Synaesthesia

Just as an aside, I have yet to meed anyone who has yet given a coherent characterization of any intrinsic property, moral or otherwise, that cannot be better described as relational.

Even if we grant a dualist ontology (whatever that actually means is inevitably cloudy), it becomes impossible to relate those intrinsic values to our purely physical world of observation and measurement. Thus, if morality is to remain relevant, it has to do better than appeal to properties which have no effect on anything.

Tercel,
Since your belief inevitably, inescapably departs from the rational, it's only fair to argue against it on those grounds. Appeals to the mystical can support any belief, so it's only fair to challenge your belief in the grounds of it's motivations.

In the case of this variety of atheist, most of us do not pretend to have access to any infinite, supernatural... thing. Our access to the world is publicly observable, can be discussed, criticized debated. You are free to challenge our assertions about what motivates our beliefs, but know that our claims about this subject are not as dubious as yours.

You posit access that is not only undetectable, but which can be accounted for without any appeal to an infinitely unparsimonous traditional belief. The analogous doubts do not exist about our posits, since this world has already been established as a legitimate object of investigation.

If I am deluded about some fact or another, please, discuss, criticize. I have nothing up my sleeve. You do, since you claim to have something which is in principle inacessible to me. I seriously doubt this claim since, if you are indeed to be believed, you need a carteisan pineal gland. Where is it?

Although it did not unto itself motivate my atheism, one of my major drives to examine my faith was the fact that God didn't seem to make a difference to anything. Faith in him and faith in, well, any arbitrary thing seemed just as useful and valid.

I think the emptiness of the heavens, the absolute silence and impotence of God speak very loudly. This is not just a childish expectation that an all powerful God will be at our beck and call. It is the expectation that if God exists, he can be found without abandoning rationality, in the same ways that the believers in false Gods and illusions do.

Because God is not a parent to me, in other words is not the point of this argument. The point is that he is not more than any illusion, even if he exists.

Family Man

Diana, this is exactly what I was trying to get at, but you expressed it much better.

spurly

Its a good question. Here is what Christ said: "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

In order to know, we have to allow him to take charge. As we follow his lead, we will know whether or not he is Lord.

spurly

Hey, just curious. What's got you going back and forth on whether or not you accept the whole God/Christ thing?

Tercel

Both hypotheses predict that I'd be able to feel the desk. How then is my feeling the desk any evidence for one hypothesis over the other?

There is no evidence for the existence of the planet Xasd and no evidence against it. How does this fact consistute evidence for either hypothesis over the other? There is no proof for the existence of Earth either (only an observation that it appears to you to exist, which can be explained equally by either hypothesis) -so how is one hypothesis therefore more evidenced than the other?

Family Man

Because you need to provide evidence for Xasd. Hypothesis A requires no such evidence.

There's no evidence for or against Santa Claus, or Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn either. Does that answer your question?

But I'm not requiring proof. I'm requiring evidence. I've got plenty of evidence -- through observation -- of Hypothesis A. Could be mistaken, but I doubt that. There is, however, zero evidence for hypothesis B. Therefore, I feel fully comfortable that hypothesis A is a reasonable theory while hypothesis B is just a silly hypothetical posed primarily to support an unsupportable position.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

I've got two hypothesises for you, Tercel.

Hypothesis A: Tercel is pretty much what he claims to be: a sincere human who subscribes to the Christian belief.

Hypothesis B: Tercel is a space alien from Betelgeuse who lives on Earth because he's become addicted to slurping human brains and polka dancing. His Christian belief is merely a cover.

Note that both hypothesises adequately explain the presence of a being called Tercel.

Question: is there any reason why we should take hypothesis B seriously? And if not, why should we take the planet Xasd seriously?

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Kassiana

Funny, same thing happened to me, only it was a black velvet dress for my Barbie and the book "Puff the Magic Dragon." Searched for those things for years. Still haven't found them. Oh well.

seebs

Yeah, why's God always in the last place you look?

I think forming opinions about matters like this is more like selecting axioms than like proving or disproving theorems. I have never seen a convincing argument for or against the God I believe in. I believe for the same reason I trust the rest of my primary experience; it seems to me that this is so.

luvluv

Hi, Tercel!