How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Stranger]

Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?

Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.

It's called the philosophical burden of proof: it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...

[ippy]

Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.

It's called the philosophical burden of proof: it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...

It's a waste of time trying to get through to this pair Stranger, let's hope for their sakes they're on a wind up.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?

There might be. I don't see any evidence that there is, but that doesn't prove there isn't.

Your turn: any theists want to jump in, no reason not to believe but admitting there might not be any gods?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There might be. I don't see any evidence that there is, but that doesn't prove there isn't.

Your turn: any theists want to jump in, no reason not to believe but admitting there might not be any gods?

I don't see any theists argue that naturalism or even atheism is completely and utterly unreasonable or that they see no reasons to propose it in that endearing mouth foamy way. And then go on to grudgingly and inconsistently to admit that they could be reasonable.
I would have thought the latter contradicts the former

I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here and it's been a long time since I have had doubts about whether God is there.

[Stranger]

I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here...

It's amazing how some people still don't get a perfectly rational position. The whole point of (for example) "Russell's fecking teapot" (as Gonnagle christened it) is to point out that something that cannot be ruled out is not automatically a sensible idea that needs to be taken seriously.

I can't positively rule out god(s) (or orbiting teapots or any number of other fantastical but unfalsifiable stories) but I see absolutely no reason to believe any of them.

This isn't rocket science, what's so hard?

[jeremyp]

I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here and it's been a long time since I have had doubts about whether God is there.

I don't think there are any gods but I am willing to admit I might be wrong.

You believe there are gods, in fact, you believe there is one very particular god. Are you willing to admit you  might be wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.

It's called the philosophical burden of proof: it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...

To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.
Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.

[torridon]

To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.
Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.

I wouldn't have the equipment to investigate multiverses.  And if God is defined as supernatural, then no equipment would ever be up to the job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wouldn't have the equipment to investigate multiverses.  And if God is defined as supernatural, then no equipment would ever be up to the job.

That's not really my point. Multiverse and universal simulator are I presume being tackled equipmentlessly. That it is argued is reasonable.

To say there may be a God and have no investigation is irrational.
Surely it is the atheist equivalent of avoiding the worst case scenario.

[Stranger]

To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.

What I actually said was that a god(s) cannot be ruled out - in just the same way as orbiting teapots and invisible purple unicorns can't be ruled out.

Something that cannot be ruled out is not automatically a sensible, reasonable, or in any way credible idea. What is it that is so hard about this concept?

What would be irrational would be to try to investigate every single claim that cannot be ruled out - there isn't enough time in a human life. Further, it's not even as if there is only one god claim - people believe, and have believed, in thousands of them.

Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.

I'm not sure what effort you think I'm making. Simulated universes are science fiction. Multiverses cover a wide range of ideas from the simple infinite spacial extent of this universe (which has some inductive evidence) to pure guesswork (Tegmark's mathematical ideas).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I actually said was that a god(s) cannot be ruled out - in just the same way as orbiting teapots and invisible purple unicorns can't be ruled out.

Or multiverse or universal simulator. You are specially pleading and horselaughing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would be irrational would be to try to investigate every single claim that cannot be ruled out - there isn't enough time in a human life. Further, it's not even as if there is only one god claim - people believe, and have believed, in thousands of them.

Then you start with the scenario that would have the most significant outcome for you were it to be true.
Any other approach is irrational. Why for instance bother with gods who don't require belief whether for their benefit or yours.

[torridon]

That's not really my point. Multiverse and universal simulator are I presume being tackled equipmentlessly. That it is argued is reasonable.

To say there may be a God and have no investigation is irrational.
Surely it is the atheist equivalent of avoiding the worst case scenario.

Evidence for a multiverse comes from ESA's Planck satellite study of the CMB.  I don't have the resources to launch satellites myself so I wait for the results. 

No amount of tech however would reveal something that is defined as supernatural

[Stranger]

Or multiverse or universal simulator. You are specially pleading and horselaughing.

Oh FFS, this really isn't rocket science, what is so hard? Being unfalsifiable doesn't not make an idea sensible and reasonable or worthy of consideration. Neither does it make it absurd.

Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.

A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.

Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.

I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh FFS, this really isn't rocket science, what is so hard? Being unfalsifiable doesn't not make an idea sensible and reasonable or worthy of consideration. Neither does it make it absurd.

Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.

A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.

Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.

I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.

While the above may be acceptable for one who has dismissed God entirely, to admit that God may exist and not seriously pursue investigation or thought is irrational.
To say that you wouldn't know where to begin is irrational as I have pointed out.
It is as I have said avoiding the worse case scenario for an atheist. Why then irrationally avoid an encounter with God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence for a multiverse comes from ESA's Planck satellite study of the CMB.  I don't have the resources to launch satellites myself so I wait for the results. 

No amount of tech however would reveal something that is defined as supernatural

But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.
Surely it would be rational to investigate what must be the worse case scenario for an atheist?

[Stranger]

While the above may be acceptable for one who has dismissed God entirely, to admit that God may exist and not seriously pursue investigation or thought is irrational.

This appears to be your new mantra - I've explained my position and you've ignored it.

In addition, the idea of a god that has an important message that it wants to communicate to humanity and who cares about our response to it, is in direct and obvious contradiction to the world we observe. There is no obvious message.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This appears to be your new mantra - I've explained my position and you've ignored it.

In addition, the idea of a god that has an important message that it wants to communicate to humanity and who cares about our response to it, is in direct and obvious contradiction to the world we observe. There is no obvious message.

Still not examining the worst case scenario though which is probably that if you head away from him he would let you.
The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.
None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.
Any thing you've said might militate against a certain God but your overall argument is always going to be undermined by your admission that God may exist.

[Stranger]

Still not examining the worst case scenario though which is probably that if you head away from him he would let you.

I'm not heading away from anything but baseless superstition - or something doing a very good job of pretending to be baseless superstition.

The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.

Flat contradiction isn't a counterargument. Why would god hide its message in something that looks like all the other religions and superstitions in the world? It's an absurd idea.

None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.

If god is hiding away in something indistinguishable from superstition and playing silly games of hide an seek, then it is evil and I would want nothing to do with it anyway.

Any thing you've said might militate against a certain God but your overall argument is always going to be undermined by your admission that God may exist.

Vampires, werewolves, and aliens who steal our thoughts may exist (can't be 100% ruled out) - perhaps I should to stocking up on garlic, silver bullets, and tinfoil...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not heading away from anything but baseless superstition - or something doing a very good job of pretending to be baseless superstition.

Flat contradiction isn't a counterargument. Why would god hide its message in something that looks like all the other religions and superstitions in the world? It's an absurd idea.

If god is hiding away in something indistinguishable from superstition and playing silly games of hide an seek, then it is evil and I would want nothing to do with it anyway.

Vampires, werewolves, and aliens who steal our thoughts may exist (can't be 100% ruled out) - perhaps I should to stocking up on garlic, silver bullets, and tinfoil...?

You cannot not seek God and then conclude he is hiding. That is irrational.
I fail to see why you are equating God with vampires, Leprechauns etc and not multiverse or simulators of this universe.
Explain your categorisations.

[Stranger]

But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.

Either everybody who genuinely seeks becomes your subspecies of Christian (or some other specific type of believer and you are wrong); which would mean that the vast majority (including believers) are not genuinely seeking - or that god scenario is incorrect.

[Stranger]

You cannot not seek God and then conclude he is hiding.

First, what has that got to do with what I said?

Second, of course you can - you can seek and find nothing in the way of gods.

That is irrational.

Repeating "that is irrational" like a mantra is irrational.

I fail to see why you are equating God with vampires, Leprechauns etc and not multiverse or simulators of this universe.
Explain your categorisations.

I have already explained this:

Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.

A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.

Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.

I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.

For clarity: I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the vampire, leprechauns etc. stories seriously that wasn't hopeless.

[torridon]

But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.
Surely it would be rational to investigate what must be the worse case scenario for an atheist?

That god scenario lacks all objectivity.  To find objective truth means eliminating the personal; this has been an overarching lesson of the last three hundred years.  Anything less is just an indulgence of our own inner hopes and fears and prejudices.

[wigginhall]

How do we investigate the supernatural?   Go and sit in churches?  Listen to ethereal music?  Any clues?

[Nearly Sane]

How do we investigate the supernatural?   Go and sit in churches?  Listen to ethereal music?  Any clues?

Or 'seek' gods? anymore than seek huhbhbjhbcj?