Heartland

Following on from the evolution v creation debate that used to be the US election (wouldn't it be great if politics worked like that as well?) I thought I'd drag the whole religion thing into a new thread. I'd give it half a page before it turns into a detailed analysis of voter intimidation in the Ukraine.

Anyway, the whole concept of religious experience:

A friend of mine, a well-educated and far from unintelligent friend, is a deeply committed Christian. In the past she worked in China (mainly Szechuan province) helping drug addicts to clean up and rebuild their lives. This was through the auspices of a Christian charity, and if you ask her about it she is certain that what was happening was she (and her colleagues) were bringing God's light into the lives of the addicts and it was that, and that alone, which enabled some of them to recover. She freely and genuinely uses the word "miracle" to describe this.

Personally I don't believe in God so find this hard to imagine, but I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of her beliefs. Without having been there myself I can't come up with a viable alternative, but that is based on lack of knowledge. The only conclusion I might reach is that Anna can be scarily persuasive on occasion, but I'm not sure that's hugely valid.

On a related note, during my second year at Uni a number of things started to go wrong for me (details quite dull, but it wasn't a happy time) and I took to drinking rather more heavily than I should. Around this time I also became friendly with a girl on my course who was involved in the campus Christian Union (and more relevantly had huge tits and a mane of blonde hair - no-one said I was sophisticated!). After a few months of acting like a drunken bum and being generally offensive I started to pull myself together - though part of the legacy of that time is that I almost never get drunk any more. For me that was a response to an internal reflex of disgust at my own behaviour: I stopped liking myself and changed. To Becca, that self-loathing was prompted by God and my clean-up was divinely inspired which, having been there, I would dismiss as patent, patronising rubbish.

Does Becca's dewy-eyed happy-clapping automatically invalidate Anna's story? Or should I not set too much store by the fact that in most areas of her life Becca was an idiot (not a religious judgement, a personality one. Honest)? Alternatively, am I too arrogant and self-absorbed to recognise any kind of external pressure on my life (see 'no man is an island' and all that)?

And ultimately, does it matter? The events we are referring to happened, even if we don't quite understand how. God's existence is not affected by my scepticism: if it exists, it will continue to do so regardless of what I think. The same applies to the individual will to change one's behaviour.

Or Leonid Kravchuk. Who knows?

When I was around 14-15 years old, my mother became a "born-again" Christian after some time spent in hospital. She claims to have had an experience of "meeting Jesus".

This led me to make a deep examination of my own beliefs, and eventually led me to the conclusion of atheism.

As part of this journey, I tried many things, including meditation. Through meditation, I achieved an altered state of consciousness in which I experienced a sense of connection with the entire universe... and some years later I experienced the same state under a heavy dose of cannabis

Now I cannot say for certain that all religious experience is due to chemical changes in the brain, but the linking of these two experiences has certainly led me to the likelihood of this conclusion.

I believe that people who have experienced "the Holy Spirit" or "meeting with Jesus" or however they label their experience, have in all probability had some sort of spontaneous altered state of consciousness, which they have in all sincerity interpreted in the light of their upbringing. (One is tempted to call it indoctrination ) After all, very few religious believers are part of a religion other than that of their parents or their larger community.

(An obvious exception to this generalisation is the preponderance of "cults"; these, almost without exception, practice what is commonly called "brainwashing". In psychobabble jargon, they remove the parental/authority imprints present in the subject and replace them with new imprints designed to keep the subject under the cult's control. Part of this imprinting procedure involves deliberate creation of altered states of consciousness; sometimes through lack of food, sometimes through lack of sleep, sometimes through "hypnotic regression", sometimes through drugs. The altered state is then interpreted in the light of whatever the cult leaders wish the subject to believe.

Again, there are some who interpret their altered states of consciousness in a negative light. The main groups I can think of are alien abductees and "satanic ritual abuse survivors". In the past, these people would probably have believed themselves to have been attacked or possessed by demons; the fact that they have gone to UFO researchers rather than to their priests with their reports of these experiences is IMO the only difference.)

This is in no way meant to belittle the religious. I am convinced that in almost every case they are sincere. I simply believe they are mistaken.

Put simply, religion is there so that intellectual weaklings can cede all responsibility for life and its quandaries and decisions to their 'god(s)' who'll already have worked it out for them. How nice.

Thus, they are given a 'moral' code which they can live by without having to think about WHY they're doing things - instead of working things out for themselves.

They also, luckily, get to 'pray' when they need guidance or support instead of working things out for themselves. And if things go wrong then it's 'meant to be' - as opposed to it being a mistake/'f*ck up' because one has just made the wrong choice.

There's so much more to this, obviously, but I'm afraid - after having experienced people in my own circle of friends, acquaintances and family who have religion - that I've got no patience with these people who are happy to let some non-existent god thing rule the way they live.

Religion is an invention of humankind to explain things away like the fact we only have one life and then we DIE and that's it. It's there just to help people feel better...and keep them under control without them realising it.

As a result of having NO religion I still have long, dark nights of the soul...but only because I'm trying to work things out for myself.

My message: Get real! Make your own decisions and stop relying on a non-existent 'God' to decide things for you. It's a copout and you won't be thanked by anybody once you're dead.

Oh, and by the way, any country who is ruled by someone who claims to be told by 'god' to do this and that is to be feared. Anybody else out there on a day-to-day level who hears voices would end up institutionalised...but if it's 'god' then somehow it's OK...What a load of crap.

Thankyouandgoodnight.

Just read my new sig. Nuff said!!

Lars Svensson wrote:Thus, they are given a 'moral' code which they can live by without having to think about WHY they're doing things - instead of working things out for themselves.

Oh yes. I get sick and tired of hearing "If you're an atheist doesn't that mean you have no morals?"

To me it seems that (some) Christians do "good works" in the expectation that it will get them into heaven. Doing good to seek rewards is of less moral value than doing good for its own sake surely?

There's interesting implications for morality in the standard Christian answers to the "Problem Of Evil":

Why does evil exist?
1 If God cannot prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.
2 If God does not wish to prevent evil, then he is not good.
3 If God neither can nor wishes to prevent evil, then he is not worthy to be called God.

Let's define a few things:

PoE = the Problem of Evil. (stated above)
Evil = unjustified suffering or suffering without a reason.
EoG = the Existence of (the Christian) God.

Let's grant to the Christian that suffering is compatible with the existence of God (EoG, we speak of the Christian god). Suffering alone is no evidence against the EoG, as far as it is justified. For example, going to the dentist can cause a lot of pain (suffering), but it is far worse to die because of an infected abscess (for example). Sometimes, we have to suffer for a higher good. This is justified suffering. And than there is evil, suffering for no good, for no higher reason - and that is what God should prevent, if we can call him good.

A good person (or God) is someone who tries to save other people from unjustified suffering (= evil), if it is in his might. If God is omnipotent, it is possible for him to prevent evil, but it is not possible to prevent suffering, because this could involve a logical contradiction. That is, in the case that the suffering of A could only be prevented by making B suffer, it would be logical impossible to prevent suffering completely. Either A or B has to suffer.

Of course, this implies the following definition of omnipotence:

Omnipotence = the ability to do everything that is logically possible.

What is if omnipotence ist the ability to do everything, even if it is logically impossible? In this case, the PoE is tightened up. Because in our example above, it would be possible to prevent A and B from suffering, though it is a logical contradiction. In this case, suffering itself would be evidence against the EoG. Every logical solution for the PoE would fail. Say, one solution to the PoE would be that the "higher good" of free will would involve suffering. That is, if A exercises his free will, he could make B suffer. If God could act in a way that he could do the logical impossible, than there would be no necessity that A's free will would inflict suffering on B.

So if there is a solution to the PoE, it has to show that all suffering is justified, and this is only possible when God has to act according to the laws of logic.

Perfect solution to the PoE = a logical solution that proves that God could not prevent suffering and that all suffering is necessary. That is, no evil exists.

Now let's grant to the Christian that he has this perfect solution for the PoE, a solution, that can explain all suffering. The normal approach for the atheist would be to show that this solution is not perfect, but fails to explain some evil, and this evil would be evidence against the EoG.

It is superfluous for the atheist to attack the solution of the Christian! He does not have to prove that the solution fails. He can grant to the Christian that his solution is perfect - and this would show that there is no God or that Christian morality fails, or both. And it would show that the Christian religion is false. How?

The crucial point is, that when we accept the perfect solution for the PoE, then there will be no evil, because every suffering could be justified. Worse: It would be impossible to do evil. I could torture and murder a young child, but this would be justified for a higher good (whatever the perfect solution is, it could be something else than free will). This would be the end of all morality, which clearly is absurd. The Christian couldn't point to the ten commandments and claim that they are necessary, because one goal of morals - to prevent evil - would be granted no matter how I behave, if he is right with his perfect solution to the PoE.

If he isn't right, of course, evil would be evidence against his God. If he is right, he would have destroyed every form of morality. This would be evidence against his God, the founder of his moral assumptions, because it would prove that morality isn't necessary, everything goes.

And even worse: If the perfect solution does exist, the Christian has proven that even God cannot actualize a world without suffering. That is, there is no heaven or we will suffer in heaven - eternally, which means, heaven is another word for hell. If God is able to create heaven, he should have done this from the start. Either, he didn't want this (than he cannot be called good), or, he wasn't able - in this case he is not omnipotent.

The "Fall" (= original sin) is simply no explanation for this, because God was either not able to prevent the fall from happening (which means, in heaven this could happen again), or, he did want this to happen, in which case he couldn't be called "good".

To make it short: Either, the solution to the PoE fails, and there is no reason to assume that the Christian God exists, or it succeeds, and there will be no heaven (and therefore, Christianity is a false religion). The solution will fail if God is not bound by logic, but if he is bound by logic, it does not matter if a logical solution to the PoE is possible or not, the outcome does not matter, because either the Christian god does not exist, or heaven does not exist, or both.

Whatever defence the Christian arrives at, he is forced to the conclusion that either:
God is not omnipotent (which denies his conception of God)
God is not good (which also denies his conception of God)
or God does not exist.

QED
*Goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing*

Religion - Public Image Ltd

Stained glass windows keep the cold outside
While the hypocrites hide inside
With the lies of statues in their minds
Where the Christian religion made them blind
Where they hide
And prey to the God of a bitch spelled backwards is dog
Not for one race, one creed, one world
But for money
Effective
Absurd

Do you pray to the Holy Ghost when you suck your host
Do you read who’s dead in the Irish Post
Do you give away the cash you can’t afford
On bended knees and pray to lord

Fat pig priest
Sanctimonious smiles
He takes the money
You take the lies
This is religion and Jesus Christ
This is religion cheaply priced
This is bibles full of libel
This is sin in eternal hymn
This is what they’ve done
This is your religion
The apostles were eleven
Now there’s a sod in Heaven

This is religion
There’s a liar on the altar
The sermon never falter
This is religion
Your religion

Well whatever happens folks. Just remember this............

I think this sums it all up:

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422

Man tries to convert lions to Jesus, gets bitten
46-year-old leaps into den at Taipei Zoo, calls beasts to Christianity

TAIPEI, Taiwan - A man leaped into a lion’s den at the Taipei Zoo on Wednesday to try to convert the king of beasts to Christianity, but was bitten in the leg for his efforts.

“Jesus will save you!� shouted the 46-year-old man at two African lions lounging under a tree a few meters away.

“Come bite me!� he said with both hands raised, television footage showed.

One of the lions, a large male with a shaggy mane, bit the man in his right leg before zoo workers drove it off with water hoses and tranquilizer guns.

Newspapers said that the lions had been fed earlier in the day, otherwise the man might have been more seriously hurt ... or worse.

lazarus corporation wrote:I think this sums it all up:

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396422

Man tries to convert lions to Jesus, gets bitten
46-year-old leaps into den at Taipei Zoo, calls beasts to Christianity

TAIPEI, Taiwan - A man leaped into a lion’s den at the Taipei Zoo on Wednesday to try to convert the king of beasts to Christianity, but was bitten in the leg for his efforts.

“Jesus will save you!� shouted the 46-year-old man at two African lions lounging under a tree a few meters away.

“Come bite me!� he said with both hands raised, television footage showed.

One of the lions, a large male with a shaggy mane, bit the man in his right leg before zoo workers drove it off with water hoses and tranquilizer guns.

Newspapers said that the lions had been fed earlier in the day, otherwise the man might have been more seriously hurt ... or worse.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week.

they sound a bit like Nirvana, don't they?

You could be preaching to the choir here guys...!

Anyway, I thought the standard Christian response to the Problem of Evil, etc, was that God moves in mysterious ways, he's not subject to the rules of logic & we mortals aren't SUPPOSED to know what's going on?

Just like to say as a devout Athiest I am actually offended by a lot of religous dogma!
& then I just go down the pub

B
E---7--x-x-x--7--x-x--7-7--x--7--x-x-x-x---------
B---7--x-x-x--7--x-x--7-7--x--7--x-x-x-x---------
G---8--x-x-x--8--x-x--8-8--x--8--x-x-x-x---------
D---9--x-x-x--9--x-x--9-9--x--9--x-x-x-x---------
A---9--x-x-x--9--x-x--9-9--x--9--x-x-x-x---------
E---7--x-x-x--7--x-x--7-7--x--7--x-x-x-x---------

@ MF: Doesn't that eliminate free will? Remember we are dealing with God the Father here, not God the meglomaniac dictator.

As an omnipotent being he can intervene and prevent evil (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Flood) but having accepted that mankind should and will have the freedom to make its own choices now takes a laissez-faire approach with the prospect of infinite love and redemption (think most of the New Testament).

It's not that different from human parenting: I'm sure most of us has been asked/advised/told not to do something by our parents at some stage then gone ahead and done it anyway (often because of the parental contribution). It becomes a learning experience and eventually results in improved patterns of learned behaviour. That misbehaviour doesn't automatically our parents bad or non-existant, it merely reflects the fact that individuals have a significant measure of free will in determining their actions.

Your example of the child killer: once our man has conceived of his desire to harm the child, what can God do? He can use his omnipotence to directly intervene and physically prevent the child from being harmed, but that does nothing about the root cause of the "evil", ie the desire of the now-frustrated perpetrator. You can't have personal morality based on a literal inability to misbehave. See A Clockwork Orange to have that point better expressed than I can manage.

I'd contend that your proof fails on your claim #2: If God does not wish to prevent evil, then he is not good.

I'm not sure their is any textual evidence to say that the New Testament God has any intention of eliminating evil. Instead the Christian faith revolves around offering carrots (redemption, living within the love of Christ) and sticks (eternal damnation, exclusion from Christ) to encourage people to make the "right" (ie non-evil) choices.

Of course, the whole OT/NT confusion, while making for a compelling narrative, does little to create any sort of viable template for morality. Instead it seems to simultaneously support inconsistent positions (eye for an eye v turn the other cheek) prompting enormous confusion over what "Christian" or even "Judeo-Christian" values might actually be. But the fact that the Bible is a better novel than it is philosophical tract does not in itself deny the existance of God.

Sorry, missed this bit:

And even worse: If the perfect solution does exist, the Christian has proven that even God cannot actualize a world without suffering. That is, there is no heaven or we will suffer in heaven - eternally, which means, heaven is another word for hell. If God is able to create heaven, he should have done this from the start. Either, he didn't want this (than he cannot be called good), or, he wasn't able - in this case he is not omnipotent.

Surely the Christian has proven that God has not actualised a world without suffering in this temporal domain, which we knew anyway.

Remember if God is infinite and heaven is eternal it could quite plausibly run to different rules. God did create heaven from the start, but by allowing free will he ran the risk of mankind breaking the rules (serpents, apples etc). There's no theoretical (in either sense) barrier to re-creating a different Garden of Eden as a paradisical afterlife for the chosen ones, learning from the "mistake" of the Tree of Knowledge and removing it. Sounds dull to me, but I'm unlikely to be chosen anyway

Of course, free will could be taken as fairly compelling evidence of the non-existance of God, but that's a different shooting match altogether.

Enjoy your Monday, people!

Selective extracts from Boudicca on a different thread:

I was brought up on Bach! (where did it all go wrong )
I was a little unclear about what I meant by faith. The examples you give are, to me, results of great strength of human character and ability. I would even say spirit and inspiration, although I mean that in an entirely flesh-and-blood, this-world way. It is amazing what human psychology is capable of - the strength of a single person or a group of people on a m*****n (sorry! ) to achieve something. And yes, many of these missions (sorry again!) were in the name of God, but there are plenty of situations where human beings have directed this same instinct to achieve great things into non-religious actions and creations.

True, but an astonishingly high proportion have been created either in support of, or reaction against a prevailing belief system or philosophy. It would be unfair to describe Solzenitsyn as a communist writer, or Shostakovich as a communist musician but it is unlikely either would have produced what they did had communism not existed. The impact of religion and religious faith on the way it has shaped society (even our current secular, post-God society) is astronomical. Sisters of Mercy, anyone (oops, close to coming on topic here!).

When I say "faith", I mean sheer close-mindedness, inability to accept any reality other than the one you have faith in, no matter how much evidence is brought to your attention that contradicts your belief. The thing about all the great human achievements you've described is they were all quite possible, with extreme effort. There was a lot of evidence that they were difficult, but not impossible. I suppose a main function of science is to push the boundaries of what exactly is possible for us humans, and to explore the grey area of uncertainty.

So do you believe in anything at all? Do you have any aspirations and hopes, either personally or more generally (aside from unspeakable acts with short-arsed bad-tempered singers )? I have faith (for want of a better word) that I am capable of achieving certain things in the future that are currently beyond me. Professional aspirations, that sort of thing. Nothing too extreme. There are good reasons why these may not happen (spending too much time in the office arguing on here, for instance ), but I'd rather believe that I _can_ do it and strive to achieve rather than pay too much attention to the doubters. Does that materially differ from having a "close-minded" belief in a God or philosophy/belief system?

But if I told you I had faith that one day, if I just "focused my energies" enough, I'd turn into Joanna Lumley (in order to fulfil all Von's wildest fantasies of course), you'd see that I was a poor deluded soul, because my "faith" would be in something completely impossible. Every piece of evidence flies in the face of my belief that I can transform into another human being who is about 40 years older than I am, but I'm not going to let that shake my faith.

Depends what you would regard as a transformation. Arguably with plastic surgery and elocution lessons you could make yourself into a passable imitation. Can't imagine _why_, but I can't stand the woman anyway. Throw in a well-planned abduction/assassination and you might be able to effectively appropriate Ms Lumley's life. Hugely implausible, but arguably not impossible - certainly no more difficult that many of the achievements discussed at the start. I really hope you're not sufficiently unhinged to try this, btw. I'll be watching the news closely!.

The world is full of people who believe utterly bizarre things in the face of all sorts of evidence because psychologically, it's the most comfortable way they know to exist. Psychiatric wards are full of them, and I've a feeling evangelical churches are even fuller.

True enough. But look at the persistent role of the "outsider" in popular mythology. Look at the number of geniuses (genii?) who were initially dismissed as crazy? In the Russian Orthodox tradition the Yurodivy, or Holy Fool is a key agent in bridging the gap between church and people (that was the way in for charlatans like Rasputin to gain influence, but also the inspiration for Dostoevsky's tragic hero Myshkin in The Idiot). People like Terence McKenna have made similar arguments in respect of Shamanism and the use of psychodelics - the garnering of insight from "madness".

Obviously, not every nutter is blessed with some form of higher truth (not in my opinion, anyway) but distinguishing between the deranged and the genius may not be wholly straightforward.

andymackem wrote:It's not that different from human parenting: I'm sure most of us has been asked/advised/told not to do something by our parents at some stage then gone ahead and done it anyway (often because of the parental contribution). It becomes a learning experience and eventually results in improved patterns of learned behaviour. That misbehaviour doesn't automatically our parents bad or non-existant, it merely reflects the fact that individuals have a significant measure of free will in determining their actions.

In some ways, this is like my example of the dentist. One willingly submits to a small suffering now to avoid a larger suffering later. One suffers in order to learn; fine. But how can we tell, not knowing the mind of God, which suffering serves his higher purpose, and which suffering is truly unnecessary and by my definition evil? We cannot. In fact if there is a perfect solution to the PoE, all suffering is justified and there is no such thing as evil. This destroys morality.

andymackem wrote:Your example of the child killer: once our man has conceived of his desire to harm the child, what can God do? He can use his omnipotence to directly intervene and physically prevent the child from being harmed, but that does nothing about the root cause of the "evil", ie the desire of the now-frustrated perpetrator. You can't have personal morality based on a literal inability to misbehave. See A Clockwork Orange to have that point better expressed than I can manage.

I do see your point, but for a God for whom "all things are possible"; can He not create a free will which does not involve any desire to do evil? If not then is He still omnipotent?

The Christian theology even includes beings with free will who have never chosen evil (the angels, specifically Michael and Gabriel) so why did God not give humans this same kind of free will?
Cannot ==> not omnipotent
Will not ==> not good

This is beside the point though. The point is whether I should intervene in the case where I see a child-killer about to kill a child? If I say yes, how am I to know whether the evil of a child being murdered does not lead to a higher good? Then by preventing the killing I might be committing a worse evil. This is surely absurd. The solution to the PoE destroys morality.

andymackem wrote:I'm not sure their is any textual evidence to say that the New Testament God has any intention of eliminating evil.

If this is the case, then how can He be called good?

andymackem wrote:learning from the "mistake" of the Tree of Knowledge and removing it.

How can an omnipotent omniscient being be capable of making a "mistake"?

Theology is left with the problem that a supposedly good God has created a universe containing evil; and if the claim is allowed that all evil serves some greater good (whether this greater good be human free will or some other unknown purpose) then this redefines "evil" as "good" which destroys morality.

as an agnost I always find very offensive that atheists are sometimes as dogmatic as the most devout christians...
with the exception they THINK they have science on their side although science doesn't even cover the same grounds as religion (and this I say as a mathematician with serious knowledge of philosophy of science...)

randdebiel² wrote:as an agnost I always find very offensive that atheists are sometimes as dogmatic as the most devout christians...
with the exception they THINK they have science on their side although science doesn't even cover the same grounds as religion (and this I say as a mathematician with serious knowledge of philosophy of science...)

Given. I admit there's a possibility I may be wrong.

I just don't think I am.

markfiend wrote:The Christian theology even includes beings with free will who have never chosen evil (the angels, specifically Michael and Gabriel) so why did God not give humans this same kind of free will?
Cannot ==> not omnipotent
Will not ==> not good

He did. Humans who do not choose evil become Saints (in theory, at least). But most of us are a bit corrupt at heart and therefore do bad things and cannot match up to the most holy ideals. Or, in brief, s**t happens!

markfiend wrote:I do see your point, but for a God for whom "all things are possible"; can He not create a free will which does not involve any desire to do evil? If not then is He still omnipotent?

Interesting. I'd argue that a free will which cannot involve a desire to do evil is not a free will, and is implicitly invalid following your earlier acceptance that an omnipotent can do anything "that is logically" possible.

Arguably an omnipotent God could choose to create a "semi-free will" (for want of a better term) where people can choose between being good or being even better. But, in my view, that wouldn't be free will and isn't what the God we are debating has chosen to do. Choosing not to do something that you could do doesn't render you impotent - one assumes that God also has free will.

markfiend wrote:Theology is left with the problem that a supposedly good God has created a universe containing evil; and if the claim is allowed that all evil serves some greater good (whether this greater good be human free will or some other unknown purpose) then this redefines "evil" as "good" which destroys morality.

Or has our God created a neutral universe into which humanity has brought evil? How interventionist is he? Post-christ he in non-interventionist (in my reading of the Bible). Pre-christ, as a God of Wrath and a dictator he attempts to destroy evil, but concludes that this irrevocably undermines his creation - is the rainbow that follows Noah's Flood not an implicit gesture of negotiated truce with mankind?

You can conclude that this is no longer the Christian God, and as I suggested above the whole OT/NT conflict renders the Christian God somewhat incoherent, but that doesn't stop it being an omnipotent supreme being.

Tangentally, morality cannot exist in a vacuum - it has to be relative. Even the semi-free will I suggested above still involves a scale of moral goodness. Logic would suggest that you can invert the scale and create the different circles of hell with varying levels of damnation according to the severity of the crimes being punished - see Dante, and in effect any legal system you care to name. Plausibly you could have circles of heaven as well (is this where the expression "seventh heaven" comes from? Don't know).

We need to find the Babel Fish!

andymackem wrote:Personally I don't believe in God

It's just struck me as ironic that we're arguing over precisely what kind of God we don't believe in...

markfiend wrote:Given. I admit there's a possibility I may be wrong.

I just don't think I am.

they don't think either...but that's quite the point, neither you neither them can be sure...
but people trying to bash religion based on something they call logic, but which is always flawed (otherwise, if you could actually prove there's no god, ,the matter would have been resolved long ago, or at least when that proof had been made), which isn't the case, there are lots of philosophers still debating on the matte, why? because science CAN NOT disproof religion, and this fact HAS been proven (amongst other, if you read well, and make the right modifications by Wittgenstein.....)

randdebiel² wrote:

markfiend wrote:Given. I admit there's a possibility I may be wrong.

I just don't think I am.

they don't think either...but that's quite the point, neither you neither them can be sure...
but people trying to bash religion based on something they call logic, but which is always flawed (otherwise, if you could actually prove there's no god, ,the matter would have been resolved long ago, or at least when that proof had been made), which isn't the case, there are lots of philosophers still debating on the matte, why? because science CAN NOT disproof religion, and this fact HAS been proven (amongst other, if you read well, and make the right modifications by Wittgenstein.....)

I was under the impression that, philosophically speaking, you cannot find negative proof. In other words you cannot prove that something does not exist, all you can do is question the evidence for its existence. Moreover you could argue that once you debate the existence of anything it is called into being because you are generating the concept under discussion, if only to refute it.

At which point most normal people accept that it's Monday morning and they should get on with some work!

markfiend wrote:

andymackem wrote:Personally I don't believe in God

It's just struck me as ironic that we're arguing over precisely what kind of God we don't believe in...

Of course. But it's an interesting debate. Might even go so far as to say I was learning something.

Mind, that "something" could simply be don't get bogged down in a religious argument when there are better things to do

Also, the type of god I don't believe in directly affects how concerned I might be about my lack of faith. My non-existent god isn't going to smite me mightily, or damn me into eternity just because of my scepticism. By the sounds of it, yours might

andymackem wrote:
I was under the impression that, philosophically speaking, you cannot find negative proof. In other words you cannot prove that something does not exist, all you can do is question the evidence for its existence. Moreover you could argue that once you debate the existence of anything it is called into being because you are generating the concept under discussion, if only to refute it.

At which point most normal people accept that it's Monday morning and they should get on with some work!

not completely true...you can prover something doesn't exist, if that something is supposed to be in the part of the universe we can reach, you can' t say anythin about something outside that area though