 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Science Skeptics Forum » The Psychology of Unbelief |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Gregory Gadow |
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott Erb |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4354FC40.FF7CD6C@serv.net...
[quote:b1fdc37e77]"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
[/quote:b1fdc37e77]
That hits the nail on the head. Most (not all) religious folk seem to
assume it's either atheism or their own religion. By accident of birth,
they happened to be born in a place where the 'right god' is worshipped. I
think that ultimately if religion is going to survive, it will have to move
beyond myth-stories and dogma to something more appropriate for a
globalized, scientific world community. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Katt |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:0f75f.153915$qY1.106803@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[quote:ce468c0b7e]
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4354FC40.FF7CD6C@serv.net...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
That hits the nail on the head. Most (not all) religious folk seem to
assume it's either atheism or their own religion. By accident of birth,
they happened to be born in a place where the 'right god' is worshipped.
[/quote:ce468c0b7e]
It's interesting that in our western culture the name they use for their
imaginary friend ('God') is the same as the generic word for any and every
example of that class of imaginary friends throughout history ('god'). Maybe
that way they get to feel that they've got 'the real thing'...
[quote:ce468c0b7e]I think that ultimately if religion is going to survive, it will have to
move beyond myth-stories and dogma to something more appropriate for a
globalized, scientific world community.
[/quote:ce468c0b7e]
This is already happening among the better-educated non-scientists. By a
process of gradual evolution(!), the 'god-concept' is mutating into an
impersonal, faintly pantheistic 'force' which makes no demands; has no
central revelatory myth, 'text' or doctrine; accords no particular powers or
insights to the self-appointed clergy of 'organised religion'; and can be
justified with such vague rhetorical questions as "Well, I mean, there's got
to be *something*, hasn't there...?"
I say 'among better-educated non-scientists' because it's been shown that
natural science tends to lead people to actual *atheism*, rather than to
accommodations with superstition...
Katt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Denis Loubet |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Katt" <kattt@t.com> wrote in message
news:Ts85f.4702$R46.2226@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
[quote:15ff1eec38]"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:0f75f.153915$qY1.106803@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4354FC40.FF7CD6C@serv.net...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
That hits the nail on the head. Most (not all) religious folk seem to
assume it's either atheism or their own religion. By accident of birth,
they happened to be born in a place where the 'right god' is worshipped.
It's interesting that in our western culture the name they use for their
imaginary friend ('God') is the same as the generic word for any and every
example of that class of imaginary friends throughout history ('god').
Maybe that way they get to feel that they've got 'the real thing'...
[/quote:15ff1eec38]
Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to say the
creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and you get to drop that
name in a group of people who are conditioned to *believe* you. What could
be better?
It's institutionalized arrogance.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kurt Nicklas |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <j82dnfzGw7WkcsjeRVn-sA@io.com>, Denis Loubet says...
[quote:8158dd7849]
"Katt" <kattt@t.com> wrote in message
news:Ts85f.4702$R46.2226@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:0f75f.153915$qY1.106803@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4354FC40.FF7CD6C@serv.net...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
That hits the nail on the head. Most (not all) religious folk seem to
assume it's either atheism or their own religion. By accident of birth,
they happened to be born in a place where the 'right god' is worshipped.
It's interesting that in our western culture the name they use for their
imaginary friend ('God') is the same as the generic word for any and every
example of that class of imaginary friends throughout history ('god').
Maybe that way they get to feel that they've got 'the real thing'...
Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to say the
creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and you get to drop that
name in a group of people who are conditioned to *believe* you. What could
be better?
[/quote:8158dd7849]
Atheism is much better. Where else could you sweep aside 10,000 years of belief
with some sophomoric logic and a sneer and then come here to this group and brag
about it to your friends?
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Happy One |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:3456ee8be4]kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru says...
In article <j82dnfzGw7WkcsjeRVn-sA@io.com>, Denis Loubet says...
[/quote:3456ee8be4]
<snip>
[quote:3456ee8be4]Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to say the
creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and you get to drop that
name in a group of people who are conditioned to *believe* you. What could
be better?
Atheism is much better. Where else could you sweep aside 10,000 years of belief
with some sophomoric logic and a sneer and then come here to this group and brag
about it to your friends?
[/quote:3456ee8be4]
Not as good as Christianity, apparently, which can
claim a 10,000 year history of belief in a world they
claim is only 6,000 years old - with only 3,000 years
of written history. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| wbarwell |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
[quote:3f3d59b494]In article <j82dnfzGw7WkcsjeRVn-sA@io.com>, Denis Loubet
says...
"Katt" <kattt@t.com> wrote in message
news:Ts85f.4702$R46.2226@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:0f75f.153915$qY1.106803@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4354FC40.FF7CD6C@serv.net...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
That hits the nail on the head. Most (not all) religious
folk seem to
assume it's either atheism or their own religion. By
accident of birth, they happened to be born in a place where
the 'right god' is worshipped.
It's interesting that in our western culture the name they
use for their imaginary friend ('God') is the same as the
generic word for any and every example of that class of
imaginary friends throughout history ('god'). Maybe that way
they get to feel that they've got 'the real thing'...
Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to
say the creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and
you get to drop that name in a group of people who are
conditioned to *believe* you. What could be better?
Atheism is much better. Where else could you sweep aside 10,000
years of belief with some sophomoric logic and a sneer and then
come here to this group and brag about it to your friends?
[/quote:3f3d59b494]
Show me where the fact that god can be disproven is "sophmoric".
Its simple logic, you god cannot exist. Sorry, but god is a bad
idea, strictly for ignorant people.
I can prove it, too.
*******************
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed for
the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and
Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually logically
derivable from the claimed attribute of omnipotence and
so aren't not truely independent attributes, and may be
considered special aspects of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the only
such god, that he is is immortal and that god has always
existed that are not important for this discussion and for
now, can be ignored. They are secondary arguments and in
no way are foundational or truely necessary, except those
that can be logically derived from the attributes listed
above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a definition
not for a particular god, but an entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here. Christianity
claims one may attain salvation only through Jesus, Islam
claims the Christian dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous. Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a personal,
creator, omni-everything god. I have coined a term,
The Grand God of Grand Theologies for this sort of god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have adopted this
class of god as their basic attributes concerning the nature
of god. But it is important to remember here that what is
being discussed here is a class of gods, not particular gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand Theologies
holding to this basic class of god as their basic
definitions of what god is at god's most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it collapses
rather easily into internal self contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by Epicurus
in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes back
to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is still popular,
and is championed most notably today by Alvin Plantinga.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do evil.
Ability to do evil is less evil than lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature incapable
of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature, this good
nature is not allowed to cound againts god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count against
man's free will than it does for god's free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will and god
does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free will, thus
free will is not a true necessity at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and can give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature
incapable of moral evil, god must do so or god is not
moral, not omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can have
a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Either way, free will cannot explain away the existance
of evil. This free will defense then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all in
the Universe and he knows the future of the Universe
and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, God
will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present state will
have a John Smith, god may then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a specific
personal
and will choice made solely by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient creator god, it
is
solely and only because god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god, god
then is not as defined, omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have
any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with a god
that creates all and knows all precludes free will for all
beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is incoherent
and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this Grand God,
has been defined here with as few terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defence, free will is fatally flawed.
God's good nature and free will doom claims free
will makes evil necessary for man to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further doom claims of
god's omnibenevolence and man's free will Free will cannot
exist for man. All evil is the direct and knowing creation
of god contradicting claims of omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible, free will
cannot be a good quality, much less neccesary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims and viability
of an entire class of possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also fail, as do dogmas or
secondary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined, specific gods
cannot, nor can claims such as this or that Grand God sent this
or that relevation to man or some prophet.
***********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jenny6833A |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Katt wrote in part:
[quote:3e6cdc8b8d]I think that ultimately if religion is going to survive, it will have to
move beyond myth-stories and dogma to something more appropriate for a
globalized, scientific world community.
This is already happening among the better-educated non-scientists. By a
process of gradual evolution(!), the 'god-concept' is mutating into an
impersonal, faintly pantheistic 'force' which makes no demands; has no
central revelatory myth, 'text' or doctrine; accords no particular powers or
insights to the self-appointed clergy of 'organised religion'; and can be
justified with such vague rhetorical questions as "Well, I mean, there's got
to be *something*, hasn't there...?"
I say 'among better-educated non-scientists' because it's been shown that
natural science tends to lead people to actual *atheism*, rather than to
accommodations with superstition...
[/quote:3e6cdc8b8d]
Q1: What practical difference results if someone chooses 'an
impersonal, faintly pantheistic force ...' instead of atheism?
Q2: What definition of 'scientist' vs. 'non-scientist' justifies the
distinction you make?
Q3: How do you define 'better-educated non-scientist'?
[quote:3e6cdc8b8d]
Katt.
[/quote:3e6cdc8b8d]
:-)
Jenny |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| thomas p |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:44:36 -0400, Happy One <happy207@aol.com>
wrote:
[quote:e3415205db]kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru says...
In article <j82dnfzGw7WkcsjeRVn-sA@io.com>, Denis Loubet says...
snip
Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to say the
creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and you get to drop that
name in a group of people who are conditioned to *believe* you. What could
be better?
Atheism is much better. Where else could you sweep aside 10,000 years of belief
with some sophomoric logic and a sneer and then come here to this group and brag
about it to your friends?
Not as good as Christianity, apparently, which can
claim a 10,000 year history of belief in a world they
claim is only 6,000 years old - with only 3,000 years
of written history.
[/quote:e3415205db]
It must be a miracle!
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hugh Betcha |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:f961f7f970]*******************
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
[/quote:f961f7f970]
Your argument caves in and disintegrates right here. God is not
'omnibenevolent' To say so would imply that He is bound by some
arbitrary code of conduct, or that He has no will of His own with which
to act. This is not the case. He defines good, therefore, He defines
evil, and He does so through His own will.
<the rest proceeds from this false assumption, so it is duly snipped.>
H.
--
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."
- Lewis Carroll |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kelo Disaster |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1129746405.192222.83110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:3fb33c7d90]
*******************
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and conciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
Your argument caves in and disintegrates right here. God is not
'omnibenevolent' To say so would imply that He is bound by some
arbitrary code of conduct, or that He has no will of His own with which
to act. This is not the case. He defines good, therefore, He defines
evil, and He does so through His own will.
the rest proceeds from this false assumption, so it is duly snipped.
[/quote:3fb33c7d90]
Don't bother, reason is not a player in this particular game. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Happy One |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:ef630d200d]tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk says...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:44:36 -0400, Happy One <happy207@aol.com
wrote:
kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru says...
In article <j82dnfzGw7WkcsjeRVn-sA@io.com>, Denis Loubet says...
snip
Part of the lure of Christianity is name-dropping. You get to say the
creator of the universe is your *bestest friend*, and you get to drop that
name in a group of people who are conditioned to *believe* you. What could
be better?
Atheism is much better. Where else could you sweep aside 10,000 years of belief
with some sophomoric logic and a sneer and then come here to this group and brag
about it to your friends?
Not as good as Christianity, apparently, which can
claim a 10,000 year history of belief in a world they
claim is only 6,000 years old - with only 3,000 years
of written history.
It must be a miracle!
[/quote:ef630d200d]
Silly me, I didn't think of that. But of course. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Happy One |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:35841023fd]goingoing@gone.net says...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129750382.355932.225910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
words of truth wrote:
[/quote:35841023fd]
<snip>
[quote:35841023fd]Unfortunately, with the changes
in epistemology and ethics growing out of the so-called Enlightenment,
psychological commentators veered away from the Western tradition.
"so-called" Enlightenment? I'll bet you don't reject all of the other
benefits that "so-called" Enlightenment has afforded you...
You have just asserted that "Enlightenment" is responsible for some unknown
benefits afforded him. You have neither named what the benefits are nor have
you proved that "Enlightenment" was responsible for whatever the benefits
may be. You have cited no source material for your assertions and therefore
no further supporting evidence. You haven't even noted an opinion, yours or
anyone else's.
[/quote:35841023fd]
Since he was responding to the use of the term
"Enlightenment", he could presume the writer knew of
and knew the definition of such term. Also, he could
assume the writer knew of the benefits thereof.
I'll bet you do also, and you were just sitting around
feeling grumpy and needed something to respond to.
[quote:35841023fd]"If I posted tripe like this, I'd run away, too."
[/quote:35841023fd]
You should have never posted this at all, then you
wouldn't have to run. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kelo Disaster |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Happy One" <happy207@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc07c05a3828c2898a181@newsgroups.comcast.net...
[quote:dfbf116d17]goingoing@gone.net says...
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129750382.355932.225910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
words of truth wrote:
snip
Unfortunately, with the changes
in epistemology and ethics growing out of the so-called
Enlightenment,
psychological commentators veered away from the Western tradition.
"so-called" Enlightenment? I'll bet you don't reject all of the other
benefits that "so-called" Enlightenment has afforded you...
You have just asserted that "Enlightenment" is responsible for some
unknown
benefits afforded him. You have neither named what the benefits are nor
have
you proved that "Enlightenment" was responsible for whatever the
benefits
may be. You have cited no source material for your assertions and
therefore
no further supporting evidence. You haven't even noted an opinion, yours
or
anyone else's.
Since he was responding to the use of the term
"Enlightenment", he could presume the writer knew of
and knew the definition of such term. Also, he could
assume the writer knew of the benefits thereof.
I'll bet you do also, and you were just sitting around
feeling grumpy and needed something to respond to.
"If I posted tripe like this, I'd run away, too."
You should have never posted this at all, then you
wouldn't have to run.
[/quote:dfbf116d17]
Got a new news reader, do ya? Or do you just not know how to follow a
thread? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark K. Bilbo |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In <1129583570.883806.252140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
[quote:05c54bdf8e]Sigmund Freud"The great psychologists of the ages have universally agreed
that the root of all unhappiness is selfishness or egotism. Egotism is the
rejection of the double command to love God and neighbor, and the
affirmation of the self as the standard of all truth and morality" (Fulton
Sheen, Way to Happiness).
[/quote:05c54bdf8e]
And sometimes an altar boy is just an altar boy...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:00 am
|
|