Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

I don't agree that atheism couldn't lead to murder. Logically if you fear and/or hate religion or theism, and if you see it as a force for all that is bad in the world, then it is possible for someone to decide to eliminate theists, either en masse or in an individual level.

Atheism is just the non-belief in gods - it doesn't "lead to" anything other than the non-belief in gods. There may be any number of other "-isms" that could led you to kill, but atheism isn't one of them.   

Unbelief doesn't prevent fanaticism.

No-one says otherwise - take Stalin far example. What is being said though is that there's nothing about atheism that mandates fanaticism (or any other '-ism").

Nothing in belief that per se mandates fanaticism

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So there is evidence against me sainted mother's views based on her experiences?

Say what now? Your sainted mum may think she's experienced any manner of things - the moment though she uses reason to support her interpretation of those experiences then the reason stands or falls on its merits. 

That would require a methodology - Hope and Vlad have never come up with one for their claims - if you have one that we use to determine evidence against them, that would be amazing.

Sort of. The method is to hand - if for example someone uses fallacious reasoning to support a claim and that reasoning can be shown to be fallacious (look at TW and his endless arguments from personal incredulity over on the Gen 2 thread for example) then the claim remains unproven.     

[Outrider]

I don't agree that atheism couldn't lead to murder. Logically if you fear and/or hate religion or theism, and if you see it as a force for all that is bad in the world, then it is possible for someone to decide to eliminate theists, either en masse or in an individual level. Unbelief doesn't prevent fanaticism.

Atheism, though, doesn't require you to either hate or fear theism or religion, nor is it only atheists that can fear or hate religion.

O.

Religion/theism doesn't require you to hate or fear - some variants may do so based on specific additional beliefs. Same for atheism

Theism doesn't. In theory, nothing requires a religion to, but in practice most of the major religions have significant histories of conversion by the sword, tribalism, subjugation of 'outgroups'... I'm not sure what it is in religion - monotheistic religions, in particular - perhaps it's the predilection towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism that's implicit in having an absolute authority?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So there is evidence against me sainted mother's views based on her experiences?

Say what now? Your sainted mum may think she's experienced any manner of things - the moment though she uses reason to support her interpretation of those experiences then the reason stands or falls on its merits. 

That would require a methodology - Hope and Vlad have never come up with one for their claims - if you have one that we use to determine evidence against them, that would be amazing.

Sort of. The method is to hand - if for example someone uses fallacious reasoning to support a claim and that reasoning can be shown to be fallacious (look at TW and his endless arguments from personal incredulity over on the Gen 2 thread for example) then the claim remains unproven.   

Except the claim from Ippy and Len is that they are wrong, and you seem to think there would be evidence against MOSM (me old sainted mother - apologies mum for acronymizing you) - what is the method?

[Alan Burns]

If God wanted to be found, he wouldn't hide. 

God is there for everyone.  It is the power of evil which tries to keep Him hidden.  When the scales of deception fall away, you will be amazed at His presence.

This looks real poor reasoning to me. You propose a god of such inconceivable power that he creates an entire universe and everything in it by nothing more than willpower.  Then you go on in the next breath to admit that this same god is so feeble he cannot overcome the power of evil that he created or allowed to come into existence in the first place.  Back to the drawing board with you.

I think we underestimate the power of evil and overestimate God's ability to overcome it.  God did overcome it, but He had to go through physical torture, death and resurrection to achieve it - it was not an easy task.

[Nearly Sane]

Theism doesn't. In theory, nothing requires a religion to, but in practice most of the major religions have significant histories of conversion by the sword, tribalism, subjugation of 'outgroups'... I'm not sure what it is in religion - monotheistic religions, in particular - perhaps it's the predilection towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism that's implicit in having an absolute authority?

O.

Is it possible that there isn't anything? rather it is within how we act and is part of our makeup? Religion, if you are not a believer, is not external but rather is merely a manifestation of our nature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Religion/theism doesn't require you to hate or fear - some variants may do so based on specific additional beliefs. Same for atheism

Most religions that I'm aware of (Jainism apart perhaps) involve to varying degrees misogyny, homophobia, fear/hatred of those who are "other" etc, mostly for tribal reasons. That they think they're right as articles of "faith" compounds the problem.

Atheism on the other hand is qualitatively different, and it entails no such things. 

You surprise me here.

[Nearly Sane]

I think we underestimate the power of evil and overestimate God's ability to overcome it.  God did overcome it, but He had to go through physical torture, death and resurrection to achieve it - it was not an easy task.

Bit stupid to create then wasn't he? and if the above is true then why will heaven work?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Religion/theism doesn't require you to hate or fear - some variants may do so based on specific additional beliefs. Same for atheism

Most religions that I'm aware of (Jainism apart perhaps) involve to varying degrees misogyny, homophobia, fear/hatred of those who are "other" etc, mostly for tribal reasons. That they think they're right as articles of "faith" compounds the problem.

Atheism on the other hand is qualitatively different, and it entails no such things. 

You surprise me here.

Because, at base, you misunderstand my position. Religiosn contain nothing - they are not things external - they are codifications of beliefs. They do not require anything of your charicaterization of it - just tends to happen because of the internal traits of humanity. Atheism has nothing that removes the internal traits as it is merely another position that arises from them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except the claim from Ippy and Len is that they are wrong, and you seem to think there would be evidence against MOSM (me old sainted mother - apologies mum for acronymizing you) - what is the method?

Isn't their position rather that the arguments made to support the interpretation are wrong and so the factual claims made thereon are unproven at best?

There is incidentally the fallacy of argument from fallacy: just because an argument for a conclusion is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, which is why I use "unproven" rather than "false".   

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

I don't agree that atheism couldn't lead to murder. Logically if you fear and/or hate religion or theism, and if you see it as a force for all that is bad in the world, then it is possible for someone to decide to eliminate theists, either en masse or in an individual level.

Atheism is just the non-belief in gods - it doesn't "lead to" anything other than the non-belief in gods. There may be any number of other "-isms" that could led you to kill, but atheism isn't one of them.   

Unbelief doesn't prevent fanaticism.

No-one says otherwise - take Stalin far example. What is being said though is that there's nothing about atheism that mandates fanaticism (or any other '-ism").

And there's nothing that mandates fanaticism in many kinds of theism either. But you stated that there's no logical step from atheism to murder, when clearly there could be.

[Rhiannon]

NS,

Religion/theism doesn't require you to hate or fear - some variants may do so based on specific additional beliefs. Same for atheism

Most religions that I'm aware of (Jainism apart perhaps) involve to varying degrees misogyny, homophobia, fear/hatred of those who are "other" etc, mostly for tribal reasons. That they think they're right as articles of "faith" compounds the problem.

Atheism on the other hand is qualitatively different, and it entails no such things. 

You surprise me here.

Point me to where that exists in paganism.

[Outrider]

I think we underestimate the power of evil and overestimate God's ability to overcome it.  God did overcome it, but He had to go through physical torture, death and resurrection to achieve it - it was not an easy task.

Which sort of undermines the concept of God, really - God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, yet he can be thwarted by evil? (Which doesn't even begin to get to why evil in the first place)

O.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Except the claim from Ippy and Len is that they are wrong, and you seem to think there would be evidence against MOSM (me old sainted mother - apologies mum for acronymizing you) - what is the method?

Isn't their position rather that the arguments made to support the interpretation are wrong and so the factual claims made thereon are unproven at best?

There is incidentally the fallacy of argument from fallacy: just because an argument for a conclusion is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, which is why I use "unproven" rather than "false".

How do they know what arguments MOSM is presenting? And they're claim is not that the the claims are unproven but that they are delusional which would mean not true. In order to make that claim, which is a positive one, you need a method - note 'reason' in and of itself is not a method.

[Outrider]

Theism doesn't. In theory, nothing requires a religion to, but in practice most of the major religions have significant histories of conversion by the sword, tribalism, subjugation of 'outgroups'... I'm not sure what it is in religion - monotheistic religions, in particular - perhaps it's the predilection towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism that's implicit in having an absolute authority?

O.

Is it possible that there isn't anything? rather it is within how we act and is part of our makeup? Religion, if you are not a believer, is not external but rather is merely a manifestation of our nature.

It's possible, yes. It's possible that, like I said, it's not intrinsic to religion itself, but rather to an associated trait that's common in religion, but also found in other places - the totalitarian idea, for instance, would go some way to explaining Mao, Pot and Stalin.

O.

[Outrider]

NS,

Religion/theism doesn't require you to hate or fear - some variants may do so based on specific additional beliefs. Same for atheism

Most religions that I'm aware of (Jainism apart perhaps) involve to varying degrees misogyny, homophobia, fear/hatred of those who are "other" etc, mostly for tribal reasons. That they think they're right as articles of "faith" compounds the problem.

Atheism on the other hand is qualitatively different, and it entails no such things. 

You surprise me here.

You aren't comparing like-for-like, though - atheism is not the counterpart of, say, Christianity, but rather the counterpart to theism.

As you say with your own example of Jainism, theism doesn't necessarily engender those qualities.

O.

[Leonard James]

Just in an attempt to clarify my position, I consider god believers deluded because that was my personal experience. I was deluded into believing in God by my culture and upbringing, as I would think, are most people.

I am perfectly well aware that my experience of God may have been different from other people's, which is why I would never categorically maintain there is no such thing as a supernatural god. It just happens that the one I believed in turned out to be a delusion, and until evidence is presented to me that any god exists, I will continue to consider all gods illusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because, at base, you misunderstand my position. Religiosn contain nothing - they are not things external - they are codifications of beliefs. They do not require anything of your charicaterization of it - just tends to happen because of the internal traits of humanity. Atheism has nothing that removes the internal traits as it is merely another position that arises from them.

Religions are two things: the codification of factual claims; and the "process" that requires you to accept them as true - ie, "faith". 

And that's the problem - when the belief is, say, that homosexuality is wrong the "faith" bit requires to you act accordingly. To stay in the local church you may for example be required to kick your gay son out of home.

Atheism on the other hand is just the finding that the arguments made for theism are false. And that's it - no naming or codification of factual claims, no mandate to behave in any particular way.

They seem to me to be qualitatively different things therefore.       

[Nearly Sane]

It's possible, yes. It's possible that, like I said, it's not intrinsic to religion itself, but rather to an associated trait that's common in religion, but also found in other places - the totalitarian idea, for instance, would go some way to explaining Mao, Pot and Stalin.

O.

Surely, unless you believe in some form of religion, it is merely axiomatic that it is not intrinsic, since there is no intrinsic to religion - it is an externalization of humanity?

[Nearly Sane]

Just in an attempt to clarify my position, I consider god believers deluded because that was my personal experience. I was deluded into believing in God by my culture and upbringing, as I would think, are most people.

I am perfectly well aware that my experience of God may have been different from other people's, which is why I would never categorically maintain there is no such thing as a supernatural god. It just happens that the one I believed in turned out to be a delusion, and until evidence is presented to me that any god exists, I will continue to consider all gods illusions.

Which is fine but why say that others are deluded?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Point me to where that exists in paganism.

OK, "Jainism and paganism".

Is this going to turn into a "what have the Romans ever done for us?" conversation?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because, at base, you misunderstand my position. Religiosn contain nothing - they are not things external - they are codifications of beliefs. They do not require anything of your charicaterization of it - just tends to happen because of the internal traits of humanity. Atheism has nothing that removes the internal traits as it is merely another position that arises from them.

Religions are two things: the codification of factual claims; and the "process" that requires you to accept them as true - ie, "faith". 

And that's the problem - when the belief is, say, that homosexuality is wrong the "faith" bit requires to you act accordingly. To stay in the local church you may for example be required to kick your gay son out of home.

Atheism on the other hand is just the finding that the arguments made for theism are false. And that's it - no naming or codification of factual claims, no mandate to behave in any particular way.

They seem to me to be qualitatively different things therefore.     

So what is this faith thing then? Are you saying that this only arises because of theism - which again seems to give it intrinsic qualities itself that make no sense if you believe it to be untrue.

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

Point me to where that exists in paganism.

OK, "Jainism and paganism".

Is this going to turn into a "what have the Romans ever done for us?" conversation?

Only if you want to make a generalization that is iobviously not correct.

[Leonard James]

Just in an attempt to clarify my position, I consider god believers deluded because that was my personal experience. I was deluded into believing in God by my culture and upbringing, as I would think, are most people.

I am perfectly well aware that my experience of God may have been different from other people's, which is why I would never categorically maintain there is no such thing as a supernatural god. It just happens that the one I believed in turned out to be a delusion, and until evidence is presented to me that any god exists, I will continue to consider all gods illusions.

Which is fine but why say that others are deluded?

See my last sentence. For me, all gods are illusion, and to believe in illusions is to be deluded.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How do they know what arguments MOSM is presenting?

They don't - for all they or I know she has some knock down argument for an objective god that no-one else has brought to our ears. That's not really the point though - it's just the burden of proof problem for those who do claim objectively true gods.   

And they're claim is not that the the claims are unproven but that they are delusional which would mean not true. In order to make that claim, which is a positive one, you need a method - note 'reason' in and of itself is not a method.

We're at cross purposes. If, say, someone said that Thor causes thunder despite the overwhelming evidence for a naturalistic cause at some point the term "delusional" fits. Where that point comes exactly is moot, but come it must if the term is to mean anything.