4 things needed to destroy myth of creator deity

[elder999]

How come you think there is a 'being' that is outside of space-time?

Such a "being" by definition, would have to be outside space-time in order to have created it, as well as in order to precede the "bigbang."

 

[fangjian]

Such a "being" by definition, would have to be outside space-time in order to have created it, as well as in order to precede the "bigbang."

And how do you know this? Perhaps these gods are within spacetime. Perhaps they are spacetime. Perhaps there is no 'before spacetime', so before the big bang is meaningless, because it is eternal and always was.

 

[Xue Sheng]

God Entity to Bender - Futurama Godfellas

God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God Entity: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

 

[Empty Hands]

My goal is not "prove" or "disprove" "God," nor to impose any sort of onus upon atheists, but to demonstrate the inefficacy of the scientific method in certain realms, for the time being and forseeable future, at any rate.

Well that's definitely true, although I don't rule it out in principle. I accept that the proposition is non-falsifiable, by the scientific method or any other method we have available.

That's not how most believers act in this debate, however. I have several general problems with how these debates usually go. The first is that the believer will often say that God cannot be disproved and that there is no evidence for or against it, which is true. However, the believer doesn't act as if that were true. The believer is convinced, knows that God exists. Enough in many cases to claim that lack of belief makes the atheist less somehow, and enough to get hostile in many cases. And yet, the believer still shifts the burden onto the atheist. "Disprove it!" they say, in many cases knowing this cannot be done. If the believer knows so well that God exists, they ought to be able to provide a reason for it. This is how the world works, how epistemology and common sense works. If you cannot provide good reasons for your belief, then that should tell you something about what you believe.

You and I both know what are usually done with non-falsifiable hypotheses.

The second is that every believer I know of commits every sin they accuse the atheist of. Without fail. I've never known a theist that wasn't perfectly comfortable claiming that Odin and Thor or ghouls and goblins or all the other Gods out there don't exist. And yet their very own arguments impeach them. By their own words, they should not disbelieve in anything which cannot be disproven. If they do, that makes them just as arrogant, close-minded, evil, or whatever else they claim atheists are. Many atheists are fond of saying "we are all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do."

So why the special pleading for the believer's God-of-choice? Where is the justification there?

Forget science, forget proof. How can feelings which are undeniably shaped by cultural context and upbringing, feelings which are provided special pleading compared to everyone else's feelings, provide any information about the truth of the universe? We all know how fallible feelings are. We know how conceptions of God and the Universe have changed with time and place. How can any of that be trusted?

Yet somehow, it's the atheists who are close-minded and irrational and just don't get it.

 

[DragonWC]

We do not know with 100% certainty if the Earth is a spheroid, so the claims that it is flat, or pyramid shaped are equally valid? Or how about a claim like 'There are 100 planets between Mercury and the Sun.' We don't know for sure, so it's valid?

Well if i was on the earth. I would say it is flat and it is so. relative to me. If i was in space i would say it is round and that is true also relative to where im at. A greater truth does not make a lesser truth false. But with God we are dealing with absolute truth. If we dont know something for sure does not make it valid but also it doesnt make it non valid.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[Jenna]

I appreciate what you are trying to say.

However, I think two different categories of claims are being talked about, or at least I can't distinguish your views on them. One category seems to be what you are talking about, a sort of "I believe this unprovable thing, you believe that unprovable thing, let's be respectful of each other." However, the type of claim I thought I was responding to is more concrete - "evolution is untrue", "the world was created 6000 years ago", that sort of thing.

If someone says "evolution is untrue", there can be no mutual understanding, no unprovable opinions of equal weight, no "respecting of views." Saying "evolution is wrong" is a factual claim, and a wrong claim. There is no other way of understanding it. No more than I must "respect your opinion" if you claim that the moon is made of green cheese or that 2+2=7. I have no duty to "respect the views" of someone making wrong factual claims. They should be educated if ignorant or countered if liars.

For the record, I do not appreciate those who take what they have read in their holy texts with such a closed minded attitude that they can conceive of the earth being 6000 years old. I am however not sold on the theories contained in Origin of the Species (however plausible). My view as a believer is more open than some perhaps. What I despise most is the lack of understanding and the downright scientific dogma and pious intransigence in the debate which turn it into a curt and puerile "whose stick is bigger" discourse. Open discourse is good. Giving me a large stick notched with various "proofs" and telling me to beat myself with it because it is for my own benefit is no better a method than me giving you a fantasy novel and whipping you with it until you can recite it and take it as truth. It is impossible for proponents of either view to convince the other without understanding That is that point I would try to make here, Jenna

 

[Jenna]

Curing cancer is an excellent example as given. I am diagnosed with a strange mutation cervical cancer. Embarrassment caused me to ignore symptoms. Now the disease is at a too advanced stage to allow for invasive procedure or radiotherapies to function. My consultant is, for me, the public face of science. He is published in The Lancet. Regarding oncology, he knows inherently what is fact and what is wishful fantasy. His statements are backed by endless research, I trust him even in his assurances that I will die. It takes me a while to assimilate what he says. Two weeks later, and so certain is he of his evidence that he must abide by his financial duty of care to our National Health Service and withdraws funding for my horrendously expensive medications. I am on my own. Yet I do not abide by his metric of science on which I have incontrovertable evidence of my imminent death. I abide by one of blind faith and belief that tells me that he is (in this case) wrong because he has measured my rate of deterioration on a scale of science that is itself based upon assumption, which unfortunately is backed by *apparently* repeated proof. I choose to disavow his scale and trust my own. It is blind trust based on nothing except something that I believe. That I am not supposed to die yet. Tell me I am wrong.

 

[Tez3]

Well that's definitely true, although I don't rule it out in principle. I accept that the proposition is non-falsifiable, by the scientific method or any other method we have available.

That's not how most believers act in this debate, however. I have several general problems with how these debates usually go. The first is that the believer will often say that God cannot be disproved and that there is no evidence for or against it, which is true. However, the believer doesn't act as if that were true. The believer is convinced, knows that God exists. Enough in many cases to claim that lack of belief makes the atheist less somehow, and enough to get hostile in many cases. And yet, the believer still shifts the burden onto the atheist. "Disprove it!" they say, in many cases knowing this cannot be done. If the believer knows so well that God exists, they ought to be able to provide a reason for it. This is how the world works, how epistemology and common sense works. If you cannot provide good reasons for your belief, then that should tell you something about what you believe.

You and I both know what are usually done with non-falsifiable hypotheses.

The second is that every believer I know of commits every sin they accuse the atheist of. Without fail. I've never known a theist that wasn't perfectly comfortable claiming that Odin and Thor or ghouls and goblins or all the other Gods out there don't exist. And yet their very own arguments impeach them. By their own words, they should not disbelieve in anything which cannot be disproven. If they do, that makes them just as arrogant, close-minded, evil, or whatever else they claim atheists are. Many atheists are fond of saying "we are all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do."

So why the special pleading for the believer's God-of-choice? Where is the justification there?

Forget science, forget proof. How can feelings which are undeniably shaped by cultural context and upbringing, feelings which are provided special pleading compared to everyone else's feelings, provide any information about the truth of the universe? We all know how fallible feelings are. We know how conceptions of God and the Universe have changed with time and place. How can any of that be trusted?

Yet somehow, it's the atheists who are close-minded and irrational and just don't get it.

I'm what you would call a believer and I don't think atheists are close minded, irrational etc, I see no reason to think that at all, why shouldn't you be an atheist if that's what you think? I also see no reason why Thor, Odin etc can't exist, I have an open mind on it. Why shouldn't they, why should they, who knows, who cares? I like my beliefs, they and me fit, we don't seek to have any one believe what we do, we actively discourage non Jews from converting. I don't plead my deity is everyones special one, pick your own or pick none up to you, why wouldn't it be? I don't like pleaders, they tend to be miserable little pleaders. However I spend very little time worrying about what other people believe as far as religions or not having religions are concerned, I've never seen a reason why I should. To each their own or as they used to say in the sixties ( yeah I was there lol) ...whatever turns you on man.

The conversations should be

Person 1.. I believe in X deity.

Person 2 I don't believe in any deity

Person 1 Let's have a beer

Person 2 Yeah!

Persons 1 and 2 Bottoms up!

 

[Stealthy]

This debate is overly complex. It would be much easier on everyone if you would all just agree with me, even when what I say is obvious garbage.

Free will and free thinking are over rated just try to be happy doing things my way.:ultracool

 

[Xue Sheng]

Free will

Freewill - Rush

There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive.
"The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign"-
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them- they weren't born in lotus-land.

All preordained-
A prisoner in chains-
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

Each of us-
A cell of awareness-
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

 

[Tez3]

This debate is overly complex. It would be much easier on everyone if you would all just agree with me, even when what I say is obvious garbage.

Free will and free thinking are over rated just try to be happy doing things my way.:ultracool

Frank, is that you? Is the Rat Pack with you?

 

[granfire]

What do you MEAN we are ot certain...of course we are...its a cube

Nice everything you got there....
Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.....

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally Posted by MA-Caver
WHY do you believe in what you believe?

I guess I would say, I believe what I believe because all of my beliefs/worldview are a product of the scientific method, which is so far, the best way to find out if something is true or not.

On physical things, things of this world yes I believe that science can answer many questions, but on the meta-physical or spiritual plane, science has no part IMO. To me science helps me better understand the workings of my creator. It helps me understand the depths of His knowledge which makes mine (and everyone else's) appear infinitestimal by comparison. But seeing atoms via electron microscopes and understanding (at the basic level) how billions of them combined together in a specific way make up everything that we are and understanding brain functions, bodily functions, then expanding outward to understanding how things grow and how the planet we're on is made and all of that... those I grant thanks to science to help us understand.
But truth... the answer remains always and forever with how we see things with our hearts.
When my g/f says "I love you" to me I hear it with my heart, my feelings tell me that she speaks truthfully. When I've read the various bibles and theological discourses over the years, I'm also in silent prayer and leaving my heart/feelings open and allow the truth to tell me, to tell my spirit that it is what it is.
My own personal experiences with evil helps me define the differences. I don't need science to provide assistance with that.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Are you sure the earth isn't flat?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

[Xue Sheng]

Are you sure the earth isn't flat?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Yes, Yes I am

 

[Archangel M]

Are you sure the earth isn't flat?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

It was till the Númenórean's attempted to invade the Undying Lands causing the Valar to lay down their stewardship and call upon Eru. The Undying Lands were then removed from the world forever, and the formerly flat Earth was made into a globe. Númenor was overwhelmed in the cataclysm and sank beneath the sea.


For you Tolkien nerds like me.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I was thinking more Terry Pratchett...

 

[Tez3]

I was thinking more Terry Pratchett...

that came to mind with me too!

 

[Empty Hands]

I hope you beat your cancer.

Yet I do not abide by his metric of science on which I have incontrovertible evidence of my imminent death.

There is no incontrovertible scientific evidence of your imminent death. Science does not say that "Jenna" will die from cancer. Science says that a certain percentage of people in your situation will die. Even if that percentage was 100%, that does not rule out in principle that someone could survive. These are probabilities, not certainties.

 

[Sukerkin]

It is blind trust based on nothing except something that I believe. That I am not supposed to die yet. Tell me I am wrong.

That is your strength of will, my friend. The power of the mind to overcome adversity by refusing to accept it and using it's imaginative prowess to conjure ways around that which logic says cannot be defeated. It works - it's worked before and it will work again.

I wish that I believed that there was a loving creator to which I could pray for you but I do not. So I hope that my love, as one human to another who is in distress and danger, will be just as welcome.

Do NOT give in, Jenna. The world will be a lesser place without you in it.