Bosun

Except for the emphasis at the end of your post, your points are well taken. I suppose in every mind what people are doing with regard to the question of the existence of god (or any other question for that matter) is placing the proposition on the proof scale. However, who can say definitively where and with what authority a beleiver derives his belief? You can speak only for your mind.

I still maintain that rational people will arrive at different conclusions even with the weight of the same evidence (or non-evidence if you prefer). To say that atheism is the only rational position to take is pure hubris.

Bosun

copernicus

No you don't. You began your definition in the previous sentence by characterizing that "something" as "sentient". Given that your god is brainless, it is difficult to imagine what would sustain that sentience. Human sentience, the only kind that we have evidence of, is known to be directly rooted in the physical condition of the brain.

Bosun

touche'

ComestibleVenom

Bosun,

I utterly repudiate that sort of epistemological relativism. As a naturalist, I insist that both my mind and your mind are a part of the same world. We do not exist within an independent universe inside your skull.

I can, in fact, discern where beliefs come from. We can study the physical and historical context of that belief to uderstand it's nature.

That each human is ideosynchratic in their blend of influences must keep me open-minded, but I am familiar enough with the mechanisms of faith to reject any claim to knowledgable authority originating within faith.

The authority in question is traditions, ancient writings by goatherders, mass delusions and socially instilled credulity.

Bosun

I find very little to disagree with here.

One thing is have learned in discussion on this thread is how radically the atheist eschews the word belief. As if it were an obscenity. But it seems to me that one cannot exist without belief. You must believe that if you walk in front of a speeding car, you will get seriously injured. Your experience has conditioned you reflexively to believe it, even though there is a small chance that the atoms of the car and the atoms of you will pass through each other. Matter is, after all, mostly empty space.

Believers in less less material phenomena, I think, are likewise informed by experience. Forget the goatherders and the like (with which I agree with you fully) there must be some positive feedback to the practitioner of religious observance that reinforces the belief. Whether it be prayer, meditation, yoga or whatever. The fact that such observances do nothing for me doesn't mean that others do not feel a positive influence from them. I am unwilling to deny that for them the experience is literally as real as the car. I think a problem arises from the idea that since they feel such a positive influence in their minds, that we all must also feel it, if we only choose to.

In short, I think that everyone must find his/her own very private attitude about the nature of our existence and the origins thereof. I believe that no one's conclusions as a result of that attitude is superior to anyone else's. Some folks just have a need to reach out to find common ground with like believers (or non believers, if you will). As if intercourse with them validates their position. I think atheists are just as suseptable to this as Baptists. Which is a great thing about this site, and the internet in general.

Bosun

Fred

I saw a tv show that showed the bush burning phenomena in the middle east is something that happens regulary. Apparently it has to do with rocks somehow sparking and foliage catching fire. I think it happens when rocks move, when kicked for example.

As for the opening question. I guess God could always just turn up, as God. Not as a pigeon, or a vulture, or a gust of wind. Just open the clouds and peek through. Like in Monty Python

HRG

But supernatural creation by a disembodied mind is within our experience, right ?

Besides, our everyday experience is limited to a small space-time patch, at small velocities and weak gravitational fields, and to macroscopic (=non-quantum) phenomena. It is a poor guide to cosmology.
Equally, it can be regarded as evidence for the absence of supernatural beings who could otherwise disturb the natural regularities of the universe. BTW, every universe "obeys" some laws; laws can also be statistical.

And we haven't touched yet the "creator of the creator"-problem . The creation hypothesis tries to explain the (perceived by its adherents) complexity of the universe by postulating an even more complex creator. I.e. it tries to solve a problem by reducing it to a more difficult problem. That's not the way things work!

regards,
HRG.

Irishbrutha

Sorry this response is so late in the thread. I was reading from the beginning and it just hit me as I came across it....is this that intellectual objectivity that malookiemalo was referring to? Only the utterly objective individual would make such a categorical statement in total and unconcerned defiance of western philosophy. Ahhh well, I guess I'll never understand confined as I am within the walls of my own delusion... :banghead:
-Shaun

diana

Someone may have already mentioned this, but that would be your Robert A. Heinlein meme.

d

Nowhere357

Western philosophy is based on Christian mythology? What are you talking about?

And what is an "utterly objective individual"? Skeptics don't have emotions? Again, what are you talking about?

And what does any of this have to do with evidence and xian mythology? The bible is full of flaws of all kinds - any evidence is best interpreted under some other light - we would get cramps trying to make the bible sit up and behave.

I'm not responsible for the inconsistent Christian worldview.