Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends

[PocketFullOf]

Let's not refer to things as if they were facts, when they are only what you're told or what you've read, with a giant touch of personal interpretation.

Religulous was an incredibly dumb one-sided film.

 

[Avocado]

Religulous was an incredibly dumb one-sided film.

I watched it about a year ago this month. I agree it focuses on the nuts from the otherside, but the theists have many arguments which we find nearly as absurd. We just choose to focus on the nuts because they are the only ones who harm the world. Moderates are fine.

 

[á´…eparted]

Because you can't prove god exists with any reasonable evidence whatsoever, I have absolutely no reason to believe he/she/it exists. The debate is enormously tiring and I don't engage in it; all I'll do is simply say the previous statement and move on.

If they get pushy then I'll chew their head off.

 

[PocketFullOf]

I watched it about a year ago this month. I agree it focuses on the nuts from the otherside, but the theists have many arguments which we find nearly as absurd. We just choose to focus on the nuts because they are the only ones who harm the world. Moderates are fine.

I just wish it would have shown moderate theists reactions to extremists as well, to show that there is diversity within religiously minded people, that would have gone a long way to make serious scholars think about taking it seriously, as it is it seems dishonest. I agree though, that religious extremism is scary and the public should be made aware that it is scary and destructive.

 

[indra]

Occam's Science -

All powerful universe or all powerful more-complex than universe conscious being?

Hmmmmmmm.

I do think the universe is funny doe, only not fond of thought-terminating cliches.

 

[senza tema]

Occam's Science -

All powerful universe or all powerful more-complex than universe conscious being?

Hmmmmmmm.

I do think the universe is funny doe, only not fond of thought-terminating cliches.

Do you find God a thought-terminating cliche?

Do you think Occam's Razor is always right?

---

My two cents on this thread which I'll admit I haven't really read all the way through: I'm some flavor of agnostic theist for no reason other than it seems the easiest answer to me. I believe in God as a kind of first creative principle but this has little to no bearing on the way I live life. I'll never be able to prove or disprove it and so I don't know if it's worth trying.

I would very much like to believe in some kind of universal consciousness though, far more than God.

 

[indra]

[MENTION=23222]Arcana[/MENTION]

God is the thought-terminating cliche.

Occam's Razor... A Ferrari doesn't make a racecar driver.

 

[senza tema]

[MENTION=23222]Arcana[/MENTION]

God is the thought-terminating cliche.

Oh, I don't know about that. So much ink has been spilled over God.

A thought-limiting cliche, perhaps.

 

[indra]

Oh, I don't know about that. So much ink has been spilled over God.

A thought-limiting cliche, perhaps.

Context, as always.

 

[Avocado]

I just wish it would have shown moderate theists reactions to extremists as well, to show that there is diversity within religiously minded people, that would have gone a long way to make serious scholars think about taking it seriously, as it is it seems dishonest. I agree though, that religious extremism is scary and the public should be made aware that it is scary and destructive.

I may make my own documentary. I have the tools and have done similar things before.

 

[Lark]

I just wish it would have shown moderate theists reactions to extremists as well, to show that there is diversity within religiously minded people, that would have gone a long way to make serious scholars think about taking it seriously, as it is it seems dishonest. I agree though, that religious extremism is scary and the public should be made aware that it is scary and destructive.

This is a good point, most of the time when anyone is being critical of religion they portray it at its worst and validate atheism, its total binary thinking and an unfortunate dichotomy.

Religion has been the means by which the human race has explained and understood things for the majority of its existence, its had its rivals and while they've proven to be just as bad as religion at its worst they've not yet to prove that they can be as good as religion at its best.

Its strange to me that anyone would want to deny and dismiss this, in an individual if they wanted to deny and jettison the majority of their effective memory it would be considered dysfunctional, or at the very least a little strange, on the societal level its considered functional and progressive? I'll never understand that sort of thing.

 

[Lark]

Do you find God a thought-terminating cliche?

Do you think Occam's Razor is always right?

---

My two cents on this thread which I'll admit I haven't really read all the way through: I'm some flavor of agnostic theist for no reason other than it seems the easiest answer to me. I believe in God as a kind of first creative principle but this has little to no bearing on the way I live life. I'll never be able to prove or disprove it and so I don't know if it's worth trying.

I would very much like to believe in some kind of universal consciousness though, far more than God.

Jungian collective consciousness rather than a deity?

Or the cosmos becoming conscious of itself through the medium of evolved humanity?

I have thought about the prospect of God existing but being far removed from any human definition or as being undefinable, this would mean that God may be to each of us as far removed as we are from molecules or atoms with the same sort of difference of consciousness.

Its a possibility.

Which would also mean that there is no afterlife, no consequence, no divinely ordained order etc. etc.

And traditional religion would have no consolation what so ever for anyone living and dying today. Its as scary a prospect as there being no God in existence to begin with.

 

[Mole]

And traditional religion would have no consolation what so ever for anyone living and dying today. Its as scary a prospect as there being no God in existence to begin with.

Reductionism has been enormously successful in any branch of science.

Yet religion goes in the opposite direction from reductionism. Rather than reducing, religion builds castles in the air. Religion seeks to transcend, to move beyond the natural to the supernatual, to the woo-woo.

Religion does not have its feet on the ground. Whether it is Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse, or the God called Ganesh with the head of an elephant, or the three headed God called the Trinity, all build intricate castles in the air based on shared fantasy.

There is something clean and crisp and successful about reductionism, and something trashy about the supernatural.

 

[senza tema]

Jungian collective consciousness rather than a deity?

Or the cosmos becoming conscious of itself through the medium of evolved humanity?

I have thought about the prospect of God existing but being far removed from any human definition or as being undefinable, this would mean that God may be to each of us as far removed as we are from molecules or atoms with the same sort of difference of consciousness.

Its a possibility.

Which would also mean that there is no afterlife, no consequence, no divinely ordained order etc. etc.

And traditional religion would have no consolation what so ever for anyone living and dying today. Its as scary a prospect as there being no God in existence to begin with.

Not consciousness in the Jungian sense, no, though I suppose that could end up being a byproduct of what I wish were true. My definition is likely closer to your second choice, but without any particular premium on humanity (any kind of life/animation to me would be a fragment of consciousness to me). I guess the closest to it would be a comparison with the Upanishadic conception of consciousness, little souls which merge on death with the great soul. But the great soul wouldn't be a centralized point of focus for me, rather a pool of universal consciousness, I guess. I like the idea of atoms of consciousness.

It's impossible to say though. Given the fact that the physical universe is probably headed towards death by entropy, I don't know what life's fate would be. Nothing long lasting, I'm sure. Consciousness, like order, is probably of severely limited duration in our chaotic world.

Traditional religion has rarely, if ever, been satisfying to me because I have never believed that there will be a god to embrace me when I die. The power of human faith does move me and awe me sometimes, but quite often, I just find it annoying and disruptive.

 

[Lark]

Reductionism has been enormously successful in any branch of science.

Yet religion goes in the opposite direction from reductionism. Rather than reducing, religion builds castles in the air. Religion seeks to transcend, to move beyond the natural to the supernatual, to the woo-woo.

Religion does not have its feet on the ground. Whether it is Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse, or the God called Ganesh with the head of an elephant, or the three headed God called the Trinity, all build intricate castles in the air based on shared fantasy.

There is something clean and crisp and successful about reductionism, and something trashy about the supernatural.

If you were better informed you would think differently. At least I hope you would.

 

[Lark]

Not consciousness in the Jungian sense, no, though I suppose that could end up being a byproduct of what I wish were true. My definition is likely closer to your second choice, but without any particular premium on humanity (any kind of life/animation to me would be a fragment of consciousness to me). I guess the closest to it would be a comparison with the Upanishadic conception of consciousness, little souls which merge on death with the great soul. But the great soul wouldn't be a centralized point of focus for me, rather a pool of universal consciousness, I guess. I like the idea of atoms of consciousness.

It's impossible to say though. Given the fact that the physical universe is probably headed towards death by entropy, I don't know what life's fate would be. Nothing long lasting, I'm sure. Consciousness, like order, is probably of severely limited duration in our chaotic world.

Traditional religion has rarely, if ever, been satisfying to me because I have never believed that there will be a god to embrace me when I die. The power of human faith does move me and awe me sometimes, but quite often, I just find it annoying and disruptive.

There's a lot of traditional religion which isnt deist, like a lot of eastern traditions, although you're probably talking about the traditions of the west if you grew up there.

Cosmic death by entropy? Chaos? What if it isnt so?

 

[PocketFullOf]

There's a lot of traditional religion which isnt deist, like a lot of eastern traditions, although you're probably talking about the traditions of the west if you grew up there.

Cosmic death by entropy? Chaos? What if it isnt so?

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Avocado]

This is a good point, most of the time when anyone is being critical of religion they portray it at its worst and validate atheism, its total binary thinking and an unfortunate dichotomy.

Religion has been the means by which the human race has explained and understood things for the majority of its existence, its had its rivals and while they've proven to be just as bad as religion at its worst they've not yet to prove that they can be as good as religion at its best.

Its strange to me that anyone would want to deny and dismiss this, in an individual if they wanted to deny and jettison the majority of their effective memory it would be considered dysfunctional, or at the very least a little strange, on the societal level its considered functional and progressive? I'll never understand that sort of thing.

I agree that we must learn from our past.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Did you guys figure it out yet?

 

[Qlip]

I actually think it's more important to understand the question itself. It poses itself as some sort of philosophical question, but it's actually a political one. And it's between two specific factions of people, the ones that this answer matters to the most. Is it rational, is it righteous to put so much emphasis on the answer to this specific question? Strangely enough, there are plenty religious and non-religious who don't think so. The question feels provincial to me, and as time goes on I think it will become more so to tha internets.