God all over the world
- Thread starter Metal_made
- Start date
[!--QuoteBegin-Metal_made+Dec 22 2005, 06:52 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Metal_made @ Dec 22 2005, 06:52 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Well, I do believe in God because I don't like the idea of being a coincidence, though I often disagree with the catholic church, even, sometimes, I disagree with the bible itself, however, I'm afraid I have sensed God, like I posted before.
Hmm, if you have the time, you should take a look at this page:
[a href=\'http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm\' target=\'_blank\']http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm[/a]
It is a list of over 300 "proofs" of God. My favorite is #93:
ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.
[snapback]125677[/snapback]
[/quote]Hmm, if you have the time, you should take a look at this page:
[a href=\'http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm\' target=\'_blank\']http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm[/a]
It is a list of over 300 "proofs" of God. My favorite is #93:
ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.
A
Anonymous
Guest
This is the form of argument I really hate. It attempts to discredit the opposing side to claim their argument is invalid, instead of bringing a proper counter-argument. I do not discuss with such people out of principle.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Well I don't take those "arguments" seriously, they are obviously a joke.
Perun: I respect your views except for your misguided idea of Christianity or more specifically original sin. We are not responsible or "sinful" because of adam and eve but because we are human. That simple fact makes us "sinful" or rather, less dramatic, "imperfect". Of course that is the Eastern Orthodox interpretation [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--], but Christianity nontheless.
I Believe in God, more specifically the Christian concept of God and even more specific Roman Catholic. Why? because it kicks ass. I consider it (I could be way wrong) the purest form of the Christian concept second only to Eastern Orthodoxy (to which I might convert), and the most linient (sp?) with the right amount of dicipline to allow the congregant to make their own choices. I was raised Catholic however it has been my choice to follow such a path because like I said, there is nothing in other religions that catholicism is missing and if there is, there is no incompatability that keeps me from incorporating it into my religion. (i.e the Buddhist circle of suffering and christian sin) I don't allow people to shake my faith in God, that is up to Him, pedophilic priests, murderers, thieves, wars, that's our fault like I've said in a previous post and it comes with having free will, we are not puppets for any deity.
I think being Atheist or Religious because of ignorance (because you were told to or don't know enough) is very dangerous and it defeats the purpose of the philosopy/religion.... peace of mind. In the end it is about peace of mind, if believing in a deity gives you peace of mind great, if believing (or knowing, whatever) that there isn't one gives you peace of mind well, whatever floats your boat. However I've met a lot of ignorant atheists AND religious people.
The Atheists are usually angry, depressed or rebeling againts their parents, the establishment or nothing in particular. The reilgious person because they were told to, don't know any better or are angry and depressed hehe.
Thus KNOWING what and why you believe what you do and why you DON't believe something is the important factor, because without it, peace of mind, the final goal of any of these movements cannot be achieved.
Perun: I respect your views except for your misguided idea of Christianity or more specifically original sin. We are not responsible or "sinful" because of adam and eve but because we are human. That simple fact makes us "sinful" or rather, less dramatic, "imperfect". Of course that is the Eastern Orthodox interpretation [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--], but Christianity nontheless. I Believe in God, more specifically the Christian concept of God and even more specific Roman Catholic. Why? because it kicks ass. I consider it (I could be way wrong) the purest form of the Christian concept second only to Eastern Orthodoxy (to which I might convert), and the most linient (sp?) with the right amount of dicipline to allow the congregant to make their own choices. I was raised Catholic however it has been my choice to follow such a path because like I said, there is nothing in other religions that catholicism is missing and if there is, there is no incompatability that keeps me from incorporating it into my religion. (i.e the Buddhist circle of suffering and christian sin) I don't allow people to shake my faith in God, that is up to Him, pedophilic priests, murderers, thieves, wars, that's our fault like I've said in a previous post and it comes with having free will, we are not puppets for any deity.
I think being Atheist or Religious because of ignorance (because you were told to or don't know enough) is very dangerous and it defeats the purpose of the philosopy/religion.... peace of mind. In the end it is about peace of mind, if believing in a deity gives you peace of mind great, if believing (or knowing, whatever) that there isn't one gives you peace of mind well, whatever floats your boat. However I've met a lot of ignorant atheists AND religious people.
The Atheists are usually angry, depressed or rebeling againts their parents, the establishment or nothing in particular. The reilgious person because they were told to, don't know any better or are angry and depressed hehe.
Thus KNOWING what and why you believe what you do and why you DON't believe something is the important factor, because without it, peace of mind, the final goal of any of these movements cannot be achieved.
It's a good thing Onhell knows about this crap, otherwise we'd all languish in ignorance forever.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Well I don't take those "arguments" seriously, they are obviously a joke.
I Believe in God, more specifically the Christian concept of God and even more specific Roman Catholic. Why? because it kicks ass.
There's some truth to that; whoever made that webpage was obviously aiming for some comedic value. But that doesn't mean it is nothing but an attempt to be funny. The author of that website has compiled as many arguments for the existence of God as he could and expressed them in a way that (though perhaps a little uncharitably) reveals their inadequacy.
It is very easy to react to such an exercise by saying that all those arguments are *bad* but that no one believes in God for *those* reasons (or, at any rate, you don't) so we can safely dismiss this pointless exercise. Of course, it may be true that your belief in God does not rest on any of those patently bad arguments. But then it is incumbent upon you to offer the community *your* argument for the existence of God.
Onhell, it seems tries to do this. Here is his argument:
(1) The catholic conception of God kicks ass.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm. Is this any better than the other patently bad arguments listed on that website? But maybe this is unfair. Onhell expounds...
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I consider [the Catholic conception] the purest form of the Christian concept second only to Eastern Orthodoxy (to which I might convert), and the most linient (sp?).
So perhaps we should extend the argument above:
(1) The catholic conception of God is the second "purest" and most "lenient" Christian conception.
(2) Therefore, the catholic conception of God kicks ass.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm. This does not appear to be an improvement. I'm not really sure what Onhell means by "purest" here. Perhaps he means it is the one that most closely resembles the conception of the early, first-century christian church. That might be true; I don't know. But even if it is, (3) does not follow.
Again, maybe I'm being unfair. Onhell continues...
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't allow people to shake my faith in God, that is up to Him, pedophilic priests, murderers, thieves, wars, that's our fault like I've said in a previous post and it comes with having free will, we are not puppets for any deity.
Here, I think Onhell actually makes a good point. The following, he suggests, is a bad argument:
(1) Some people who believe in God are pedophiliacs, murderers, thieves, warmongers, etc.
(2) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
This is indeed, a bad argument, and people who reject God for something resembling these reasons should think again. But there is a methodological lesson here: people who think that formalizing an opponent's argument in such a way that its invalidity is made apparent is a pointless exercise, should think again.
In any case, Onhell suggests another argument in the passage quoted above. It appears to be a new argument, not a refinement of the one we'd been working on earlier:
(1) Other human beings are not allowed to shake my confidence in God
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm, it seems to me Onhell is 0 for 3 here. Here is a similar argument:
(1) I believe P
(2) Anyone who offers evidence or rational arguments against P is summarily dismissed.
(3) Therefore, P.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think being Atheist or Religious because of ignorance is very dangerous and it defeats the purpose of the philosopy/religion.... peace of mind. In the end it is about peace of mind, if believing in a deity gives you peace of mind great, if believing (or knowing, whatever) that there isn't one gives you peace of mind well, whatever floats your boat.
Hmmm, consider this argument:
(1) Believing P floats my boat/gives me peace of mind.
(2) Therefore, P.
(3) Believing not-P floats your boat/gives you peace of mind.
(4) Therefore, not-P.
(5) Hence, P and not-P.
Well, something's gone wrong. Perhaps we are a little hasty in concluding that something is true just because we would really like it to be true or because it would make us comfortable. Here's another argument.
(1) Believing I'm as talented as Steve Harris really floats my boat.
(2) I'm not as talented as Steve Harris.
(3) Therefore, something can be false even though it floats my boat.
This, I think, is a good argument. It is both sound and valid.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]KNOWING what and why you believe what you do and why you DON't believe something is the important factor, because without it, peace of mind, the final goal of any of these movements cannot be achieved.
I certainly agree that knowing *why* you believe what you do is extremely important. But I disagree that it is *the* imporant thing. It is also important that the reason you believe something be a *good* reason. That's why we try to offer arguments for what we believe and try to resopnd to objections to that argument. Arguments that don't stand up to uobjections are *bad* arguments.
Knowing that you believe in God because you think its a kick-ass concept might show that you are a self-knowing person (heeding Socrates' injunction to "know thyself!") but it does not show that you believe what you ought to; it doesn't show that your belief is a justified one.
I Believe in God, more specifically the Christian concept of God and even more specific Roman Catholic. Why? because it kicks ass.
[snapback]125939[/snapback]
[/quote]There's some truth to that; whoever made that webpage was obviously aiming for some comedic value. But that doesn't mean it is nothing but an attempt to be funny. The author of that website has compiled as many arguments for the existence of God as he could and expressed them in a way that (though perhaps a little uncharitably) reveals their inadequacy.
It is very easy to react to such an exercise by saying that all those arguments are *bad* but that no one believes in God for *those* reasons (or, at any rate, you don't) so we can safely dismiss this pointless exercise. Of course, it may be true that your belief in God does not rest on any of those patently bad arguments. But then it is incumbent upon you to offer the community *your* argument for the existence of God.
Onhell, it seems tries to do this. Here is his argument:
(1) The catholic conception of God kicks ass.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm. Is this any better than the other patently bad arguments listed on that website? But maybe this is unfair. Onhell expounds...
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I consider [the Catholic conception] the purest form of the Christian concept second only to Eastern Orthodoxy (to which I might convert), and the most linient (sp?).
[snapback]125939[/snapback]
[/quote]So perhaps we should extend the argument above:
(1) The catholic conception of God is the second "purest" and most "lenient" Christian conception.
(2) Therefore, the catholic conception of God kicks ass.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm. This does not appear to be an improvement. I'm not really sure what Onhell means by "purest" here. Perhaps he means it is the one that most closely resembles the conception of the early, first-century christian church. That might be true; I don't know. But even if it is, (3) does not follow.
Again, maybe I'm being unfair. Onhell continues...
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't allow people to shake my faith in God, that is up to Him, pedophilic priests, murderers, thieves, wars, that's our fault like I've said in a previous post and it comes with having free will, we are not puppets for any deity.
[snapback]125939[/snapback]
[/quote]Here, I think Onhell actually makes a good point. The following, he suggests, is a bad argument:
(1) Some people who believe in God are pedophiliacs, murderers, thieves, warmongers, etc.
(2) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
This is indeed, a bad argument, and people who reject God for something resembling these reasons should think again. But there is a methodological lesson here: people who think that formalizing an opponent's argument in such a way that its invalidity is made apparent is a pointless exercise, should think again.
In any case, Onhell suggests another argument in the passage quoted above. It appears to be a new argument, not a refinement of the one we'd been working on earlier:
(1) Other human beings are not allowed to shake my confidence in God
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm, it seems to me Onhell is 0 for 3 here. Here is a similar argument:
(1) I believe P
(2) Anyone who offers evidence or rational arguments against P is summarily dismissed.
(3) Therefore, P.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think being Atheist or Religious because of ignorance is very dangerous and it defeats the purpose of the philosopy/religion.... peace of mind. In the end it is about peace of mind, if believing in a deity gives you peace of mind great, if believing (or knowing, whatever) that there isn't one gives you peace of mind well, whatever floats your boat.
[snapback]125939[/snapback]
[/quote] Hmmm, consider this argument:
(1) Believing P floats my boat/gives me peace of mind.
(2) Therefore, P.
(3) Believing not-P floats your boat/gives you peace of mind.
(4) Therefore, not-P.
(5) Hence, P and not-P.
Well, something's gone wrong. Perhaps we are a little hasty in concluding that something is true just because we would really like it to be true or because it would make us comfortable. Here's another argument.
(1) Believing I'm as talented as Steve Harris really floats my boat.
(2) I'm not as talented as Steve Harris.
(3) Therefore, something can be false even though it floats my boat.
This, I think, is a good argument. It is both sound and valid.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 27 2005, 11:46 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]KNOWING what and why you believe what you do and why you DON't believe something is the important factor, because without it, peace of mind, the final goal of any of these movements cannot be achieved.
[snapback]125939[/snapback]
[/quote]I certainly agree that knowing *why* you believe what you do is extremely important. But I disagree that it is *the* imporant thing. It is also important that the reason you believe something be a *good* reason. That's why we try to offer arguments for what we believe and try to resopnd to objections to that argument. Arguments that don't stand up to uobjections are *bad* arguments.
Knowing that you believe in God because you think its a kick-ass concept might show that you are a self-knowing person (heeding Socrates' injunction to "know thyself!") but it does not show that you believe what you ought to; it doesn't show that your belief is a justified one.
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Dec 27 2005, 06:05 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Dec 27 2005, 06:05 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]This is the form of argument I really hate. It attempts to discredit the opposing side to claim their argument is invalid, instead of bringing a proper counter-argument. I do not discuss with such people out of principle.
[!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
Consider this scenario:
Person A: I believe P because of blah blah blah blah...
Person B: I think those are bad reason for believing P because of blah blah blah...
A: I hate that form of argument because it alledges my reasons for believing P are bad ones. I refuse to discuss this with you any further on principle.
B: Indeed I did claim that your reasons for believing P are bad ones and I offered an argument for thinking so. If you think I'm wrong, if you think your reasons are good ones then tell me why my argument is a bad one. You might convince me; if not, I'll try to re-articulate my argument or provide a new one. This is the stuff conversation is made of.
A: I said I wouldn't talk to you on principle.
B: What principle is it you subscribe to which forbids you from considering criticisms of your views?
I don't know what A would answer here. Perhaps Perun can enlighten us.
[snapback]125916[/snapback]
[/quote][!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--] Consider this scenario:
Person A: I believe P because of blah blah blah blah...
Person B: I think those are bad reason for believing P because of blah blah blah...
A: I hate that form of argument because it alledges my reasons for believing P are bad ones. I refuse to discuss this with you any further on principle.
B: Indeed I did claim that your reasons for believing P are bad ones and I offered an argument for thinking so. If you think I'm wrong, if you think your reasons are good ones then tell me why my argument is a bad one. You might convince me; if not, I'll try to re-articulate my argument or provide a new one. This is the stuff conversation is made of.
A: I said I wouldn't talk to you on principle.
B: What principle is it you subscribe to which forbids you from considering criticisms of your views?
I don't know what A would answer here. Perhaps Perun can enlighten us.
DeadlySinner
Trooper
I try, but I do not get the point of your posts macunaima. Is there any way you could simplify you post, perhaps without making arguments based on argument-formulas ment as a joke? [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--][!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Dec 27 2005, 05:31 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Dec 27 2005, 05:31 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I try, but I do not get the point of your posts macunaima. Is there any way you could simplify you post, perhaps without making arguments based on argument-formulas ment as a joke? [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
I appreciate your effort. I will try to use simpler language in the future. But I should emphasize that while the link I posted above used formalized arguments (partly) for comedic effect, we should not think that formalizing one's opponent's arguments as a means of evaluating them is in any way illegitimate. It is, I think, the best way to know whether the arguments are valid or not.
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--][snapback]125965[/snapback]
[/quote]I appreciate your effort. I will try to use simpler language in the future. But I should emphasize that while the link I posted above used formalized arguments (partly) for comedic effect, we should not think that formalizing one's opponent's arguments as a means of evaluating them is in any way illegitimate. It is, I think, the best way to know whether the arguments are valid or not.
No need to use more simple language. Simply put, your dissemblence of Onhell's "argument" is proper. However, since you're fairly new here, I'll let you know that Onhell's reasons for his religion are fairly diverse and indepth. He didn't choose to go into those reasons in his post because it was a fairly jovial response to what Perun said, I believe...
Of course, Perun shouldn't have said what he said - anybody can see that the website you posted was an attempt at humour. However, feel free to use your manner of argument at a later date in a true discussion.
Of course, Perun shouldn't have said what he said - anybody can see that the website you posted was an attempt at humour. However, feel free to use your manner of argument at a later date in a true discussion.
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Dec 27 2005, 11:12 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Dec 27 2005, 11:12 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]It's a good thing Onhell knows about this crap, otherwise we'd all languish in ignorance forever.
Onhell knows a great deal about mainstream religious thinking and accepted theology. However, like the catholic church, he tends to dismiss alternative viewpoints. Onhell has drunk the catholic Kool-Aid, and I personally view him as being an expert only for traditional points of view.
This is not meant as any sort of insult against Onhell. He's a smart guy and a wonderful fellow. But his knowledge is limited, like mine or anyone else's. You can learn some things from Onhell, but he's not quite an authority on this subject. Neither am I; no one here is.
[snapback]125946[/snapback]
[/quote]Onhell knows a great deal about mainstream religious thinking and accepted theology. However, like the catholic church, he tends to dismiss alternative viewpoints. Onhell has drunk the catholic Kool-Aid, and I personally view him as being an expert only for traditional points of view.
This is not meant as any sort of insult against Onhell. He's a smart guy and a wonderful fellow. But his knowledge is limited, like mine or anyone else's. You can learn some things from Onhell, but he's not quite an authority on this subject. Neither am I; no one here is.
DeadlySinner
Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-macunaima+Dec 28 2005, 01:48 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Dec 28 2005, 01:48 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I appreciate your effort. I will try to use simpler language in the future. But I should emphasize that while the link I posted above used formalized arguments (partly) for comedic effect, we should not think that formalizing one's opponent's arguments as a means of evaluating them is in any way illegitimate. It is, I think, the best way to know whether the arguments are valid or not.
I think you got me wrong there. I did not seek a more simple language, just a sort of shorter version. Not because of lazyness (sp?) as I have read the post several times, but just to get a more clear view of what you are trying to say. This is no longer needed as I, during my fourth read, managed to understand your post better.
I am not a very active poster, but I greatly enjoy watching the discussions on this forum. I find this topic very intresting because I am a christian myself, and just out of pure curiosity I want to make sure I understand the different views of the subject. As SMX said: The best way to gather knowledge is to see things from different points of view.
[snapback]125976[/snapback]
[/quote]I think you got me wrong there. I did not seek a more simple language, just a sort of shorter version. Not because of lazyness (sp?) as I have read the post several times, but just to get a more clear view of what you are trying to say. This is no longer needed as I, during my fourth read, managed to understand your post better.
I am not a very active poster, but I greatly enjoy watching the discussions on this forum. I find this topic very intresting because I am a christian myself, and just out of pure curiosity I want to make sure I understand the different views of the subject. As SMX said: The best way to gather knowledge is to see things from different points of view.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Macunaima, I think you took my post a little too seriously and you misunderstood it deeply. Never in my post did I try to prove or disprove God's existance, merely WHY I believe in Him.... you read too much into it. I guessing LC's post is a joke because that is how I took it and it seems SMX is one of few that really knows what goes on on this board lol. And of course I've drank the catholic kool-aid and usually comes with crackers too [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--][!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 29 2005, 01:08 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 29 2005, 01:08 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Macunaima, I think you took my post a little too seriously and you misunderstood it deeply. Never in my post did I try to prove or disprove God's existance, merely WHY I believe in Him
I guess I did misunderstand you -- again. Looks like I'm 0 for 2 here. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'sad.gif\' /][!--endemo--] I thought you were offering what you took to be good reasons for believing in God -- i.e. reasons that show that one should or ought or is justified in believing in God. But now I see that's not what you meant to do at all. You were just offering us a little glimpse of your autobiography and telling us why, in fact, you believe in God. Ok, I stand corrected.
But now I'm puzzled. You say were not trying to state reasons which would justify belief in God; you were simply telling us what your reasons are. Does this mean that you don't think that your reasons for believing in God justify you in having that belief? Then why would you believe in God for those reasons? [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--] As I said in my earlier post, knowing *why* you believe something is important, but believing what you do for good, justifying reasons is more important.
For my own part, I don't believe in God because (as I think I've said before) none of the arguments I've ever encountered for God's existence were any good. If you want to formalize it, I suppose it would go something like this:
(1) None of the arguments I've encountered for God's existence were good ones.
(2) therefore, God doesn't exist.
Well, this is actually not a good argument. The fact that I've never seen a good argument for God's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Perhaps my own experience has been too limited; perhaps I'm too stupid the recognize a good argument when I see one. So let me recast the argument:
(1) None of the arguments I've encountered for God's existence were good ones.
(2) Therefore, I'm justified in not believing in God.
This argument is certainly valid. But you might think that it isn't sound because you might think that premise (1) is false -- indeed if you believe in God you would think that you could easily make premise (1) false by presenting me with a good argument for God's existence. Fair enough. I guess what this shows is that this argument isn't very *convincing* to anyone who doesn't already agree with me. What I think would be convincing is the exercise of going through all the various arguments for God's existence and seeing what is wrong with them. If you carry on with this exercise long enough then the concept of God will slowly loose its hold on you. You may still think that it is a kickass concept (the way I think that Middle Earth with all its orcs and elves and such is a kickass concept) but you will no longer feel compelled to believe in it.
On another note, I apologize if I took you "too seriously." I thought you were offering us reasons for believing in God and taking another's reasons seriously is a sign of respect.
[snapback]126017[/snapback]
[/quote]I guess I did misunderstand you -- again. Looks like I'm 0 for 2 here. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sad.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'sad.gif\' /][!--endemo--] I thought you were offering what you took to be good reasons for believing in God -- i.e. reasons that show that one should or ought or is justified in believing in God. But now I see that's not what you meant to do at all. You were just offering us a little glimpse of your autobiography and telling us why, in fact, you believe in God. Ok, I stand corrected.But now I'm puzzled. You say were not trying to state reasons which would justify belief in God; you were simply telling us what your reasons are. Does this mean that you don't think that your reasons for believing in God justify you in having that belief? Then why would you believe in God for those reasons? [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--] As I said in my earlier post, knowing *why* you believe something is important, but believing what you do for good, justifying reasons is more important.For my own part, I don't believe in God because (as I think I've said before) none of the arguments I've ever encountered for God's existence were any good. If you want to formalize it, I suppose it would go something like this:
(1) None of the arguments I've encountered for God's existence were good ones.
(2) therefore, God doesn't exist.
Well, this is actually not a good argument. The fact that I've never seen a good argument for God's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Perhaps my own experience has been too limited; perhaps I'm too stupid the recognize a good argument when I see one. So let me recast the argument:
(1) None of the arguments I've encountered for God's existence were good ones.
(2) Therefore, I'm justified in not believing in God.
This argument is certainly valid. But you might think that it isn't sound because you might think that premise (1) is false -- indeed if you believe in God you would think that you could easily make premise (1) false by presenting me with a good argument for God's existence. Fair enough. I guess what this shows is that this argument isn't very *convincing* to anyone who doesn't already agree with me. What I think would be convincing is the exercise of going through all the various arguments for God's existence and seeing what is wrong with them. If you carry on with this exercise long enough then the concept of God will slowly loose its hold on you. You may still think that it is a kickass concept (the way I think that Middle Earth with all its orcs and elves and such is a kickass concept) but you will no longer feel compelled to believe in it.
On another note, I apologize if I took you "too seriously." I thought you were offering us reasons for believing in God and taking another's reasons seriously is a sign of respect.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
No, no, I am no more of an authority on theology than LC or Duke in History. As SMX pointed out, I know enough to offer suggestions and good insight but not to spell out the law.
I'll be honest with you, there are no good reasons to believe in God, nor are there good reasons NOT to. Like I said, in the end it is about peace of mind, and which ever road leads you to that end is up to you.
I think the problem religious people have a hard time with atheists is because Christianity (and its brethren judaism and islam) have merged religion and morality. That was a mistake because they can exist seperately, but Christianity has created such a homogeneous religious landscape people have a hard time separating the two. I am not offering reasons for or against God. I'm saying it is irrelevant, as long as you know what you're doing and why. Nietchze was big on that, creating your own path and not having a slave mentality, doing things for yourself and not because others want you to or you depend on their reactions, it is because you want to.
I'll be honest with you, there are no good reasons to believe in God, nor are there good reasons NOT to. Like I said, in the end it is about peace of mind, and which ever road leads you to that end is up to you.
I think the problem religious people have a hard time with atheists is because Christianity (and its brethren judaism and islam) have merged religion and morality. That was a mistake because they can exist seperately, but Christianity has created such a homogeneous religious landscape people have a hard time separating the two. I am not offering reasons for or against God. I'm saying it is irrelevant, as long as you know what you're doing and why. Nietchze was big on that, creating your own path and not having a slave mentality, doing things for yourself and not because others want you to or you depend on their reactions, it is because you want to.
DeadlySinner
Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 30 2005, 09:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 30 2005, 09:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'll be honest with you, there are no good reasons to believe in God
...
in the end it is about peace of mind, and which ever road leads you to that end is up to you.
That is about as wrong as it can get!
If your belief in God is for nothing but your own peace of mind, then you are only fooling yourself. By stating the above, you are saying that there is no God, and the only reason you believe in Him is to make you feel better about the fact that you are not going to live forever here on earth. That is not a very christian thing to say. I do not understand where you want to go with theese statements.
Are you supposing that all religions are different ways to reach the same goal? Then you should convert to Ba'hai. You cannot allways be objective as a christian in discussions like theese. Someone is right, and someone is wrong, but in today's society it is no longer allowed to say that someone is wrong, from a christian perspective. You just have to respect what others say, as if it was true. That is what makes it hard to be a christian today, more than the merging of religion and morality.
...
in the end it is about peace of mind, and which ever road leads you to that end is up to you.
[snapback]126052[/snapback]
[/quote]That is about as wrong as it can get!
If your belief in God is for nothing but your own peace of mind, then you are only fooling yourself. By stating the above, you are saying that there is no God, and the only reason you believe in Him is to make you feel better about the fact that you are not going to live forever here on earth. That is not a very christian thing to say. I do not understand where you want to go with theese statements.
Are you supposing that all religions are different ways to reach the same goal? Then you should convert to Ba'hai. You cannot allways be objective as a christian in discussions like theese. Someone is right, and someone is wrong, but in today's society it is no longer allowed to say that someone is wrong, from a christian perspective. You just have to respect what others say, as if it was true. That is what makes it hard to be a christian today, more than the merging of religion and morality.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'll be honest with you, there are no good reasons to believe in God, nor are there good reasons NOT to. Like I said, in the end it is about peace of mind, and which ever road leads you to that end is up to you.
Part of what needs to be said here has already been said by DeadlySinner: if one of us believes in God and the other doesn't, then at least one of us must be wrong -- we might both be "wrong" in a sense if the question makes no sense to begin with. There is an admirable -- though confused -- urge for toleration and acceptance of others than make people uncomfortable with the prospect that they or their interlocutors may be flat out wrong. But this doesn't mean, of course, that we can't be respectful and tolerant of people with what we regard to be false beliefs. We can try to argue with them and show them they are wrong, but there is no need to ridicule them, fine them or put them in jail! Acknowledging that someone mgith be wrong in what they believe does not preclude toleration and acceptance of that person.
Also, I disagree that there are no good reasons NOT to believe in God. The traditional reasons people have historically had for believing in God are bad ones -- that seems to me a good reason to NOT believe in God. You might say: "but that doesn't proove that God doesn't exist!" And you'd be right; it doesn't prove it conclusively, but it does strongly suggest it. I also can't proove that the positions of the stars at the moment of your birth don't determine the course of your life; but the reasons people have traditionally had for believing such a thing have been bad ones and that seems to me like a reason to reject astrology, not just to be agnostic about it. [an atheist isn't someone who thinks they can't be wrong; its someone who thinks they very probably aren't]
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think the problem religious people have a hard time with atheists is because Christianity (and its brethren judaism and islam) have merged religion and morality. That was a mistake because they can exist seperately,
Finally, something I wholeheartedly agree with. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'smile.gif\' /][!--endemo--] Despite the hundreds and hundreds of different arguments that have been given for the existence of God throughout history, I think there are really only a small handfull reasons that actually explain that belief. One of these reasons is precisely what Onhell says: people are afraid that to reject the idea of God is to reject morality. I agree with Onhell that these two are independent. Morality does not rest on God -- indeed it cannot rest on God as Plato showed 2500 years ago.
[snapback]126052[/snapback]
[/quote]Part of what needs to be said here has already been said by DeadlySinner: if one of us believes in God and the other doesn't, then at least one of us must be wrong -- we might both be "wrong" in a sense if the question makes no sense to begin with. There is an admirable -- though confused -- urge for toleration and acceptance of others than make people uncomfortable with the prospect that they or their interlocutors may be flat out wrong. But this doesn't mean, of course, that we can't be respectful and tolerant of people with what we regard to be false beliefs. We can try to argue with them and show them they are wrong, but there is no need to ridicule them, fine them or put them in jail! Acknowledging that someone mgith be wrong in what they believe does not preclude toleration and acceptance of that person.
Also, I disagree that there are no good reasons NOT to believe in God. The traditional reasons people have historically had for believing in God are bad ones -- that seems to me a good reason to NOT believe in God. You might say: "but that doesn't proove that God doesn't exist!" And you'd be right; it doesn't prove it conclusively, but it does strongly suggest it. I also can't proove that the positions of the stars at the moment of your birth don't determine the course of your life; but the reasons people have traditionally had for believing such a thing have been bad ones and that seems to me like a reason to reject astrology, not just to be agnostic about it. [an atheist isn't someone who thinks they can't be wrong; its someone who thinks they very probably aren't]
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 30 2005, 04:01 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think the problem religious people have a hard time with atheists is because Christianity (and its brethren judaism and islam) have merged religion and morality. That was a mistake because they can exist seperately,
[snapback]126052[/snapback]
[/quote]Finally, something I wholeheartedly agree with. [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'smile.gif\' /][!--endemo--] Despite the hundreds and hundreds of different arguments that have been given for the existence of God throughout history, I think there are really only a small handfull reasons that actually explain that belief. One of these reasons is precisely what Onhell says: people are afraid that to reject the idea of God is to reject morality. I agree with Onhell that these two are independent. Morality does not rest on God -- indeed it cannot rest on God as Plato showed 2500 years ago.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Guys, you completely misinterpreted my post. I was not attacking the contents, I was attacking the form of argument.
(we were talking about this one:
ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.)
Instead of trying to convince you, this argument discredits your opinion saying it's a lot of bullshit because you can't answer a certain question.
Discrediting one's opinion is not a civil form of argument. It is putting yourself above the one whose opinion you discredit and therefore claiming everything this person says is bullshit. This is not a way I want to argue.
Moreover, this is as far as I'm concerned a form of weakness; the inability to give a proper counter-argument, but the inestructible will to win the argument at all costs.
That's what I meant.
(we were talking about this one:
ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.)
Instead of trying to convince you, this argument discredits your opinion saying it's a lot of bullshit because you can't answer a certain question.
Discrediting one's opinion is not a civil form of argument. It is putting yourself above the one whose opinion you discredit and therefore claiming everything this person says is bullshit. This is not a way I want to argue.
Moreover, this is as far as I'm concerned a form of weakness; the inability to give a proper counter-argument, but the inestructible will to win the argument at all costs.
That's what I meant.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
ok, my last post was done at three in the morning and i was mostly brain dead by then, however let me clarify by what i meant as no good reasons to believe or not to believe in a god. without getting too philosophical everything you do is selfish. EVERYTHING. Thus IT IS about your peace of mind. I think God does exist, and I am NOT saying otherwise! If I did I would say "God does not exists". But I haven't and saying that I have in other statements is putting words in my mouth. Going back to being selfish: You give your mom a present for Christmas, why? because it is the right thing to do? does the right thing also happen to make you feel good getting a positive reaction and aproval from your mother? You help an old lady across the street, because she needs help, but that also makes YOU feel good, helping someone else. I can go on forever like this. Why give up all earthly possessions and go meditate into the woods? because it makes YOU feel good (mentally, spiritually...whatever). And what does this "good" feeling lead to? Peace of mind! and however you want to achieve it IS UP TO YOU!!!!! Now, I do believe in God because like metal made has said i've "felt" him throughout my life. Like macunaima has heard dumb arguments in favor of God, i've heard just as dumb ones against him:
"I can't see him therefore he doesn't exist" you can't see wind either...
"my parents forced me to go to church and I hated it" So your parents still control your life even to the point of what you believe just for the sake of rebellion...
"I don't like the idea of an ethereal puppetier controling my life" He's not, and if he was he is making you say that very statement.....
"my family was murdered, thus there is no God"
" I was raped thus there is no God"
"A priest molested me thus there is no God" We have the free will to do as we please, we are not in control of mental ill sociopaths and pervs and criminals....
"I can't see him therefore he doesn't exist" you can't see wind either...
"my parents forced me to go to church and I hated it" So your parents still control your life even to the point of what you believe just for the sake of rebellion...
"I don't like the idea of an ethereal puppetier controling my life" He's not, and if he was he is making you say that very statement.....
"my family was murdered, thus there is no God"
" I was raped thus there is no God"
"A priest molested me thus there is no God" We have the free will to do as we please, we are not in control of mental ill sociopaths and pervs and criminals....