Jump to content

People who believe in god are broken


Recommended Posts

Because it doesn't discuss a fact, zapatos.

 

The burden of proof is on the claimant, isn't it? If it's "neither here nor there", it's not a fact, and it's not evidence.

Don't you consider it a fact that a person was sick and the disease went away?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed.   We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God i

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!   Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the origina

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.   Anyone here believe in str

Posted Images

Who said anything about numbers?

 

When you were referring to Zeus and Unicorns I thought you were meaning to say that not as many people believe in them anymore therefore they are unlikely, even though at one point thousands of people believed in them, at least in Zeus.

 

 

 

 

.... your logic is weird, man. There are tons of weird wrong things that 99% of the population believes in, as they have throughout history. You start by complaining about numbers and then state a completely odd statement about the number games.

Logic is logic, logic is not weird logic, unless the oral statements can be equal to mathematical statements and "weird" would equal "1" as a coefficient of "logic", at least logically anyway, or you could just accept that how logical something seems is actually relative.

 

If this is a number game, my friend, you need to go Muslim.

Well at least someone thinks beveling in a religion doesn't impair mental ability, besides the people who are already religious. And what about the Mayans?

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Villian,

 

In what way do you mean "true".

 

Let's take the 10 commandments brought down from the mountain by Moses.

 

Let's say we find the actual stone and study the carvings and determine what type of tool or force was used to make the etchings. And then we find such a tool buried in a cave in the mountains Moses treked in,that dated around the same time and it had signs of being held and used by a human hand.

 

We could consider the story true, but some of the facts about it, like whose hand did the carving, might be a little different than the story told by Moses, or subsequently told by the writers of the bible.

 

If such evidence came to light, would you be able to still claim God wrote the tablets...just "through" Moses' hand? Or would you re-evalute your understanding of the nature of God?

 

Seems one of the main points of this thread, is that when evidence does arise, that a reasonable person would take as evidence "against" the Bible telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the evidence is ignored, in favor of the "belief" that God still exists in the exact manner described in the bible, and should any little hole in the argument that the book was actually "written" by God be found, it would bring the whole edifice down, so the hole is patched up with silly glue, and the edifice is retained in its full (broken and patched) glory. And the only thing left holding it together is faith.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites
However, throughout most of my youth (up to my twenties or so, actually) I believed in really weird crap. I was always either an agnostic or an atheist, but that was about God. Everything else? Not so much.

 

I believed it's possible aliens visited us in the past and helped build the pyramids.

I believed human beings have spiritual energies you can manipulate using deep meditation, reiki, and outer-body experience. In fact, I practiced reiki on my friends and I was considered to be quite good at it.

We're not as different as you might think. I'm just much less patient than you, and have a harder and harder time "suffering fools gladly" as I get older.

 

that's the reason why I dislike the title of this thread. I agree in principle that the arguments are broken, and that makes the belief outside reality which, I guess, we could define as "being broken", but I really think that it's not helping anything, and I don't see believers as innately broken.

 

I think their way of thinking might be broken, but that's not to say THEY are broken. Do you see the distinction?

Yes. I do see the distinction, and tend to agree. Such a thread title ("Arguments for god are broken") would be far less engaging, though, and would get one response like "no shit, sherlock" and then die. This is a discussion forum, and this has been a fairly incredible conversation, IMO. Thanks for your sincerity and great posts, moo, and also your patience with my own blunter edges.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not as different as you might think. I'm just much less patient than you, and have a harder and harder time "suffering fools gladly" as I get older.

 

 

Yes. I do see the distinction, and tend to agree. Such a thread title ("Arguments for god are broken") would be far less engaging, though, and would get one response like "no shit, sherlock" and then die. This is a discussion forum, and this has been a fairly incredible conversation, IMO. Thanks for your sincerity and great posts, moo, and also your patience with my own blunter edges.

 

 

Where did ya park your squad car? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Strange to you perhaps because you haven't made the psychological connections to religion as other people have.

This is a massive and unsupported assumption you've just made. How in the world could you possibly know this... about me... a man you've never met? You don't. You're guessing, and it's not only wrong, but irrelevant.

 

When mono-theists formally pray to god, in my experience, they often describe a feeling of calmness and zen as a way of feeling connected to god. Logically I don't know what the feeling actually arises from, and I don't know if scientists know, so there's room for believing other things.

I suspect you would enjoy the study of neuroscience, and even some more basic psychology. These questions are not as inaccessible as you seem to think, and the answers are actually quite fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a massive and unsupported assumption you've just made. How in the world could you possibly know this... about me... a man you've never met? You don't. You're guessing, and it's not only wrong, but irrelevant.

Well I know many religious people, so I don't think it's unsupported, so while it may seem illogical to you for me to make that assumption, there's enough evidence for me to accept it from my point of view.

 

 

I suspect you would enjoy the study of neuroscience, and even some more basic psychology. These questions are not as inaccessible as you seem to think, and the answers are actually quite fascinating.

I've heard that research has shown that parts of the brain detach (not physically) from each other when praying, but that's about it.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you refute evidence of a miracle, that a person was healed by prayer 100 years ago, as documented by the Vatican?

That's not evidence. Evidence is that which can be used to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of an assertion. The Vatican's documentation might be called testimony but even then it would be hearsay. What you really have is the claim that someone was sick, that someone prayed and that the sick person got better. That does not mean that the prayer actually caused the person to get better, just that there was prayer and the person got better. It could be pure coincidence. There is no evidence in the matter to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of the assertion that prayer itself was responsible for the person getting better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know many religious people, so I don't think it's unsupported, so while it may seem illogical to you for me to make that assumption, there's enough evidence for me to accept it from my point of view.

Did you seriously just try to suggest that YOU know more about ME than I do? Wow, dude. Okay. That's uhhmmm... yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you seriously just try to suggest that YOU know more about ME than I do? Wow, dude. Okay. That's uhhmmm... yeah.

 

I don't really know where this attitude is coming from, I merely stated I've talked to religious people and they have told me what they experience, and because such a diverse group of religious mono-theists have described the same general experience to me, I think it is logical to assume it can be applied to many mono-theists. If your religious then you probably know more about the doctrines of your particular religion than me, that's all I'll really say about it. Besides, you don't know me either, how do you know I don't have a major/minor in philosophy?

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know many religious people, so I don't think it's unsupported, so while it may seem illogical to you for me to make that assumption, there's enough evidence for me to accept it from my point of view.

 

So, what is your standard for accepting evidence? The number of people who tell you they've experienced something? Can anyone say alien abduction?

 

 

 

I've heard that research has shown that parts of the brain detach (not physically) from each other when praying, but that's about it.

 

 

I've heard it's very similar to what your brain looks like when you are having a conversation with yourself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not evidence. Evidence is that which can be used to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of an assertion. The Vatican's documentation might be called testimony but even then it would be hearsay. What you really have is the claim that someone was sick, that someone prayed and that the sick person got better. That does not mean that the prayer actually caused the person to get better, just that there was prayer and the person got better. It could be pure coincidence. There is no evidence in the matter to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of the assertion that prayer itself was responsible for the person getting better.

I can't view any claims of faith healing seriously when there are limitations that seem illogical if the claims were true. Why could faith in God or prayers to God heal cancers and other diseases and disabilities, but be unable to cure someone who lost a limb or digit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionposter, I will agree you do have a right to your own point of view, you do not how ever have a right to your own reality, many people claim many things, seriously, where do you draw the line?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is your standard for accepting evidence? The number of people who tell you they've experienced something? Can anyone say alien abduction?

Well, Inow had already said I wasn't necessarily wrong even for him, and he boasts a pretty big knowledge of knowing religious people I guess, and other than psychology discussions as I had mentioned well before these recent posts as well as talking to people which I had also mentioned before these recent posts, I guess I don't know of any actual scientific research, although I think I remember hearing on something like NOVA that religious people describe an experience like that too, and since I know religious people who also describe it in a similar way, and NOVA most likely has a greater holistic knowledge of religious people than anyone here, I may have used their knowledge and assumed it to be true. I know a fairly diverse group of religions people who pray regularly, and they have told me of how they think and what members of their religion have described to them and what is normally expected in their religions activities and so on, so I don't see a reason for the evidence to actually be faulty. As you might expect, someone like me doesn't really make enemies with religious groups.

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard it's very similar to what your brain looks like when you are having a conversation with yourself...

I can see how that would work.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not evidence. Evidence is that which can be used to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of an assertion. The Vatican's documentation might be called testimony but even then it would be hearsay. What you really have is the claim that someone was sick, that someone prayed and that the sick person got better. That does not mean that the prayer actually caused the person to get better, just that there was prayer and the person got better. It could be pure coincidence. There is no evidence in the matter to determine or demonstrate the reality or truth of the assertion that prayer itself was responsible for the person getting better.

I agree with you that we don't know that the prayer actually caused the person to get better. But evidence doesn't always demonstrate reality or truth. Unless and until there is sufficient evidence, evidence is simply demonstrating the likelihood of reality or truth. Evidence has not demonstrated relativity to be reality or truth, it has only demonstrated a high degree of likelihood.

 

If I had a closed box I might hypothesize that there is a mouse in the box. For a first test to prove my hypothesis I measure the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of the box, knowing that a mouse will breathe and give off CO2. If I find CO2, I have some evidence to support my hypothesis. I don't think anyone is going to say that my finding of CO2 is not evidence, they are just going to say it is weak and/or insufficient to prove my hypothesis.

 

If someone is trying to make a case for God and they tell me about a Vatican documented miracle, from my perspective they have presented evidence. Weak and insufficient, but evidence nonetheless.

 

I don't understand why "I measured the air coming out of the box and it had 'x' amount of CO2" can be considered evidence, and "I prayed and a test sometime afterward showed the cancer was in remission" is not evidence. To me, both are observations by someone, and both are using that observation to attempt to prove a point.

 

If they really are different I would like to know why. It almost seems as if the only way to declare that the miracle is not evidence, is to make the assumption ahead of time that God does not exist.

 

For argument's sake, let's say that we eventually discover that the exact right prayers had to be said for the miracle to occur, and because people didn't know about the right prayers, we hadn't been able to reproduce the results. But now that we do know the right prayers, we can get the miracle to occur using the scientific method. Would that mean that the miracle that was previously not evidence, now suddenly is evidence? Is something not evidence until the hypothesis is accepted by some critical mass of people?

Edited by zapatos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mooey,

 

But what if you ARE powerful and had tuned into an actual energy that truely exists?

 

Why let existing "methods" tell you it can not be so?

 

"Something" made his chest feel warm. You were touching and any vibrations you were experiencing or projecting were scientifically "able" to resonate in the subject. Eye movements, and muscle movements, and pheremones, and suggestion, were all present and real.

 

Artists have certain "power" over us. Able to touch us with the forms and motions and colors and notes they project.

 

I am not convinced that science "wants" there to be things a person can know without being told. Or powers we have that can not be replicated in a machine, or described in a formula.

 

Personally, I think the individual should be able to use themselves as a test subject, for their own experiments. For instance, one of the things Pinker says in his book "the stuff of thought", which sort of surprised me at first, and sounded initially unscientific, was that he often used himself, and his own judgement of whether a certain, grammatically correct, combination of words "sounded wrong" together. He found that way more often than not, detailed carefully thought out studies of large groups of people, would "find" the same things he thought sounded funny, sounded funny to others.

 

Not that Pinker would give the leeway I am suggesting here, but that, along the same lines, any one of us, is actually in possession of the entire human organism, intact, functioning and existing in the real world, with all the actual connections to it, that actually do, scientifically exist. Intuitions, and feelings, and understandings that I have, should be something that any other human could well have access to as well. If I should "read between the lines" and have a guess about somebody's lifestyle or history, or ideas, based on the "evidence" of his/her words, compared against what I know I might have meant if I said the same words in the same context...I could be accused of "thinking I could read another person's mind". Which we all know science has found no evidence in favor of being actually possible.

 

I might think somebody thinks I am an idiot, based on the mere fact that they act like they think I am an idiot. Why need I wait 'till they tell me they think I am an idiot, to confirm my reading of their thoughts.

 

It is interesting to me, Mooey, that scientific method is so strict as to ask for actual proof and evidence and repeatability, of everything studied and torn away from the actual human complete context it is "used in" (things like prayer and mind reading, and that thing you did, and "the energy of a place" and such) as if human judgement of reality is somehow impaired by delusion and illusion and therefore untrustworthy, while at the same time, using as its most prized validation, none other than, PEER review.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited by tar
Link to post
Share on other sites

People who believe in God are broken

LOL, sounds more like political rhetoric than philosophical debate!

 

iNow has raised an interesting point here. I happen to be religous myself, but I don't deny that most religons do have a tendancy of attracting a certain number of---how shall we say this? Flakes.

 

Indeed, while fufilling my own religous obligations, I occasionally note a few of my co-religonists behaving in ways that hint at a certain instability of mind---exaggerated and attention-seeking displays of phony devotion, an irrational fear of being 'contaminated' by individuals who aren't 'holy enough,' ect. Mind you, these pious nutters are more the of the silly rather than the truly offensive or agressive sort of loony, and more than anything else act as a distraction rather than a real cause of worry.

 

That being said, not all of us are cringing head cases that use religon as some sort of 'psychological refuge' to block out the physical world.

I, for one, did not become especially religous until after I had become familiar the scientific case for Atheism; suffice it to say that I had read the works of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (both of whom I respect immensely,) before I ever seriously read the Bible.

 

Ultimately, though, I found myself unconvinced by the Atheistic explanations for the origins of the physical universe. All of them, from the Steady State Theory to the Big Bang Theory seemed to me to have the same fundamental flaw, that none explain the origin of the actual matter that forms the universe, but simply held that it was always there for no reason---and that just doesn't seem to me to jibe with the modus operandi that the Universe operates by. As far as I can observe, physical objects all seem alike in the fact that they have both a cause and effect. A mountain, for instance, is the effect of the movement of the earth's tetonic plates. A planet is the effect of debris or gases being pulled to a point of gravity. A Black Hole is the effect of the collapse or implosion of a star. Suppose that there was no star at a given point to collapse; could there be a Black Hole existant at that given point? No, there could not, because there would be no cause for a Black Hole. If there was no center of gravity at a given point, could a planet form at that point? No it could not; if there is nothing to cause the planet to be there, then it simply won't exist. Realizing that all the individual parts that compose the Physical Universe are governed by this universal law, it occured to me that it would be unlikely the Universe as a whole would be exempt from it. Hence, if there did not exist a force that existed before physical matter, then the apparent laws of physics would seem to dictate that physical matter itself would have no cause to be extant, consequently precluding the existance of the physical Universe.

 

But then of course, came the proverbial theological dilemma: What then, produced this pre-physical force, this Deity-thing that created it all? In plain English, who made God? Then it occured to me that if indeed there exists a force that predates physical matter, then it would be fallacious to impose physical laws on it. That is, whereas physical matter requires a specific cause, God, if He exists, may not as He would not be a physical object. So ultimately I came to the conclusion that God most likely exists. Does this mean I reject Scientific concepts like Abiogenesis, Darwinistic Evolution, and the like? Certainly not. I am simply of the opinion that these things probably had some non-physical Intelligence behind them.

Edited by Copperhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

But then of course, came the proverbial theological dilemma: What then, produced this pre-physical force, this Deity-thing that created it all? In plain English, who made God? Then it occured to me that if indeed there exists a force that predates physical matter, then it would be fallacious to impose physical laws on it. That is, whereas physical matter requires a specific cause, God, if He exists, would, by defintion not be bound by physical laws. So ultimately I came to the conclusion that God most likely exists. Does this mean I reject Scientific concepts like Abiogenesis, Darwinistic Evolution, and the like? Certainly not. I am simply of the opinion that these things probably had some non-physical Intelligence behind them.

 

Why is physics the way it is? There is still the potential to answer that scientifically. By definition, everything that exists is in the universe, physics effects that which exists is in the universe, therefore god has to be effected by physics in order to exist in the universe, otherwise god doesn't exist, I suppose, according to our current observations of the universe.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Inow had already said I wasn't necessarily wrong even for him, and he boasts a pretty big knowledge of knowing religious people I guess, and other than psychology discussions as I had mentioned well before these recent posts as well as talking to people which I had also mentioned before these recent posts, I guess I don't know of any actual scientific research, although I think I remember hearing on something like NOVA that religious people describe an experience like that too, and since I know religious people who also describe it in a similar way, and NOVA most likely has a greater holistic knowledge of religious people than anyone here, I may have used their knowledge and assumed it to be true. I know a fairly diverse group of religions people who pray regularly, and they have told me of how they think and what members of their religion have described to them and what is normally expected in their religions activities and so on, so I don't see a reason for the evidence to actually be faulty. As you might expect, someone like me doesn't really make enemies with religious groups.

 

Soooo, you do not draw a line anywhere? Anything enough people tell you is probably true? How many people? Two? 100? 10,000? This is a serious question, where do you draw the line? For me the number of people who claim something is meaningless... If I went by numbers of people I would have to say that UFOs absolutely are alien space craft visiting the earth. Literally millions of people have seen them, I view religion the same way, lets see something more than what someone claims, claims are easy, evidence is hard.

 

I was raised fundamentalist Christian, if i had a nickle for every claim of gods presence i have heard i would be rich for sure... I was told quite recently by someone I know and trust that a during church services they saw an angel walking down the center isle, no i don't mean a pretty girl either, several other people saw it too, interestingly no one saw it until one person claimed to have seen it... then several others "saw" it too....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo, you do not draw a line anywhere? Anything enough people tell you is probably true? How many people? Two? 100? 10,000? This is a serious question, where do you draw the line? For me the number of people who claim something is meaningless... If I went by numbers of people I would have to say that UFOs absolutely are alien space craft visiting the earth. Literally millions of people have seen them, I view religion the same way, lets see something more than what someone claims, claims are easy, evidence is hard.

I was raised fundamentalist Christian, if i had a nickle for every claim of gods presence i have heard i would be rich for sure... I was told quite recently by someone I know and trust that a during church services they saw an angel walking down the center isle, no i don't mean a pretty girl either, several other people saw it too, interestingly no one saw it until one person claimed to have seen it... then several others "saw" it too....

Unlike the scriptures of god, it doesn't really have logical contradictions and isn't based solely on faith. Enough scientists say quarks exist, and there's evidence, so I believe there's a high probability they are right, unless your saying those religious people are liars. Enough scientists say dark matter exists, and even if only 100 scientists have actually worked on it, there's enough of them and with that I'll say there's a good chance dark matter does exist.

To them, what they saw was in fact an alien space-craft, unless you have knowledge to prove to them otherwise, because you can only work with what information you have. Do you have extra knowledge to prove that those religious people are lying about their experience? If not, I can only work with what I know which is what they tell me, and I can only know about religious people with the knowledge I have, and the knowledge I have is that based on my experience, religious people often describe praying the manner I had previously said. Since I don't have any more knowledge, I cannot know that any other knowledge exists until I have discovered it, which means I cannot say that they are liars or that most religious people do not experience praying in some manner like that. If you have something that suggests religious people don't often describe it in that manner, that's fine, but so far I have seen nothing like that, so how do I know that knowledge exists?

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that we don't know that the prayer actually caused the person to get better. But evidence doesn't always demonstrate reality or truth. Unless and until there is sufficient evidence, evidence is simply demonstrating the likelihood of reality or truth. Evidence has not demonstrated relativity to be reality or truth, it has only demonstrated a high degree of likelihood.

 

So you are saying that you disagree with this wiki entry?

Edited by doG
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that you disagree with this wiki entry?

 

Still, all of what we say reality is is based only on our observations which are merely perceptions of electrical impulses, not reality itself. If we actually observed reality, we would see objects occupying multiple positions at once that also seem to teleport randomly and time symmetry and who knows how many dimensions.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites
It occured to me that it would be unlikely the Universe as a whole would be exempt from it. Hence, if there did not exist a force that existed before physical matter, then the apparent laws of physics would seem to dictate that physical matter itself would have no cause to be extant, consequently precluding the existance of the physical Universe.

 

But then of course, came the proverbial theological dilemma: What then, produced this pre-physical force, this Deity-thing that created it all? In plain English, who made God? Then it occured to me that if indeed there exists a force that predates physical matter, then it would be fallacious to impose physical laws on it. That is, whereas physical matter requires a specific cause, God, if He exists, may not as He would not be a physical object.

If you're willing to suspend the need for consistency and disregard your requirement for a well understood cause for your god concept, why not do the same for the universe itself? Adding the nebulous and ill-defined term of "god" into the mix doesn't bring additional clarity. It merely introduces an extraneous variable into an already uncertain equation. It is a broken set of reasoning... a double standard.

 

Either way, I'll ask again. It strikes me as hypocritical for you to suspend your personal requirement for a well defined cause when you assert this idea of god, but to simulataneously show an unwillingness to do the same for the universe itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition, everything that exists is in the universe, physics effects that which exists is in the universe,

Not necessarily so. Are you familiar with the Multiverse Theory? It essentially holds that there exist an infinite number of Universes distinct from our own.(If I recollect correctly, Proff. Dawkins outlines the Theory in his book "The God Delusion.") If this is the case, then it is incorrect to say that something that does not exist in the universe (meaning our own) must be non-existant. For all we know, "God" could be operating out of any one of the infinite number of universes proposed by Dawkins.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.