How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[wigginhall]

I enjoyed Vlad's comment that if you head away from God, he will let you, and quote, 'The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.'

Well, the world matches the kind of Venusian mermaid who leaves me alone.   Damn those pesky naiads!

[Nearly Sane]

And again how does one head away from a god?

[ippy]

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

Just read this one Wiggs, like it.

ippy

[wigginhall]

And again how does one head away from a god?

Now you are making me laugh.   I suppose you find the place where he might be, and walk in the opposite direction.  Hang on, God is everywhere, isn't he?   

[Nearly Sane]

Now you are making me laugh.   I suppose you find the place where he might be, and walk in the opposite direction.  Hang on, God is everywhere, isn't he?

It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it. But in the light of my own issue that I haven't been given a logically coherent or meaningful definition of the god thing, I'm left in a whole green ideas sleep furiously pattern here.

As you say, if the 'god' has certain attributes that some of those who state they believe in it claim then even on that level it's a nonsense.

[wigginhall]

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

The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation?   Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets. 

[Nearly Sane]

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

The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation?   Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.

And what would be 'theological effort'? Are the measurements for this. Does an Our Father, 10 Hail Marys, and a Glory be equate to one kilojesus? Does observing Ramadan generate a megaallah?

[ekim]

It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it. But in the light of my own issue that I haven't been given a logically coherent or meaningful definition of the god thing, I'm left in a whole green ideas sleep furiously pattern here.

As you say, if the 'god' has certain attributes that some of those who state they believe in it claim then even on that level it's a nonsense.

From the alleged words of Jesus .... Heaven is within you ...... God is in Heaven  .... therefore God is within you.  The Aramaic words attributed to him when he was near death contained the (God) word El which means 'power' and so I would guess that if, from within, you feel empowered or enlivened then you have found God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation?   Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.

Well I suppose you have identified a worst possible scenario. To hold that and believe that such might describe your alternative fate and laugh it off is indeed irrational.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it.

The belief I refer to here is that God may exist. Not acting on that or just laughing it off is irrational given the stakes and also not intellectually honest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

We know that atheists have eliminated the personal however the personal or existential is inescapable.

To describe or reduce your personal self to mere hope, fear or prejudice seems to me to commit yourself to some kind of unforgiveable, inescapable self loathing and loathing of others.

[Stranger]

The belief I refer to here is that God may exist.

Once again, the 'may exist' just refers to not being able to 100% rule out the possibility.

Not acting on that or just laughing it off is irrational given the stakes and also not intellectually honest.

Perhaps you should ponder the fact that we cannot 100% rule out a god that deliberately hides away and then condemns those people who are stupid enough to believe in gods without any evidence or reasoning, to eternal suffering. The proposition is no less likely than the existence of any of the gods of the world's religions; neither have any good reason to believe them and neither can be 100% ruled out.

Are you just going to laugh that off, given the stakes..?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, the 'may exist' just refers to not being able to 100% rule out the possibility.

Perhaps you should ponder the fact that we cannot 100% rule out a god that deliberately hides away and then condemns those people who are stupid enough to believe in gods without any evidence or reasoning, to eternal suffering. The proposition is no less likely than the existence of any of the gods of the world's religions; neither have any good reason to believe them and neither can be 100% ruled out.

Are you just going to laugh that off, given the stakes..?

I have sought God, Have or are you?

[Nearly Sane]

I have sought God, Have or are you?

How did you do that? And what were you 'seeking'!

[Nearly Sane]

Well I suppose you have identified a worst possible scenario. To hold that and believe that such might describe your alternative fate and laugh it off is indeed irrational.

How did you determine what is a scenario and what is worst?

[Stranger]

I have sought God, Have or are you?

Evasion noted. I refer you to all the points above.

Also, how can one seek a collection of different, mutually contradictory, often self-contradictory, baseless fairy tales (or a stories that look exactly like fairy tales)?

Also again, if there is a god that hides away in fairy tale lookalike stories, plays silly games of hide and seek, and then visits serious consequences on those that don't play its stupid games, is unjust and unreasonable and I would want nothing to do with such a god anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evasion noted. I refer you to all the points above.

Also, how can one seek a collection of different, mutually contradictory, often self-contradictory, baseless fairy tales (or a stories that look exactly like fairy tales)?

Also again, if there is a god that hides away in fairy tale lookalike stories, plays silly games of hide and seek, and then visits serious consequences on those that don't play its stupid games, is unjust and unreasonable and I would want nothing to do with such a god anyway.

That doesn't help the atheist case only the Anti God case.

Again if you believe there might be a God it would be irrational not to act on that and make excuses for that irrationality.

[torridon]

We know that atheists have eliminated the personal however the personal or existential is inescapable.

To describe or reduce your personal self to mere hope, fear or prejudice seems to me to commit yourself to some kind of unforgiveable, inescapable self loathing and loathing of others.

No, it is merely the avoidance of confirmation bias etc; I would have thought that was pretty obvious.  If we want to establish any sort of objectivity that means minimising any subjectivity.  All this 'personal seeking' business is the indulgence of subjectivity at the cost of objectivity.  Psychology text books are full of this sort of insight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it is merely the avoidance of confirmation bias etc; I would have thought that was pretty obvious.  If we want to establish any sort of objectivity that means minimising any subjectivity.  All this 'personal seeking' business is the indulgence of subjectivity at the cost of objectivity.  Psychology text books are full of this sort of insight.

I would beg to disagree. After all what objective truth do you have that I couldn't?
'Cost to objectivity' is a myth since the only thing threatened is another belief.

If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.

[Stranger]

That doesn't help the atheist case only the Anti God case.

Drivel.

Again if you believe there might be a God it would be irrational not to act on that and make excuses for that irrationality.

Nope. Given that:

• It is equally (un)likely that there is a god that punishes belief in gods for which there is no evidence, as it is that there is one that punishes disbelief.
  
  
• Both those possibilities are far, far less probable than there being no basis for these silly fairy tales at all.
  
  
• A god that hides in fairy tale lookalike stories would be unjust, unfair, and untrustworthy anyway.
  
  
• A god that condemns people for believing according to the (lack of) evidence would be doubly unjust and untrustworthy.

It is far more rational to take notice of the actual evidence - or lack thereof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel.

Nope. Given that:

• It is equally (un)likely that there is a god that punishes belief in gods for which there is no evidence, as it is that there is one that punishes disbelief.
  
  

Are you trying then to justify your disbelief because you think that is what God approves of?
[/list]

[Gordon]

I would beg to disagree. After all what objective truth do you have that I couldn't?
'Cost to objectivity' is a myth since the only thing threatened is another belief.

If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.

I think you are over-egging the 'there might be a God' pudding for your own convenience: nobody is here is daft enough to exclude the possibility that there might be a god (or gods) but they usually couch this in terms of there being no good reasons currently to think it a serious proposition as things stand.

So your notion that someone like me is 'refusing to act' presumes that I think there is something worth investigating in the first place: and I don't, and nor do I have 'another belief' in relation to gods.   

[Stranger]

If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.

Atheists generally don't think there 'might be a god' - any more than they think there 'might be' vengeful fairies that punish you in the afterlife for doubting their existence or any other crazy idea that you might make up that has nasty consequences and is unfalsifiable.

Being unable to 100% rule things out doesn't equate to thinking they 'might be' true in any normal sense of the phrase.

You can make things up all day like that and they are all as equally (un)likely as any god-story. Not acting on the god-stories (assuming for a minute that there was a rational way to act on them, which there isn't) is no more irrational than not acting on the notion of the vengeful fairies.

Are you trying then to justify your disbelief because you think that is what God approves of?

What the hell gave you that idea? I'm just pointing out that the idea of a god that punishes belief in gods is no more more unbelievable than your idea of god (see #211).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are over-egging the 'there might be a God' pudding for your own convenience: nobody is here is daft enough to exclude the possibility that there might be a god (or gods) but they usually couch this in terms of there being no good reasons currently to think it a serious proposition as things stand.

So your notion that someone like me is 'refusing to act' presumes that I think there is something worth investigating in the first place: and I don't, and nor do I have 'another belief' in relation to gods.

You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous. That then is the irrationality.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.

[Gordon]

You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous.

No: you claim the stakes are enormous, and that may be your personal feeling, but there are no good grounds for me to treat your personal feelings as being in any sense convincing.

That then is the irrationality.

On the contrary: I'd say it is reasonable and rational to reject claims involving religious superstitions where those advancing these claims offer no more than fallacy and incoherence: for crying out loud they can't even explain how they've assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in their preferred holy book.

Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.

I've just told you: I don't think there are any good reasons to consider that this God notion exists is a serious proposition worth active consideration since the arguments offered by proponents of this God are so utterly hopeless, which isn't the same thing as believing there is no God - but you know this already, or should by now.