Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyrdsmyth · 10-31-2002, 01:05 PM

If the evidence is strong enough, it doesn't really matter what kind of attitude one has. As long as one is not totally overzealous or close-minded (the two ends of the spectrum), strong evidence will convince people something is the case.

A good example of this is evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. At one time, the Catholic Church had the "wrong attitude" and didn't even want to look at the evidence for this. They weren't even willing to consider it, because from their perspective it contradicted religious convictions they had. But over time, people were persuaded, because the evidence for this position could be demonstrated to them. I think the same applies to the theory of evolution over the past century or so -- a lot of people don't want to believe it, they are not open to the possibility it is true, and they don't really want to examine the evidence. The point is, no one has a vested interest in getting you to believe these things, and you are free to study astronomy and paleontology for yourself, and arrive at your own conclusions. Science has to adapt itself to the evidence -- even if, no, especially when, the evidence is incompatible with current understanding.

I think, SOMMS, you are putting the cart before of the horse when you suggest that the amount of evidence we get for God is dependent upon our attitude about God. Because, for most of us, our attitude about God (or the possibility he exists) derives from how much evidence we've seen so far, and how we've evaluated it. You and I probably have the same attitudes towards Athena, Osirus and Vishnu, for example; based on what we know, we think the most likely explanation for them is that they are fictions invented by man. I don't think that's a close-minded view, exactly, since I would be willing to examine evidence if it were brought before me, from a believer in one of those deities. Would you?

It would be a pretty messed up universe if it were lorded over by a god who only revealed himself to those who were predisposed to believing in him. Because we are justified in asking: what (or who) is it that makes people predisposed to believing in God in the first place?

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

Psycho Economist · 10-31-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Again...this may be why you see no evidence for God. It wouldn't matter if you did.

Why do you have this hang-up on sovereign authority? Is that all your god is to you: the universe's slave owner?

I'd want to have a dialogue with your God; get him to explain to me why the way it is is the way it ought to be... why he's right about something if it goes against this conscience I have that he supposedly gave me...

But that aside, you'd figure that there would be highly demonstrable traces of this God's footprint on the world that could withstand critical scrutiny. To say "there's plenty of evidence, if you already believe" defies the nature of the word evidence.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 01:39 PM

Humper,

Quote:

Originally posted by Bible Humper:
Why is my post being ignored, SOMMS?

Dude...I work.

I can only respond to so many posts. Right now Psycho and I are discoursing but I would really like to get to K's and Jobars comments.

Sorry...I was in no way ignoring you. I'll get to your post as soon as I can.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 01:52 PM

Psycho,

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

Why do you have this hang-up on sovereign authority?

I could ask the same of you, who by your own admission, would not acknowledge Gods sovereign authority even if you knew He existed..

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

I'd want to have a dialogue with your God...

Really?

What if having this dialog was contingent upon your attitude?

Would you change it?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Psycho Economist · 10-31-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
I could ask the same of you, who by your own admission, would not acknowledge Gods sovereign authority even if you knew He existed..

I don't have a hang-up on whether or not your god has sovereign authority over me... my concern is whether or not such god exists. You say I'll be blind to all the evidence for his existance until I've already brainwashed myself in believing in him... Okay, well, you say it's until I submit to his soverign authority, but I'd still have to brainwash myself into believing he exists first.

Quote:

What if having this dialog was contingent upon your attitude?

Would you change it?

What are you talking about? You're god is going to unequivocably reveal himself to the world when I no longer need proof of his existance before I believe... He'll come out from behind his supernatural shroud and answer all our questions when we have no more desire to ask them... that sounds like a crock of doublespeak in a bad Daoist disguise to me.

The tao that is seen
is not the true tao until
you add fresh toner.

sandlewood · 10-31-2002, 02:50 PM

SOMMS, I am curious about the authority thing as well. It seems to be that theists have a hidden rule going on there. This rule says that any conscious entity that magically creates another conscious entity out of nothing is morally allowed to do anything it wants to it. It can reward it, torture it, kill it, keep it alive forever�anything. Where does this rule come from?

Simply having physical domination over a human is not enough to justify that rule. Government dictators have had that sort of power. If you are under the subjugation of such a dictator, you have to admit he has authority over you. He can reward you or torture you. But you don�t agree he has the right to, only the ability to.

So what makes God different such that he has the right to? Is it because he created us? A mother creates a child. But she doesn�t have the right to torture it. We have human rights. In fact, if torture is going on anywhere in the world, we feel it is our right to intervene.

As living entities, why don�t we have some equivalent human right just by virtue of our existence? If a god existed, it would be one thing to admit that he had the capability to do anything he wanted to me, but it�s another thing to agree that he has the moral right to do anything to me.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 03:10 PM

Pyscho,

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

I don't have a hang-up on whether or not your god has sovereign authority over me...

But when asked...

Suppose God existed and he created everything. The cosmos, the universe, time and space, matter and energy. He tuned it for life and created mankind, created your family, created you.

Would you acknowledge God's sovereign power and authority over everything?

You replied...

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

I would not.

This is not really an issue of authority. It is a matter of whether or not you would acknowledge God for who He is.

And it seems you would not.

This attitude is what separates you from God. This is why you see no evidence.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Psycho Economist · 10-31-2002, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
... I would really like to get to K's and Jobars comments.

By all means, do so. I think we're all trying to advance the same point in different ways...

Your god exists or does not exist regardless of whether we believe / submit / "have a positive attitude"... unless you take Terry Pratchet on faith.

The evidence for or against your god's existance (in order to qualify as evidence) follows from whether your god exists, not what our beliefs (or "attitudes") are.

Reply to me, reply to them... i'm going to work soon.

TerryTryon · 10-31-2002, 03:30 PM

So now, we've reduced God to Tinkerbell, who when dying in the classic play "Peter Pan" can only be revived if the children in the audience applaud loud and long enough to demonstrate their belief in her.

If anything about God is dependent on my willingness to believe in him, that, in itself, pretty much destroys any reason to worship him as the Almighty. Even as neurotic as I am, I don't refuse to acknowledge my cats because they don't have the "proper attitude" towards me.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:


Your god exists or does not exist regardless of whether we believe / submit / "have a positive attitude"..

True.

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

The evidence for or against your god's existance ..follows from whether your god exists, not what our beliefs (or "attitudes") are.

Incorrect. This may be true for inanimate objects, however, God would not be an inanimate object.

If God only wants to know those who want to know Him...your attitude would definitely affect whether or not you come to know Him.

In that context you have said that regardless of whether God exists or not...you would not acknowledge His authority.

Please consider the following:
By your own admission even if God existed and you knew this you would not follow Him.

Doesn't something seem wrong with this?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

10-31-2002, 01:05 PM	#61
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	If the evidence is strong enough, it doesn't really matter what kind of attitude one has. As long as one is not totally overzealous or close-minded (the two ends of the spectrum), strong evidence will convince people something is the case. A good example of this is evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. At one time, the Catholic Church had the "wrong attitude" and didn't even want to look at the evidence for this. They weren't even willing to consider it, because from their perspective it contradicted religious convictions they had. But over time, people were persuaded, because the evidence for this position could be demonstrated to them. I think the same applies to the theory of evolution over the past century or so -- a lot of people don't want to believe it, they are not open to the possibility it is true, and they don't really want to examine the evidence. The point is, no one has a vested interest in getting you to believe these things, and you are free to study astronomy and paleontology for yourself, and arrive at your own conclusions. Science has to adapt itself to the evidence -- even if, no, especially when, the evidence is incompatible with current understanding. I think, SOMMS, you are putting the cart before of the horse when you suggest that the amount of evidence we get for God is dependent upon our attitude about God. Because, for most of us, our attitude about God (or the possibility he exists) derives from how much evidence we've seen so far, and how we've evaluated it. You and I probably have the same attitudes towards Athena, Osirus and Vishnu, for example; based on what we know, we think the most likely explanation for them is that they are fictions invented by man. I don't think that's a close-minded view, exactly, since I would be willing to examine evidence if it were brought before me, from a believer in one of those deities. Would you? It would be a pretty messed up universe if it were lorded over by a god who only revealed himself to those who were predisposed to believing in him. Because we are justified in asking: what (or who) is it that makes people predisposed to believing in God in the first place? [ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

10-31-2002, 02:50 PM	#66
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	SOMMS, I am curious about the authority thing as well. It seems to be that theists have a hidden rule going on there. This rule says that any conscious entity that magically creates another conscious entity out of nothing is morally allowed to do anything it wants to it. It can reward it, torture it, kill it, keep it alive forever�anything. Where does this rule come from? Simply having physical domination over a human is not enough to justify that rule. Government dictators have had that sort of power. If you are under the subjugation of such a dictator, you have to admit he has authority over you. He can reward you or torture you. But you don�t agree he has the right to, only the ability to. So what makes God different such that he has the right to? Is it because he created us? A mother creates a child. But she doesn�t have the right to torture it. We have human rights. In fact, if torture is going on anywhere in the world, we feel it is our right to intervene. As living entities, why don�t we have some equivalent human right just by virtue of our existence? If a god existed, it would be one thing to admit that he had the capability to do anything he wanted to me, but it�s another thing to agree that he has the moral right to do anything to me. [ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 03:30 PM	#69
TerryTryon Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Glendale, Arizona, USA Posts: 184	So now, we've reduced God to Tinkerbell, who when dying in the classic play "Peter Pan" can only be revived if the children in the audience applaud loud and long enough to demonstrate their belief in her. If anything about God is dependent on my willingness to believe in him, that, in itself, pretty much destroys any reason to worship him as the Almighty. Even as neurotic as I am, I don't refuse to acknowledge my cats because they don't have the "proper attitude" towards me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.