith. I think the best response to that book is from Steve Shives. I'll give the link, but honestly I wouldn't expect anyone to go through his whole series because it's like 8 hours long. Disclaimer if you do watch his videos only watch his videos on atheism because his is a statist, and makes several videos in defense of the state, and feminism. I think it's very mean to link an 8 hour video or like a 200 page book as a response so instead I will try my best to refute as many of your points on my own because I think that's unreasonable to expect people to spend 8 hours on something that isn't really worth the time, but then again people on FDR do like to go the extra mile, so I will give the link.  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3E7E9155B5404B79

Fallacy #1 -  "Existence" only consists of "observable matter/energy/effects"

Firstly he begins by setting a definition of "Existence" as pretty much what we can observe/experience ("OBSERVABLE matter/energy/effects") however we already know this to be nonsense since there are entire microcosms and macrocosms of worlds and events that we cannot even begin to observe or understand.

To start off I think this is your first point, but this is a misunderstanding of existence. You state that we know of things that cannot be observed or understood, but I believe the effects of these things can be observed which is what you state in your definition, so I am confused why did you include this in your post. As I understand it no one has ever seen an electron, but humanity believes they exist. The reason we believe electrons exist is because we can see the effects of electrons. If you mean to say that we know of the existence of "microcosms and macroscosms" without seeing their effects or literally seeing these structures then I would appreciate if you would back that claim up with evidence, but then again I think that's kind of pointless because this has nothing to do with whether or not the bible can be validated.

 

Like I said I'll try to keep going, but I don't like posting huge amounts of text in a single post. That's just a personal choice. I just find it difficult to keep my train of thought when there are so many points to discuss.

In fact, Stefan is the only person I have ever heard argue that existence is defined as "observable matter/effects", which is inherently absurd and implies that "The things that we don't know exist and we can't see, obviously don't exist". This implication is a contradictory statement, which he says at the beginning of the video can be "dismissed outright".

This is a misunderstanding of Stefan's view on existence. He does not mean to imply that only what is currently known to humanity exists, but instead what he means is that without some sort of effect or evidence to support the existence of something then there is no reason to state for certainty that the existence of that object in fact exists.

 

To use your bigfoot example because bigfoot is not inherently contradictory it is possible for him to exist, however because no tangible or physical evidence supports his existence then any person making the truth claim that "bigfoot exists" is to be assumed as wrong. This is a core tenant of logic that the positive claim bears the burden of proof.

 

Also, lack of evidence does not make ANY case a truth. So this is definition of "Existence" is doubly false.

Once again this is a misunderstanding of Stefan's view. He does not make the truth claim that god or gods do not exist because of lack of evidence. When an atheists says "god does not exist" generally speaking he means to say that "evidence for god does not exist" which is a negative argument. Negative arguments do not bear the burden of proof to support their view. They need to only refute evidence in support of the positive claim. For example If I say "evidence for gravity does not exist" this is a relatively easy argument for the party that supports the positive argument that "gravity does exist" because evidence could be seeing the effects of what happens when any object with mass is placed on the earth. By this I mean very good evidence can be cited to support gravity, so it can be reasonably inferred that gravity exists.

[GuzzyBone]

AynRand, please don't make me repeat the same thing over and over.

How many times now do I have to go through my position on having the patience to disassemble the wall of myth before we can delve into the juicy bits (evidence of religious truth)?

If you were to argue the benefits of a Stateless Society to a devout Statist, would you not FIRST have to spend considerable time disassembling the myths that State Power is necessary/justified/beneficial/right?

Before you could even begin to argue the benefits and argue the alternative of a Stateless Society, you would have to make clear the irrationalities and myths of Statism. This, as I hope you would already know, takes time and patience.

Why? Because they won't even attempt to consider your arguments from a rational and unbiased perspective, and instead your arguments will fall on willfully deaf ears.

I am being presented with these myths and misunderstandings throughout the thread, so it pretty reasonable that I would be dedicating time to responding and debunking these claims. I don't have the unlimited time to both debunk accusations/claims AND present my case as fast as you WANT me to.

- - - -

Also, my arguments are my own. I am not familiar with the book you referenced. It's not very respectful or wise to assume that someone is just regurgitating someone else's thoughts or positions.

- - - -

In regards to your question on "Existence"... Yes, we absolutely know and can say with certainty, that is more to reality than what has been discovered and can be observed in any way or is consciously detectable. Considering the evidence that this has been a consistent trend for the entirety of human history, it's pretty safe territory to say that there are unknown and undetectable parts of Existence (that exist) but have not been observed.

Unless you are arguing, "if the tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear, or has ever even seen a tree, does the tree really exist at all" ... Which quantum physics has somethings to say on this subject. There are results of studies that seem to indicate that nothing exists outside of our immediate perception until we actually observe it. This still does not prove or disprove God or any religious truth. But it does indicate that reality might be a separate and self-contained experience for each observer. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole right now?

Yes we know that matter/energy/effects already exist that we can't observe yet. This is a given. If not, then we should probably just stop all scientific exploration.

[J. D. Stembal]

What is the emotional need that you are fulfilling when you cling to irrationality?

[AynRand]

AynRand, please don't make me repeat the same thing over and over.

 

How many times now do I have to go through my position on having the patience to disassemble the wall of myth before we can delve into the juicy bits (evidence of religious truth)?

I believe you misinterpreted my post. I did not mean to say that because you are attacking statements generally made by atheists that this this invalidates the bible. I was not trying to be snide by saying I look forward to your arguments for the bible. Although looking back at my post it may have unintentionally come off as snide.

 

Before you could even begin to argue the benefits and argue the alternative of a Stateless Society, you would have to make clear the irrationalities and myths of Statism. This, as I hope you would already know, takes time and patience.

 

Why? Because they won't even attempt to consider your arguments from a rational and unbiased perspective, and instead your arguments will fall on willfully deaf ears.

I believe that is a reasonable position to hold, however I am a firm believer that if the logic is solid enough then what you call the "wall of myth" can be dismantled if the opposition has even a basic understanding of your position.

 

For example if I say "I am a supporter of free market capitalism, and by that I mean trade without violence" then the opposition comes back and says "then that means you want warlords to take over the world" inherently free market's do not have warlords. If you have warlords then you do not have the free market. This obviously only works whenever both parties are being rational, but I maintain that most members of this community are rational.

 

 

Also, my arguments are my own. I am not familiar with the book you referenced. It's not very respectful or wise to assume that someone is just regurgitating someone else's thoughts or positions.

I honestly meant no disrespect for that particular comment. I am curious why that is disrespectful to point out a book with very similar arguments. I must admit I am not the best with social protocols, and often am oblivious to errors that I unintentionally make. My logic behind this is that if the arguments are sound and reasonable in this book then shouldn't these arguments be used on a much broader scale, and I apologize for any that I offended.

 

Unless you are arguing, "if the tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear, or has ever even seen a tree, does the tree really exist at all" ... Which quantum physics has somethings to say on this subject. There are results of studies that seem to indicate that nothing exists outside of our immediate perception until we actually observe it. This still does not prove or disprove God or any religious truth. But it does indicate that reality might be a separate and self-contained experience for each observer. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole right now?

I guessing you did not understand my post. I'll try to clarify to use your analogy If a tree falls and nobody witnesses it or it's effects then that is not conclusive evidence that the tree does not exist, but on the flip side then their is no logical reason to support the existence of the tree.

 

Yes we know that matter/energy/effects already exist that we can't observe yet. This is a given. If not, then we should probably just stop all scientific exploration.

I believe that is entirely in line with the reasoning I gave on my last few posts.

 

Still I will try to respond to all of your points. I've just been pretty busy lately.

If you define the realm of "thought" and "consciousness" as "non-existant" then you are creating a paradox and contradictory statement and admitting that something can persist (exist) but not exist at the same time.

I believe that is another misunderstanding of Stefan's view. I believe what he was saying is that thoughts do not physically exist. Not that because we can't physically see thoughts they don't exist. Similar to how the state does not physically exist. Only buildings and people violating the non aggression principle exist.

 

Right off the bat his explanation of "Existence" is filled with contradiction and does not even remotely conform to common held belief, definition, or understanding.

I don't believe you have supported that claim to my satisfaction.

 

 

FALLACY #2 - Paradox and Contradiction "don't exist"

 

Stefan doesn't really argue, but rather states that a "contradictory statement is irrelevant of material evidence".

I'm afraid this is a law of logic. I would be very fascinated to hear you explain how a contradictory statement can be proven correct with the usage of physical evidence?

 

 

He uses the example of the abstract concept of a "Square Circle" in attempt solidify his case, but this is also inherently absurd. Squares and Circles are abstract geometric mathematical measurements that do not exist outside of the realm of "thought". There is no such thing as a perfect circle or square in the material world or even a straight line for that matter, only the illusion and measurement of consistency (pattern recognition). No matter how symmetrical or perfect the measurement appears, eventually the closer you analyze it the more imperfection and inconsistency will emerge. Take for example, if I were to cut a piece of wood into a circle. Would this circle actually be in perfect dimensions? What if I were to microscopically analyze the texture of the edges, would they not form bumps and splinters that would render the circle imperfect and jagged? Math is an abstract language of measurement based on pattern recognition, not an objective material presence. So does that mean Math is not real?

 

He is contradicting his own definition of existence by using this illustrative example to suggest that a "square" and a "circle" actually do exist as separate material forms. Furthermore, since math is only an abstract concept based on perception, couldn't we simply draw a circle inside of a square and then proclaim it to be a "Square Circle". Yes, we could. This would form your material evidence. To deny it at that point is just willful.

In no way have you demonstrated that a square circle can exist. Simply stating that squares and circles are imperfect in reality has nothing to do with the original claim whether or not square circles can exist. Then you try a straw man to explain that because practical numbers are imprecise that we suddenly don't believe math has any basis in reality. I'll point this out again this has nothing to do with the validity of the bible. This is a blatant red herring trying to distract us for the issue at hand.

 

I'm sure that second paragraph is a joke, but I'll still give a real answer. You clearly misunderstood what the terms of the "square circle are" the challenge is to find a square that is at the exact same time with the exact same dimensions a circle. In addition you must find something that is inherently a square and a circle which at the same time cannot be a square and cannot be a circle. Do you understand that the way the challenge is set up  it is physically impossible to meet it's conditions. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that "square circles" do not exist.

[Troubador]

I wish people wouldn't automatically roll out quantum physics as a catch all polyfiller for holes in their argument. It does the subject a disservice. If I'm talking to a PhD physics proffesor who can enlighten me then apologies I would be eternally grateful for further instruction in the subject.

 

Maybe you're talking about quantum logic? In which as far as I'm aware nobody detected a tiny little God hand pushing photons through one slit or the other in the double slit experiment. I think quantum logic may well lead us to a fascinating new perspective on the universe, but hands up I haven't done the due diligence and understood it yet, so I certainly wouldn't use it to try and justify a belief.

 

Reacquaint yourself with the difference between faith/belief and knowledge. One of the biggest fuelling factors in conflicts concerning religious vs secular thought is that religion wants to present faith/belief as proof in and of itself. You either have to let it go because this debate cannot go anywhere useful, or go off maybe get the advanced maths and physics required to examine quantum logic intimately enough to make your case on that level, but be warned that may be a dead end as well.

 

However why not let people think/believe how they choose to and work on philosophical problems we can all work on together? It's fine to say "hey guys just FYI I have a religious belief" I've done much the same myself, but it's really not cool to proselytise and I'm sorry that is what in a round about way you are doing.

 

And the state didn't tell me lsd can be bad fucking news I worked that out all by myself stopping a mate who was off his trousers at uni from coming to any harm.

 

In closing even if what you posted was true about God both existing and not existing, and you and Stefan being both simultaneously right and wrong, and belief and non belief being basically the same thing. Doesn't that render this whole thread utterly redundant and only useful as some sort of mental masturbation?

 

Anyway peace out and best of luck in your future endeavours.

[GuzzyBone]

J. D. Stembal...

There is no argument, content, evidence, logic, philosophy, ideas or proposition in your post. No, just a sad pathetic attempt to illicit an emotional response (Trolling) with infantile name-calling.

I will be reporting you for vandalizing this thread with your useless and hateful one-liner and transparent attempt to bully and belittle.

I seem to have struck a chord. Why don't you take that as a sign to rethink your position like a reasonable and decent human being instead of trying to turn this thread into a flame war. You are the only one engaging in irrational behavior. You dishonor yourself with this kind of conduct.

[MMX2010]

Have only barely browsed this thread, but is there any way to differentiate between religions that absolutely don't get involved with the state, (such as most Buddhist sects, Amish in America), and those that are highly associated with the state, (such as Islam and some sects of Christianity)? 

 

My sense is that the state-rejecting ones are much more peaceful.  But that's only my sense and I'm looking for something more concrete. 

 

------------------

 

Edited to add: To the OP, the most interesting man in the world for you right now is Roosh.  He's a pick-up artist who has seemingly converted to Christianity and is slowly but surely outlining his reasons for doing so. 

[shirgall]

Buddhists not involved in politics?

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=e5LXzQD-GyEC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=buddhism+interference+politics&source=bl&ots=eLHczTNs2U&sig=aDYJxMiayoh_ZQmLYsa_yc8R12M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC4Q6AEwA2oVChMIqOPflNaVxgIVDZqICh3m0QDI#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20interference%20politics&f=false

[AynRand]

The more we look into this field, the more the concept of paradox/contradiction is found not wholly independent of truth and reality, but rather a major defining quality.  If you desire more research, proof, or evidence on this subject, then I can elaborate further or help point you in the right direction.

Yes, paradox and contradiction can often render conversations awkward, moot, or unresolved, where both parties agree that they are both "right" and "wrong" at the same time. It can make conversation difficult and arguments seem pointless. For example in the greater picture, it is an accurate statement to say...

I would appreciate a further elaboration on this subject, but maybe on a different thread as this has little to do with god. Your second paragraph makes little sense in terms of logic. As with the square circle analogy because of it's definition both parties cannot be correct when determining if it is either a square or a circle. In physical reality you have either a square or a circle, but you cannot have both.

 

 

"God doesn't exist AND God does exist."  So in admitted truth, me and Stefan are BOTH right and BOTH wrong. However, adopting one side fully and absolutely is hardly what we could call "understanding truth".

 

That is a huge claim to make. You still have not demonstrated how something can both exist and at the same time under the same conditions not exist.

 

If you are having trouble understanding the concept of Infinity (Paradox) as the ultimate and only constant physical law of the universe, or if you simply refuse to admit or believe it.

 

I believe you are the one having trouble understanding the concept of Paradox's and how they cannot exist in nature.

As in all of science, contradictions and paradoxes are generally assumed to be artifacts of error and incompleteness because reality is assumed to be completely consistent.

 

Sorry I think I posting editor is glitching. It should have all your statements in quotes, but for some reason it doesn't appear that they are in quotes.

J. D. Stembal...

 

There is no argument, content, evidence, logic, philosophy, ideas or proposition in your post. No, just a sad pathetic attempt to illicit an emotional response (Trolling) with infantile name-calling.

 

I will be reporting you for vandalizing this thread with your useless and hateful one-liner and transparent attempt to bully and belittle.

His post was a claim without being backed by evidence. Essentially every claim you have made in this entire thread has been a claim without evidence. I'm not seeing the difference. If this were any other thread I would cite the claims that you have made without being backed by evidence, however I believe I have been very vocal about this issue on this thread, so I think my previous posts will be all the evidence necessary. I don't mean to excuse J. D. Stembal's post, however I will point out the blatant hypocrisy when I see it.

[GuzzyBone]

shirgall: And, the witness faces severe penalties if they were lying, unless they are lying about sex and they are a sitting president.

Are you really suggesting that "sexual misconduct" is the only area of false witness where Government employees are immune to penalities? I will assume it was a joke. You can't penalize a liar when he holds the biggest gun in his hand.

 

shirgall: "Good luck finding unbiased juries to examine paranormal claims."

Which only demonstrates the ignorance, emotional bias, and majority bias of jurors. The concept of the "atom" could just as easily be dimissed as paranormal. Magic or supernatural are simply synonyms for "mystery", that which we don't or cannot currently understand. Much of the world of science appears as paranormal or supernatural to ignorant eyes.

Case in point:
 

Magic (definition):
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Supernatural (definition):
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Paranormal (definition):
denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

Ignorance is not a suitable cause for dismissal by default. To quote the trial in the book Gulliver's Travels, "Sir, you offend reason!"

Reason cannot be offended. Only you can be offended, and this is a completely emotional response.

Juries are seething with impartiality, emotional bias, majority bias, preference and ignorance, but this is not a post about the mechanisms of State.

My intial position still stands that Testimony and Witness are a form of evidence and proof. That doesn't mean all evidence can't be challenged.

Testimony (definition):
2. evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.

Witness (definition):
2. evidence; proof.

 

AynRand: "but I maintain that most members of this community are rational."

This may be the case, but emotional bias, majority bias, myths, misconceptions, and fallacy are still present even within those who consider themselves men and women of reason. I think most people consider themselves to be of rational persuasion. This doesn't make them infallable or not subject to their emotions.

 

AynRand: "I am curious why that is disrespectful to point out a book with very similar arguments"

It felt like you were creating the impression that my ideas were not my own conclusions, or that I might be recycling information without critical analysis. Also, with me being unfamiliar with this book, the potential is there for someone to use it as a strawman to "debunk" my arguments. This is why I took offense. You could still have sourced the book and stated it has similar views. I just ask for a bit more consideration with how you phrase things. You are now absolved of your sin

 

AynRand: "I'll try to clarify to use your analogy If a tree falls and nobody witnesses it or it's effects then that is not conclusive evidence that the tree does not exist, but on the flip side then their is no logical reason to support the existence of the tree."

I specifically stated that it doesn't prove one thing or the other. I don't think there is any disagreement here.

Now if the fallen tree trunk was brought to the community, or people started talking about their experiences with trees in the woods, then there would be logical cause to investigate and consider the possible existence of a tree.

However the implications of an infinite universe is that somewhere, throughout the entirety of space in time, there is in fact an object that is called a "tree" (whether found on earth or not). In an infinite universe, everything exists. If I were able to travel forever through space and time, I would eventually come across a "tree". Now whether or not it could be found on Earth, would be the true debate. However God is claimed to be "all", the totality of infinity, therefore saying God doesn't exist is like saying the universe doesn't exist. When you consider that omni-consciousness is the abstract concept of how Religious people perceive and describe the known and observable functions of the universe, it almost becomes a debate over symantics. A debate over who has the better "words" to describe something much larger than us.

It's when we assume or posit that "man knows, understands, and can explain it all" that things can get dangerous, and irrationality consumes. The dangers of fantacism towards science are no smaller or greater than the dangers of religious fanaticism. Both languages are ever-changing and ever-evolving toward what we hope is a greater understanding of the relationship between ourselves and the universe.

The first thesis that I put forward is solely that Athiesm is an irrationality.

I beleive I have made many arguments toward this point. If you do not feel that I have satisfied that burden of proof. We can continue to discuss this. But again I will state that; through all that can be known, we can never know or ascertain that something "doesn't exist" (an absolute) unless the argument is made that "nothing exists at all".

The argument "nothing exists at all" is both true and untrue (a natural contradiction), but this can only be proven with the languages of mathematics, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and also through hyper-sensory experience. I am happy to elaborate and show you exactly how, but the subject may be better suited for thread all of it's own.

Now if we are to progress, my second thesis would be that, overall, Athiesm is a dangerous irrationality.

If we can agree that fantacism is a moral responsibility of the individual or group, then this thesis is null, and I will rescind my claim. However if the inverse argument is to be made that "Religion is dangerous" then I will continue to debate that Athiesm is equally, if not far more dangerous and threatening to our survival. I put this argument forward because Athiests quite regularly will equate violent actions to religious philosophy, as if to say that "God can't be real, because look at this violence over here". This is a red-herring that unfortunately pervades debate over religious veracity.

If we can argee that PEOPLE are ultimately responsible for their actions, not a philosophy, and that extremism and excess can be found in anything... then we can move on.

Then we can really debate (with reason and evidence) my original thesis that, overall... Religion holds wisdom and truth that benefits survival.

I would love to skip back to this topic, but if we continue to espouse myths, ignorance, and disrespect then it de-rails me from focus on my original thesis.
 

 

AynRand: I believe that is another misunderstanding of Stefan's view. I believe what he was saying is that thoughts do not physically exist. Not that because we can't physically see thoughts they don't exist. Similar to how the state does not physically exist. Only buildings and people violating the non aggression principle exist.

This is still a contradiction. You just stated that something can "exist" outside of "physical reality", which contradicts Stefans claim that nothing can exist outside of "physical reality". This is going in circles. We know that abstract concepts "exist" in some form, outside of physical reality. He even uses the examples of Circles, Squares (abstract concepts that don't "physically exist") but then Stefan changes his position when it is convenient for his arguments. This is a contradiction of logic.
 

 

Aristotles' law of non-contradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

O Rly Aristotle?

"Aristotle and I are the same, but we are also very different" (are not the same).

"I am both up and down" (am not up)

"I am very intelligent but I am also very ignorant" (am not intelligent)

"That rock is still, but it is also moving" (is not still)

"The rock and the seagull both consist entirely of "matter". They are the same, but they are different." (are not the same)

Need I go on?

That's the funny thing about "laws", people like to make them, but they get broken all the time. This is an extremely antiquated "law", that defies reality and common sense. If you have faith that Aristotle was infallable, then you are no better than any other dogmatic adherents.

Scientific laws are defied about as much as they are proclaimed, so are legal laws, so are mathematic laws, and so on...

Generally there is only one scientific constant, that "everything changes", and even that has it's contradictory counterbalance of "nothing is changing at all" (nothing exists) [see: another thread]

We can discuss this more in-depth, but can we agree to move on from this notion that "paradox" and "contradiction" do not exist within reality (whether physical or abstract)?

 

Ayn Rand: "In no way have you demonstrated that a square circle can exist"

 

I covered this in detail. Squares and Circles are abstract concepts. They are not found in physical reality. Math is a pattern-recognition language. Squaring a Circle is just a game, a "mathematical problem", not some enigma of the cosmos!

Are those patterns really there? Do they "exist"? Yes and No (logical contradiction despite physical evidence)

I am not dedicating any more time to Squares and Circles (a 2-dimensional man-made concept) being compared to the notion of God. It feels deliberately offensive to be honest. This is part of how I see an intentional disrespect and emotional hatred from Stefan towards a subject that should be considered critically and with an open mind.
 

If you have faith that Squares and Circles "exist", then you cannot use the same argument to absolutely "disprove" God.


Troubador: "I wish people wouldn't automatically roll out quantum physics as a catch all polyfiller for holes in their argument"

Simply stating someone has holes in their argument does not make it so. If you would kindly point me to these holes, I will be happy to elaborate and source the studies that relate. Are you trying to imply that Scientific evidence is not applicable in a debate? That seems entirely irrational.

 

If you would afford me the respect to not just "wish" and state things, but rather make an argument with reason and evidence, I would appreciate it.


Troubador: "religion wants to present faith/belief as proof in and of itself"

Last I checked, "Religion" was not a living being that could project "wants" and "needs". This is a blatant generalization and very presemptuous. If there were any truth to your unsupported claim then this thread would not exist at all.

Your strawman doesn't hold.

 

Troubador: "You either have to let it go because this debate cannot go anywhere useful"

Again, your opinion is not an argument. I don't "have to" do anything. You could help make it useful.

 

Troubador: "However why not let people think/believe how they choose to and work on philosophical problems we can all work on together? It's fine to say "hey guys just FYI I have a religious belief" I've done much the same myself, but it's really not cool to proselytise and I'm sorry that is what in a round about way you are doing."

The whole point of your role in a debate is to sway the opposition to agreeing with your position. If you were to say "There is a thing called an atom" and then proceed to support your position with reason and evidence, I suppose you would just be trying to "convert" or proselytise me to The Atomic Cult, huh?

Your post has contributed no argument, evidence, or actual information... Instead you just resort to personal accusations.

Of course, Athiests demand the same respect that any human would receive, but Thiests are just trying to "brainwash us all", right? See how easy it is to make presumptious accusations and generalizations?

 

Troubador: "And the state didn't tell me lsd can be bad fucking news I worked that out all by myself stopping a mate who was off his trousers at uni from coming to any harm."

So you formed an emotional opinion of faith based entirely on one negative personal experience? This is a great example of how not to use critical judgement and instead adopt ignorance as an absolute faith.

This would be like if a Cop helped me change a tire and I said "Wow! Police really are heroes!"

One time I found a piece of glass in my icecream. Ice Cream is "bad news" maaan!

...and yes, the State did tell you it was bad. State has everything to lose from people expanding their minds.


Troubador: "In closing even if what you posted was true about God both existing and not existing, and you and Stefan being both simultaneously right and wrong, and belief and non belief being basically the same thing. Doesn't that render this whole thread utterly redundant and only useful as some sort of mental masturbation?"

That's not a closing argument at all, but OK I'll bite.

The world does not revolve around you or your opinion. You may find the information in this thread to be "utterly redundant", but your opinion is not absolute truth. If you can find it in yourself to be a respectful and decent human being who gives equal respect to what they wish to receive, then you can simply move on. If this thread is useless, what are you even doing here? Unfortunately, I think your post was a bunch of mental masturbation.


AynRand: "Essentially every claim you have made in this entire thread has been a claim without evidence. I'm not seeing the difference."

So far I have had a lot of patience and tolerance, but this is the point where I wonder if I am talking to a person or a brick wall. If you are really going to say something as extraordinarly visibly false as "this entire thread has been a claim without evidence", then I am pretty certain you have no interest in finding truth and rather personally choose to dismiss religion because you don't WANT it to be true. This claim that I have not provided "evidence" of anything at all is complete and utter bullshit. Are you not familiar with the word "evidence" and what it means?

Thank you for showing that I am completely wasting my time talking to some people who resort to outright lies, childish bullying, and cling to their myths like a teddy bear.

I am thankful to the people in this thread who conducted themselves with respect and an open mind, but at this point I would be stupid to stick around.

I came into this thread with an admitted emotional bias (from being an Athiest myself) that all Athiests are playing a game of denial reinforcement with each other. That they feed off each other to absolve themselves of the moral responsibility for their own actions. Like a child saying "I can do it all by myself. I don't need no stupid God. I'm a big boy!".  An agnostic at least admits that he doesn't know, but the Athiest is a special breed of arrogance... I went out of my way to be tolerant, self-aware, respectful, critical but open-minded and try to fully set this emotional bias aside, but I am not being given the same respect in return.

 

It's a shame, I didn't even get to finish my story or put forward my main evidence for review. Sure sounds like a productive way to head into the future! Truly a free domain... You can do whatever you want with this thread. I'm pretty sure that was my last straw.

I just hope if you take anything out of this discussion, it's that every single argument and accusation you put forward AGAINST religions of God, applies even more-so to the religion of Athiesm.

Athiesm, the new faith on steroids. Science holds all the answers! It is everywhere, it is everything, and it KNOWS ALL. I do beleive in scientists! I do beleive in state-funded research! I do! I do! It is the word of MAN! The word of MAN is eternal and unchanging! It is law, it is the word, and it is unquestionable!

<- respect goes two ways ->

I appreciate that you may think you are being open-minded, tolerant, or respectful, but you're not.

This is trying to prove to a Statist flagellant that 9/11 was an inside job using countless smoking guns... all over again... No thank you. If you do not want to see the information voluntarily, then there is no point. It doesn't matter how sound or solid the argument or evidence. I should already know that an Athiest doesn't want information, he already assumes to know the answer.

----

BTW, the way upvotes and downvotes get handed out in this thread is distracting to any reasonable debate. It's the equivalent to an audience of people going "boo" and "hiss" when they hear an opposing argument, or the crowd roaring with approval when "their team" disrespects and shit-talks the opposing "side". Are we playing sports games, or are we gonna act like adults and learn something?

[AynRand]

GuzzyBone I haven now lost all patience that I had for this thread. I find your last post to be unbelievably condescending. You gave me the impression that you believe you were somehow better then the rest of us, and that you were putting forward such great arguments that only idiots could not be persuaded by. I will not dignify myself to respond to you're entire last post, so I'll just briefly hit the highlights. I believe you got your definitions from the oxford dictionary, and if you search anarchy in the same book the definition will be  A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy. My point to this is terminology changes from place to place. It may not always be wise to by the dictionary on understanding language.

 

I do thank you for the explanation for me using a book with similar arguments. I must say that is the only significant redeeming quality for you last post.

 

I find it very funny that just when we were getting to the part of the thread were you were going to elaborate on all this great evidence in support of theism you decide that we are not worthy for this evidence. All you have done is attacked common atheist statements, and backed it up with something to the effect of I'll prove it later, and when that time finally comes you decide to not bless us with that information. I maintain that with the exception of my bad manners that I have already addressed you have not validated a single supernatural claim instead you have cited a series of red herrings, and passed it off as evidence. You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how science and philosophy are approached in reality. Not that this is relevant anymore, but how does explaining that perfect squares and circles cannot exist result in a conclusion that square circles can exist? You have shown a blatant misunderstanding of Aristotle's law's and attempted to misconstrue the wording in some sad attempt at trying to deceive us. I am amazed at the inability to look in a mirror and apply those same standards that you detail in your 7th or 8th paragraph from the end to yourself.

 

Again I maintain that with a considerable amount of evidence I would be prepared to believe in some sort of supernatural, however you in no way demonstrated the existence of any deity let alone the christian god, and as a result I believe I am fully justified in remaining an atheist. We may have lost a member today, and that is sad and unfortunate, but you missed out on the opportunity to convert an entire online community of atheists which I would argue is equally as bad.