Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Outrider I'll go along with most of that, but I'm not looking for any him; there's no good reason that makes me want to look.

ippy

We are among the lucky people who find life fulfilling and understandable without the need of god beliefs.

But what is it that is getting fulfilled?  Is it a few atoms inside your brain, or is it your God given soul?

My labrador gets real excited when he sees me going to fetch his lead.  What is it that is getting excited in him, a few atoms inside his brain, or is it his God given canine soul ?

[Outrider]

It is perfectly natural to feel satisfied when you achieve something yourself.  It is always more satisfying than to need the help of others.

Perfectly natural? Perhaps. Always more satisfying on your own - that I'd disagree with. There are some people that lack that confidence that will always feel nervous about conclusions they come to on their own, who will feel happier with the reassuring weight of centuries of similar opinion behind them. I don't agree with their conclusions, necessarily - or the fact that they might not be conclusions at all, just acceptance of doctrine - but I do understand that they may well be perfectly happy with them, and might not be happy thinking for themselves.

O.

[Rhiannon]

Outrider I'll go along with most of that, but I'm not looking for any him; there's no good reason that makes me want to look.

ippy

We are among the lucky people who find life fulfilling and understandable without the need of god beliefs.

But what is it that is getting fulfilled?  Is it a few atoms inside your brain, or is it your God given soul?

My labrador gets real excited when he sees me going to fetch his lead.  What is it that is getting excited in him, a few atoms inside his brain, or is it his God given canine soul ?

Of course Labradors have souls. Those big melty eyes...

[ippy]

We are among the lucky people who find life fulfilling and understandable without the need of god beliefs.

Fixed that for you - how people get to a fulfilling life isn't that important. Religion is a problem not because people find the 'wrong' sort of fulfillment, but because it too often leads people to try to impose their sort of fulfillment on others.

Being happy is far, far more important than being 'right', but being 'right' is only a problem if your hobby is being 'right' AT people.

O.

Don't understand why you found it necessary to delete part of my post, O, I think it works for Ippy and me.

Don't you think people who are happy are lucky if they are happy theists?

No.

ippy

Then that puts you in the same camp as the 'you'd be happy if you only found God' people. You think that you know what's best for everyone and that being like you is the only valid way to be.

How does deluded convert into lucky?

Wouldn't that be a bit like saying the good thing about being potty is at least you wouldn't know much about it?

ippy

Firstly, that's offensive to people with mental health issues. Secondly, that assumes all theists are deluded. You don't know that belief always arises from delusion.

Yes it would be offensive if I was directing that statement at an individual, it obviously wasn't.

There's no evidence that supports any of the beliefs you are referring to, so what other explanation would you use to describe completely unsupported beliefs?

If I kept expounding my belief in Elvis, being taken seriously would more than likely be a serious problem for me; but if someone holds a similar belief that has a similar amount of evidence to support it and attributes it to religion that makes it OK?

Is the above what you're saying?

ippy

Individuals have mental illness, Ippy, including posters on this forum, including me.

I don't know what a 'belief in Elvis' means.

We don't know enough about the brain and how beliefs form. Some clearly arrive from indoctrination, fear, or wishful thinking, but not all. If someone has, say, a genetic disposition to belief, are they deluded? How do you know that a belief isn't real just because there is no visible evidence for it?

As I said before about being unaware.

Elvis, well if you don't want to get what it was I was saying, it wont help how ever much I were to clarify that part of my previous post, I thought it was obvious, but there, suit yourself. 

Finding evidence is a well tried and tested method, you find the evidence for these nonsenses then they are no longer nonsense, it looks like it's going to be a long wait for anything that remotely resembles evidence for these beliefs turns up. 

ippy

[Rhiannon]

It is perfectly natural to feel satisfied when you achieve something yourself.  It is always more satisfying than to need the help of others.

Perfectly natural? Perhaps. Always more satisfying on your own - that I'd disagree with. There are some people that lack that confidence that will always feel nervous about conclusions they come to on their own, who will feel happier with the reassuring weight of centuries of similar opinion behind them. I don't agree with their conclusions, necessarily - or the fact that they might not be conclusions at all, just acceptance of doctrine - but I do understand that they may well be perfectly happy with them, and might not be happy thinking for themselves.

O.

Don't we find conclusions of others and then decide if we agree or disagree? Atheism isn't exactly an original idea.

[Nearly Sane]

If our  experiences drive our conclusions, then stating anything about others with different experiences reaching different conclusions being deluded would be a claim to objectivity that I struggle to see how one would back up.

[Outrider]

It's certainly possible to just accept atheism because it's what you've been taught, I don't think it's that common. Atheism isn't a new idea, certainly, but the difference is between being aware of the concept and accepting that it's what you are. I think they find their own position, but they typically borrow older arguments to support it.

Most people - whether of faith or without - don't reason themselves to the position, they hold the position as they grow and then build the arguments that justify it. If they value reasoned argument they either settle into their atheism or they become the sort of intricate theologist that spends decades trying to delve deeper into the scriptures hoping to find that one unassailable point.

If they aren't caught up on the justifications, they either settle into their faith comfortably and leave everyone else alone with theirs or they settle into their lack of faith comfortably and leave everyone else alone... assuming, of course, that the broader culture in which they live allows them to.

O.

[Rhiannon]

It's certainly possible to just accept atheism because it's what you've been taught, I don't think it's that common. Atheism isn't a new idea, certainly, but the difference is between being aware of the concept and accepting that it's what you are. I think they find their own position, but they typically borrow older arguments to support it.

Most people - whether of faith or without - don't reason themselves to the position, they hold the position as they grow and then build the arguments that justify it. If they value reasoned argument they either settle into their atheism or they become the sort of intricate theologist that spends decades trying to delve deeper into the scriptures hoping to find that one unassailable point.

If they aren't caught up on the justifications, they either settle into their faith comfortably and leave everyone else alone with theirs or they settle into their lack of faith comfortably and leave everyone else alone... assuming, of course, that the broader culture in which they live allows them to.

O.

I didn't mean atheists accept what they are taught - nobody taught me about paganism. Rather we feel, suspect or want to understand something, look at the options available that explain what it is we think, feel or suspect, and choose the explanation or belief system that most fits. Were information not now readily available on paganism and pantheism I doubt I'd be able to give a name to what is inside me so readily.

[Nearly Sane]

There's a sort of opposite of the ad populum fallacy which seems to get rolled out that because one belongs to a smaller group or regards oneself as coming to one's own conclusions that this somehow validates them. It's apparent in the old saw that 'They all laughed at (insert name of groundbreaking thinker here) ...'

I am unconvinced that there is some great divide in the thought processes of atheists/believers that would allow this sort of 'it's all my own thinking' to be justified, nor even were it to be so that that in interactive any validity it.

[Leonard James]

It is perfectly natural to feel satisfied when you achieve something yourself.  It is always more satisfying than to need the help of others.

Perfectly natural? Perhaps. Always more satisfying on your own - that I'd disagree with. There are some people that lack that confidence that will always feel nervous about conclusions they come to on their own, who will feel happier with the reassuring weight of centuries of similar opinion behind them. I don't agree with their conclusions, necessarily - or the fact that they might not be conclusions at all, just acceptance of doctrine - but I do understand that they may well be perfectly happy with them, and might not be happy thinking for themselves.

O.

Yes, I accept that, which is why I said that Ippy and I were lucky.

We are going round in circles.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Because the important part is that people are happy - if they find that happiness in religions belief so be it.

O.

Which is precisely why I told Ippy that we are lucky not to need it.

No, we aren't lucky we don't need it, faith holds no real problems for the people that hold it so long as they are happy with it. We would be lucky if other people were happy without it - religion is a problem because it tends to need to be imposed on other people, tends to impose its restrictions on those that don't adhere to its tenets.

O.

I agree - I find faith very useful. There are many times when I can't be bothered or do not feel like putting myself out to do something specific for someone else but when I view the situation as a theist, the task suddenly feels less burdensome, hence I'm happy.

For example I just had a birthday lunch for my younger daughter at my house yesterday for 30 people. In the middle of the lunch I agreed to hand my house keys over to someone else to have a lunch next weekend in my house for 40 people for my husband's teenage nephew's birthday (his mother - my husband's brother's wife - has cancer). My husband, the kids, my parents and I won't be there for the start of it because my older daughter is in a ballet performance that I have bought tickets for so other family members will have to set it up.

My initial feeling was I can't be bothered to deal with it and have to clear up afterwards as it is 2 weekends in a row but with my theist hat on the whole issue felt less of a burden. So the faith thing works for me in terms of making me feel happier about tasks.   

Also, Islam gives me an easy reason to not drink, and I feel happier not drinking but doubt I would have the will power or self-control to have stopped without the religious commitment.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If our  experiences drive our conclusions, then stating anything about others with different experiences reaching different conclusions being deluded would be a claim to objectivity that I struggle to see how one would back up.

Maybe this is an example of one of Leonard's beliefs about experiences and conclusions - is he saying that if anyone has had an experience or feeling that he, Leonard, has not personally experienced, he concludes that they must be deluded?

Leonard's is not a very original belief - lots of atheists and theists have that same belief - so Leonard seems to be not thinking for himself. But nevertheless both he and they are happy holding the belief that they are lucky because everyone else is deluded except for themselves 

[Rhiannon]

I like being a theist too, albeit a rather woolly one. For me it helps be to make sense of my existence and what I experience. It doesn't make me a better person but it does make me who I am.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah - presumably being a better person would be those people who would do things for others without feeling for a moment like it was a burden or a chore, rather than those people who have to talk themselves into it either through religious terminology or through some other self-help speak.

[Rhiannon]

Not really - I've no time for the idea that atheists who do good things are morally superior to theists who do good things. But my kind of paganism doesn't have a set of rules or holy text - when it comes to figuring out the moral stuff you're pretty much on your own , although the 'golden rule' covers it pretty much for me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabs,

Maybe this is an example of one of Leonard's beliefs about experiences and conclusions - is he saying that if anyone has had an experience or feeling that he, Leonard, has not personally experienced, he concludes that they must be deluded?

Leonard's is not a very original belief - lots of atheists and theists have that same belief - so Leonard seems to be not thinking for himself. But nevertheless both he and they are happy holding the belief that they are lucky because everyone else is deluded except for themselves 

That's not it Leonard's belief at all. Many people believe in many things that cannot all be true, which means that a significant number of those people are somewhere on a spectrum of mistaken, lying, guessing, delusional etc. All that some of us say is that - if they want their claims to be taken more seriously than the rest - they need to provide a method to eliminate beyond reasonable doubt those explanatory possibilities so as to distinguish their claims from those of the rest of the pack.   

You do Len a disservice I think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabs,

Also, Islam gives me an easy reason to not drink, and I feel happier not drinking but doubt I would have the will power or self-control to have stopped without the religious commitment.

Also, drinking gives me an easy reason to not to be a muslim, and I feel happier not being a muslim but doubt I would have the will power or self-control to have stopped without the drinking commitment.

[Rhiannon]

Gabs,

Also, Islam gives me an easy reason to not drink, and I feel happier not drinking but doubt I would have the will power or self-control to have stopped without the religious commitment.

Also, drinking gives me an easy reason to not to be a muslim, and I feel happier not being a muslim but doubt I would have the will power or self-control to have stopped without the drinking commitment.

Drinking makes me feel crap, so I don't do it much. Not wanting to feel crap is a very, very good motivator, I've found.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabs,

Maybe this is an example of one of Leonard's beliefs about experiences and conclusions - is he saying that if anyone has had an experience or feeling that he, Leonard, has not personally experienced, he concludes that they must be deluded?

Leonard's is not a very original belief - lots of atheists and theists have that same belief - so Leonard seems to be not thinking for himself. But nevertheless both he and they are happy holding the belief that they are lucky because everyone else is deluded except for themselves 

That's not it Leonard's belief at all. Many people believe in many things that cannot all be true, which means that a significant number of those people are somewhere on a spectrum of mistaken, lying, guessing, delusional etc. All that some of us say is that - if they want their claims to be taken more seriously than the rest - they need to provide a method to eliminate beyond reasonable doubt those explanatory possibilities so as to distinguish their claims from those of the rest of the pack.   

You do Len a disservice I think.

BHS

I see no resemblance between what you stated above and Len's stated belief that he is lucky to not need faith and that theists are deluded because he has not experienced what ever they have experienced therefore their interpretation of their experience is a delusion.

Could you please explain what you mean about some theists expecting their beliefs to be taken more seriously? I don't take Len's beliefs about delusion and happiness more seriously than any other individual's belief - that's not a problem is it? I think if Len finds happiness in his belief and he is not imposing them on others and forcing them to believe it too, and he is not discriminating against theists in any measurable way, then he is entitled to hold his beliefs if they make him happy.

I feel neither lucky nor unlucky that I hold different beliefs from Len about delusion and happiness.

[Nearly Sane]

To pick up Gabriella's point, Len and Ippy's position is that they can use their own experiences to declare that the religious are delusional. That's a positive claim and a claim to objectivity. I have yet to see them justify it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not really - I've no time for the idea that atheists who do good things are morally superior to theists who do good things. But my kind of paganism doesn't have a set of rules or holy text - when it comes to figuring out the moral stuff you're pretty much on your own , although the 'golden rule' covers it pretty much for me.

That's not what I meant. Atheists use rules, self-help techniques and motivational techniques to do good things. Both theists and atheists, when making moral decisions, often use some version of treat others how you would want to be treated. Or both theists and atheists can experience feelings of vindictiveness or selfishness. I haven't seen a study that isolates the effect of employing religious terminology or non-religious terminology to describe those emotions to give an objective advantage or disadvantage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabs,

I see no resemblance between what you stated above and Len's stated belief that he is lucky to not need faith and that theists are deluded because he has not experienced what ever they have experienced therefore their interpretation of their experience is a delusion.

Well, our Len is more than capable of replying for himself but since you ask it was the second part of that I was responding to. So far as I’m aware he’s never said that, because he hasn’t “experienced” these supposed visitations and the like, those who think they have must therefore be delusional. What he (and I) say is first that we’ve never felt that we’ve experienced them, but second that there are countless non-divine possible causal explanations for these interpretations (delusion being one of them) and unless we’re to accept all asserted claims of the supernatural as necessarily factually true then it’s incumbent on their proponents to tell us why they’re not mistaken, guessing, delusional etc.       

Could you please explain what you mean about some theists expecting their beliefs to be taken more seriously? I don't take Len's beliefs about delusion and happiness more seriously than any other individual's belief - that's not a problem is it? I think if Len finds happiness in his belief and he is not imposing them on others and forcing them to believe it too, and he is not discriminating against theists in any measurable way, then he is entitled to hold his beliefs if they make him happy.

Gladly. It’s always seemed to me that anyone should be free to have any private belief they want to have – in the Christian god, Allah, the Nigerian Ant God, pixies, whatever. It’s no-one’s business but his own. What happens a lot though is that often these people will insist that their personal beliefs are factually true for the rest of us too – their various gods are my god too – and will insist on certain rights and privileges for that belief in the public square: protection from criticism; being taught as facts to children; tax breaks etc.

And it’s the latter that causes me to respond with a, “now hang on a minute”.

I feel neither lucky nor unlucky that I hold different beliefs from Len about delusion and happiness.

No doubt, but I’m not sure that you’ve reflected accurately Len’s beliefs in the fist place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

To pick up Gabriella's point, Len and Ippy's position is that they can use their own experiences to declare that the religious are delusional. That's a positive claim and a claim to objectivity. I have yet to see them justify it.

I'm not sure that the have said that have they? Aren't they just saying that the "true for you too" theists have a burden of proof problem, and that in the absence of any of them stepping up to the plate on that then delusion and various other possible non-divine explanations are the default position?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

To pick up Gabriella's point, Len and Ippy's position is that they can use their own experiences to declare that the religious are delusional. That's a positive claim and a claim to objectivity. I have yet to see them justify it.

I'm not sure that the have said that have they? Aren't they just saying that the "true for you too" theists have a burden of proof problem, and that in the absence of any of them stepping up to the plate on that then delusion and various other possible non-divine explanations are the default position?

They have said the equivalent and have based it on their experiences. That is a postive claim and one that as you make clear has no methodology to justify it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

They have said the equivalent and have based it on their experiences. That is a postive claim and one that as you make clear has no methodology to justify it.

I don't recall either of the saying the equivalent - their non-experiences and their grounds for assuming non-divine causes for those who think they have had these experience are separate matters I think - but short of trawling through their posts to find out let's leave them to tell us either way if they wish to.