How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[jeremyp]

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?

Just stop OK. Stop.

It's perfectly simple. There is apparently no evidence that there is any god. It's been investigated for thousands of years and nobody has come up with anything that cannot easily be explained by the human imagination.

However, in the real World, nothing is 100% certain. When we agree we might be wrong it is simply an acknowledgement of that fact.

I think it speaks volumes that we are capable of admitting that we are not infallible but you, when challenged to admit that you might be wrong are incapable of doing that. There speaks the arrogance of a Christian.

[Enki]

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.

Every time I have considered the reasons given for the existence of God, I find them wanting. They seem to be the result of pure speculation, without any evidental back up whatever. Hence I would say I have acted on the possibility that God exists, and found nothing to encourage me to have a belief in any god.

On the personal level, too, I find no detectable influence that leads me to think that a god exists(indeed, my personal experiences are to the contrary), although I would not in any way suggest that my personal experiences carry any weight whatever, just as I suggest your experiences don't either. The only reason I mention this is because you seem to regard personal experiences as very important.

As I don't believe there are gods, but as I accept that it is possible that gods exist, I consider my approach to be entirely rational.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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.

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.

A good reason is that God may exist Gordon. That is something you already apparently agree on. Your decision not to pursue or investigate is a  belief. Since, given the stakes, non pursuit is irrational. There are no reasons not to only a belief that you shouldn't. Non pursuit is a high stakes gamble for the sake of a belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just stop OK. Stop.

It's perfectly simple. There is apparently no evidence that there is any god. It's been investigated for thousands of years and nobody has come up with anything that cannot easily be explained by the human imagination.

However, in the real World, nothing is 100% certain. When we agree we might be wrong it is simply an acknowledgement of that fact.

I think it speaks volumes that we are capable of admitting that we are not infallible but you, when challenged to admit that you might be wrong are incapable of doing that. There speaks the arrogance of a Christian.

Can I ask you if you think there may be a god. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.

[Gordon]

Vlad

Let me borrow your latest and change two words.

Can I ask you if you think there may be leprechauns. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Let me borrow your latest and change two words.

Can I ask you if you think there may be leprechauns. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.

Not pursuing whether Leprechauns exist is a low stake affair. Since presumably you see one leprechaun you see them all.

A better analogy might be thinking there might be multiverse and pursuing that. As some do although compared with a possible God that would carry a lower stake.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

and you continue to talk about investigating something despite your inability to describe a methodology to do so despite being asked hundreds of times and dishonestly evading hundreds of times dishonestly

[Gordon]

Not pursuing whether Leprechauns exist is a low stake affair.

Says you: do you think you might be wrong about that?

Since presumably you see one leprechaun you see them all.

Like gods you mean?

A better analogy might be thinking there might be multiverse and pursuing that.

On what basis?

As some do although compared with a possible God that would carry a lower stake.

How have you calculated the odds of each Mr Pascal?

[SteveH]

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.

It's a valid point - given the importance of being right about it, if there is a God, one ought to expend a little thought on it. I don't believe that an objectively-existing God would punish someone who, after much thought, concluded that God didn't exist, and set about living a moral life on that assumprion, but God might be a bit annoyed by someone who never gave it a moment's thought, and lived a thoroughly selfish life, except when he was faced with a serious difficulty, when he suddenly believed and expected God to answer his prayers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says you: do you think you might be wrong about that?

Like gods you mean?

On what basis?

How have you calculated the odds of each Mr Pascal?

First of all. leprechauns have no personal impact at all, being, by all accounts contingent beings. There is no sensible encompassing description of Leprechauns which approximates to God.

In the west we generally have a working description of what God is from religion so we know what the stakes are.
If you believe such a God might exist then to just forget about it that is irrational both from the point of view of both positives or negatives.

Now to probability. That is something you have worked out yourself since you are taking a punt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and you continue to talk about investigating something despite your inability to describe a methodology to do so despite being asked hundreds of times and dishonestly evading hundreds of times dishonestly

If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.

[Gordon]

If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.

Don't be silly, Vlad: you open with 'If you believe that God might exist', which suggests you haven't been paying attention again.

What bit of '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' didn't you get when I said this a few posts back.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad: you open with 'If you believe that God might exist', which suggests you haven't been paying attention again.

What bit of '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' didn't you get when I said this a few posts back.

So you don't believe God may exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the

'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.

[Gordon]

So you don't believe God may exist?

I don't believe that the God claimed by theists 'exists' as described (or is implied) by the arguments used by these very same theists: so, as I said, in rejecting all their arguments for God as being incoherent of fallacious it follows that I don't think the proposition that 'there might be a God' is worthy of serious consideration.

I acknowledge that there may be a good argument for God that I've yet to encounter, but this good argument would need to avoid the various weaknesses of all the current arguments I've seen theists use to date.       

[SteveH]

This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.

[Gordon]

As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the

'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.

There has to be Guinness before there is the option to try it: plus you're assuming there is Guinness in the first place but you've failed to convince me that there is in fact Guinness available.

I need to see the pint, feel its weight and coldness in the glass and smell the aroma - if convinced I might consider an opening sip: but sadly the glass has yet to be filled with anything that is recognisably Guinness.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't believe that the God claimed by theists 'exists' as described (or is implied) by the arguments used by these very same theists: so, as I said, in rejecting all their arguments for God as being incoherent of fallacious it follows that I don't think the proposition that 'there might be a God' is worthy of serious consideration.

I acknowledge that there may be a good argument for God that I've yet to encounter, but this good argument would need to avoid the various weaknesses of all the current arguments I've seen theists use to date.     

I didn't ask about arguments for God, Gordon I just asked whether you think God may exist.

[SusanDoris]

This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.

Inadequate? Why?
'

[Gordon]

I didn't ask about arguments for God, Gordon I just asked whether you think God may exist.

As I said, I think no good reasons have been offered to date to allow me to conclude that it may exist: I don't exclude the possibility it might but I think the God claim as it stands doesn't merit serious consideration currently pending a case being made for this God that is neither fallacious or incoherent.

How many times are you going to ask me to rearrange the same sentiments ? I made my position clear several posts back and even reiterated it to you.   

[torridon]

I have sought God, Have or are you?

If god is supernatural then he isn't amenable to naturalistic methods like searching and measuring.  If it really were possible to 'find' god then you'd be able to say where he is, which you can't.  No one can truly find that which is unfindable; not without overdosing on euphemism.

[torridon]

This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.

If 'exist' is inadequate, have you got a better term ?

How can something that does not exist be annoyed, as you reference in #233 ?  There is something about having a cake and eating it going on here.

[Sriram]

If 'exist' is inadequate, have you got a better term ?

How can something that does not exist be annoyed, as you reference in #233 ?  There is something about having a cake and eating it going on here.

God can be found from within...through introspection and inner quest. The inner Self.....or inner Consciousness.  The 'naturalistic' world is only the external objective world....not the inner subjective world.   That is a fact ...but will it do for you?

Of course not!  Because you think of the mind as just brain generated chemical and electrical reactions. Everything that we might value as an inner experience you will dismiss as imagination, hallucination, delusion etc. 

So...how do we bridge the gap?!

[Rhiannon]

As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the

'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.

I used to like Guinness. In fact Guinness was once the most important thing in my life. Then one day Guinness stopped existing for me. I tried all the ways is used before to feel close to Guinness, and even some new ones, but the Guinness just wasn’t there.

Was i Guinness dodging?

[torridon]

Of course not!  Because you think of the mind as just brain generated chemical and electrical reactions. Everything that we might value as an inner experience you will dismiss as imagination, hallucination, delusion etc. 

That is what the evidence suggests.  That Mind is the subjective aspect of Brain is what the evidence from science clearly suggests.  So what are we supposed to do, invest in becoming science deniers, or do we take it on board and try to understand it ??