Sure. But, there is no evidence of that. For example, there is no reason to believe that the universe we have required the help of a god. There is no direction for me from this source. That's more to the point. The more abstract you go, the less guidance is provided. I don't scoff at other people's religion. If you ever catch me doing that, call me on it. You're trying to win an argument by going so abstract that it is irrelevant to my decision making. I do NOT see the Bible has hokum. I just don't accept the "god" part. There is a lot to think about in the Eden allegory - man's tendency to want to judge as if we know it all (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - knowledge we do not have and have no right to think that we do). And the life and teachings of Jesus as they apply to how humans need to live their lives is important. Also, I don't view the scriptures and philosophies of other religions as hokum. They have important philosophical contributions to make, too. I'm fine with YOU believing there is a god.
I did answer that. I think atheists and agnostics make decisions in the same manner and would be equally affected by some new evidence of a specific directive from a so far undetected god. Yep. I think "atheist" is a far more explicit and understood position. I'm not irritated with you. I asked you an explicit question, and you chose to see it otherwise. I'm fine with that.
Once again, YOU ARE ANSWERING A REPLY TO SOMEONE ELSE'S POST. It is fine, to do this; but you should not forget that any remarks in that post, addressed to "you," are therefore meant for that poster, not for you. Still, you continue to answer them, as if they were made towards you, like you do once more, in the same post: Or, to put it, in the less subtle way, that you would phrase this: WillReadmore said: ↑ I've said this over and over again, including on this thread!! Could you remember this for next time please (?)
Oh Dennis, no. I am only addressing the claims made by religions. I don’t think of religions as having the only insight on a being which probably does not exist. I think you are enjoying making the claim that I am being hypocritical. I am happy to address each claim as it comes. For now, I address the claims I am aware of and if a new definition of god comes we can look at that one then.
God is an imaginary hermaphrodite, often referred to as a heavenly father. He impregnated a virgin and she gave birth to a son, who later became a zombie savior.
You are both wrong, about the intent of my arguments, and about the way that people who do believe in something Divine (as well as, I'm sure, at least some of those who are resigned to not being able to know the truth, so opt to have no belief, either way, on the subject) think of religious devotion: it is not strictly for helping people with decisions. I have already explained this to you, just a few posts back. So you have said, several times now. Though, I will point out that once again, you are contradicting your own argument, here: that choosing a spiritual path, is strictly a pragmatic question. If that were so-- since you receive no particular "guidance," I would imagine, from your atheism-- the decision of whether to call yourself an atheist or an agnostic, could not possibly be less consequential, and so one would think, would not even merit your effort to consider it. Yet, in vast contrast to that, you have strong enough feelings on the matter, to stress that you are an atheist,* and that agnosticism, in your view, is "crap." You have still neglected to respond to my query, btw, about what "direction" you receive, as the result of your atheistic choice, to believe that God could not possibly exist, despite that conclusion's severe lack of evidence. *(When you're not questioning someone's calling you an atheist, that is). WillReadmore said: ↑ What would you expect of me as an atheist? WillReadmore said: ↑ I'm an atheist. ???
ALL my references to "God," on this thread, unless indicated otherwise, refer to the general concept, not to any particular theological ideas. So, apparently, we are discussing two very different subjects.
You can't disagree with me on this point. If you believe there is a god, it would be insane not to have that affect your decision making in various ways. If you don't believe there is a god, then you have to look for philosophical guidance in some completely different location. You can't mix those, right? No, I didn't say that. I have said that if you believe there is a god, that must affect your decisions. For example, Jesus specified how a Christian must walk the walk if they plan on not being damned to hell. If you believe there is a god, you have to listen up. If you don't believe there is a god then you have to look for guidance somewhere else. How could that not be the case? You have to look in some entirely different place for guidance. I think you are near to getting my view on this one. First, being an atheist has consequences. For example, it is an indicator of where to look for those features that a god might supply, were a god to exist. Where do you find philosophy or whatever. I just think that atheists and agnostics have beliefs close enough that I literally don't know of a question that atheists and agnostics would answer in a meaningfully different way. Do you?? When it comes to gods, trying to find a happy midpoint between no god and yes god is BS. There is no maybe god.
And that is a blatant straw man argument. OF COURSE, I never said that this does not affect one's "decision making, in various ways." What I had said, twice, was that this is not the only reason, for spirituality/religion. And if you can disagree with that, it only proves that you do not understand the religious impulse. Ironically, though, it seems important to you, to not believe that anything like a universal "God," could even potentially exist, rather than simply to be noncommittal, on the question. There are actually many reasons (depending on the individual) to seek the truth, behind our existence. But just to throw a twig to your flames of bewilderment, I will suggest that for many, it is part of their sense of identity. While this will manifest in various choices, the person makes, it is not such a straightforward proposition, as if I believe in a God, I will pass through this door, and if I don't, I will walk away (or vice-versa). If one feels they have genuinely experienced God's Presence, in their life-- which, obviously, you have not-- it no longer becomes the examination of "how will this help my future decision-making," which you envision, as the only reasonable criterion, for "choosing." If you hear the howling of an animal, outside your house, do you consider which is the more practical course, before deciding whether or not to believe it is there? For most, though, I would guess, the belief in God, adds a sense of security. Again, how one's having the benefit of this sense of security, will affect their future decisions, is utterly impossible to predict. Further, does your physicist lecturer consider: if it is not a belief in God, which is assuaging one's anxiety, what will they turn to, in its place? Somehow, I doubt that his analysis goes that far beyond a superficial level. Besides the obvious alternatives, of drugs & alcohol-- Bonobo apes, for example, give each other orgasms, on an almost constant basis. How would the effects of sex addiction, on one's life, stack up as far as being "a good theory," against belief in a Higher Power?
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to sell me on the benefits of your god??? Have you somehow forgotten that I'm an atheist??? Once again, all the benefits and duties your god presents you with simply don't apply to me. Trying to make a longer list of the befits your religion has to offer does not clarify the difference between atheism and theism.
Here is your central error: scientific theories, need be helpful, learning about this universe. Belief in God, is not a "scientific" undertaking. Yet, you try to have it both ways: you claim on one hand that, to be valid, a "God theory" must improve our science knowledge, while, on the other, you say: And I will point out, that "not being able to prove that...God exists, isn't a foundation of any argument," either. In fact, you just said, "no method of questioning exists." If I am listening to someone who I know is a "serious physicist," then the odds, I would wager, overwhelmingly favor that he is talking about physics. People advocating belief in God, for the way it benefits a person's physics acumen, is not a thing. Nevertheless, there have been great scientists, who've believed in metaphysics, and things Divine. For example, does Sir Isaac Newton, make your cut, as a "serious physicist?" He was a devout Christian. You know, he believed he'd found a hidden bible code, right? His equally brilliant & accomplished contemporary, Gottfried Liebniz (the originator of binary code, among many other discoveries & insights) made up his very own, metaphysical system, which he called Monadology. Nikola Tesla believed that he downloaded his scientific advancements, from a sort of universal information "cloud," in modern terminology (or from much older sources, was known as the Akashic Records). Considered one of history's very greatest mathematicians, Srinivasa Ramanujan, was a "rigorously orthodox Hindu," and in fact credited his genius with numbers, to his family goddess, Namagiri Thayar (Goddess Mahalakshmi) of Namakkal. Of course, Leonardo Da Vinci, was also a strong, Christian believer in God. Is that enough names, to make one's having a "God theory," at least acceptable (if not respectable)-- or should I go on?
You do seem to have trouble following an argument; the kicker is, it is your own argument, in which you are lost. You have been touting a video presentation of some physicist-- do you remember that much? Well then perhaps you also remember explaining his basic thesis, that having a "God theory"-- what the rest of us would probably just call believing in God-- is not helpful, in scientific research, as if anyone would have made the case that science smarts, was the reason for religion. Yet that is the ridiculous case you have continued to make, in the face of my explanations, that there are other things that draw people to faith in an unprovable Deity. In fact, at some points, you say that religious belief bestows benefits; but only to go back to saying things like: WillReadmore said: ↑ However, a theory of god needs to be helpful in learning about this universe. That's what theories have to do. Of course, this argument is not about believing in things that can't be known. You believe, yourself, that there is no such thing as a God, which cannot be known, either. Believing in our spouse's love and fidelity, is also an act of faith-- or do you recommend placement of some tracking device on one's mate, to know, at all times, their whereabouts? Trust may not be a part of scientific research, but it is a part of being human. Anyway, because your ongoing remarks-- about how useless a "God theory" is, in scientific research-- indicated that it didn't get through to you, the first two times that I'd merely said that there were other reasons for people to have a God theory, I then just listed a few. And that, you are interpreting as my "trying to sell (you) on the benefits of (my) God." It is hard to even reply, to a charge, that ridiculous! For one thing, I was speaking of God in generic terms, which applies to my own beliefs, far less than those of most. But also, if you suspicion had any merit, would that not then imply, that with all of your comments about the non utilitarian nature of a God theory, you have been trying to sell me, on atheism? I am "selling" you nothing: I was explaining that if the main, and only justifiable reason, in your mind, for believing in God, need be to learn more about universal physics, then you are well out of your depth, on this topic. I had merely been trying to educate you, mostly so that I wouldn't have to keep hearing this lame argument of yours, so redundantly.
Yes - a theory needs to be useful in understanding something. One should be able to move from the theory to evidence that something wouldn't otherwise be the way it is - as pointed out in the vid. Yes. Everyone should definitely recognize that someone can find value in believing that there is a god or similar force. Billions of people find religious belief to be of significant value to them. But, this isn't the question. It's not evidence of there being such a force. That doesn't mean those people aren't benefitted - they absolutely are. Christians know that, because they see others now and in history where people benefit from religious beliefs Christians see as false. And, vice versa. I hope we can live by the standard of our constitution and other founding documents that identify us as being a religiously plural country. We don't all share beliefs. But, there is a lot of value in the philosophies of many serious religions.
Your post doesn't seem to make sense, because this thread is not about scientific "theories," but deals in the realm of religions: that is, with ideas of "God," which no theory, will be any more effective, in proving. That makes your video either of no value, to the thread topic, or about something completely off-topic.
The OP question is about gender, and gets discussed in the framework of one religion in that post. The discussion with you has been about what it means to be an atheist. That has to do with the existence of a god or other supreme sentient source. Thus it is interesting to look for signs of such a source.
I thought that we both have been in agreement on the point, that the existence of God, at least for the foreseeable future, is nothing to which science, can credibly speak. Have you changed your view? If not, then the point of your video, continues to be a mystery. But, if we are beyond your pushing of the vid, then that is no longer a complaint: I'm as fine with "YOU believing there is" not "a god," as have you said you are, with my believing that there is one.
No, I have not changed my view on whether god can be proven or disproven. To be meaningful, you have to believe in a god that is communicative (which implies detectable). I don't accept a god of that nature. You can propose an undetectable and noncommunicative god, but so what? Nobody can care about that. Nobody can guide their life in some way because of that.
Once again-- by defining a Divine communication, as if it should be capable of being recorded, as though it needed to bounce off a cell- tower-- you only show how inadequate, is your grasp of the way that a belief in a Divine Element, in the universe, makes itself felt, in believers' lives. Whether or not you can believe this, people can feel, that they are receiving signs, from God. As with God's very existence, this can be neither proven nor disproven. Also, I've explained now, three times, that getting direct input, on specific questions, is not the sole benefit, to those of faith. I named the sense of identity, and even purpose, which people derive, from a personal understanding, that they are of God. I also listed the sense of security, and I could go on, but just my citing of those things, which many people, obviously do care about-- your assertion notwithstanding-- led to your very miffed sounding reply, in which you expressed that you'd gotten the crazy idea that I was trying to convert you. So I'm going to stop there, instead of falling, once more, for your mixed signals. Lastly, if you want to laugh, look at your last line. It is supposed to represent the view of a person who prides himself on sticking to provable fact: that "nobody can guide their life," based on a religious faith. LOL-- yeah, that'll never happen!
