|
I'm not clear on where you're heading. Are you trying to ask me how Spinoza's works lead to a proof for Superman?
Ummm...no.
I responded to your posts to BNW, including his responses for context.
I gave you my personal definition of God.
I very simply defined Spinoza's argument.
I compared my definition to his.
I acknowledged the Biblical definitions of God, including your selected passage from Titus.
I briefly argued why Biblical definitions don't meet my personal criteria for God (here's where I think my Superman comment confused you).
I gave a cheeky example of why a limited God is like a chocolate-less chocolate cake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I can imagine a more perfect currency total in my bank account, it must therefore exist.
It's always discouraging to see logic met with hostility...but it is sadly common. Embrace rationality and you're a repressive troll douchebag. Nice.
Don't forget you're also a fanatic. And probably militant too. We wouldn't want to miss an adjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a definition of G-D. I'd love for someone to logic it up, but I don't particularly feel that's going to work. I don't believe in G-D because it's logical. Like some people have mentioned, I was taught about Him before I was old enough to have critical thinking developed. After I developed critical thinking, it simply informed me how I would continue to believe in G-D, what parts of the theology I was taught I would accept, etc.
I'm Jewish. I believe the following things.
1. G-D created the world and mankind. He most likely did this by sparking the creation of the universe (Big Bang, First Cause, all that), He may have influenced certain points after that original event. He may not have. Leaps in evolution and such may have been 'God's touch'. There may be a far more mundane cause, however, and it would not hurt my faith to discover that.
2. G-D set the universe in motion according to certain scientific principles. These principles are fairly absolute, and when they appear not to be, I hold that we probably do not have all the information we need to understand the fullness of them.
3. G-D set the universe in motion according to certain moral principles. These principles are likewise fairly absolute. It is why it is better to be kind to others, that we shouldn't kill or disrespect others by taking what is theirs (that's what is actually theirs, this isn't some libertarian argument, people may well hold things in trust for the community, even if our culture holds otherwise) As with science, I feel that when moral principles appear to conflict with each other, we probably don't have all the information to understand them in full.
4. Following those moral principles is a duty of Man here on Earth. Were everyone to follow those principles, life would be indescribably better.
5. Learning those scientific principles is a duty of Man here on Earth. The more we understand of our world, the better we can make use of it, and the better we can make life for all people.
So yeah. Go ahead, Lillith's Thrall. Explain to me how Spinoza logics out a being powerful enough to create the universe, and set up physics and morality to be integral and inviolate within that universe. Not necessarily omnipotent (iron chariots, anyone?), but creating the universe is pretty close to that.
If you need anymore information about my G-D, I'll be happy to provide.
Kain you said what i have been trying to put to words for a couple of days now very well thank you.
|
|
.
Many Christians, most if not damn near all, view god as omnipotent. You disagree. Fine.
And of course, all of this goes back to the famous Epicurus quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
|
|
The problem with Kain's "God", and frankly all "Gods" comes from this lines:
"G-D set the universe in motion according to certain moral principles. These principles are likewise fairly absolute."
"Following those moral principles is a duty of Man here on Earth. Were everyone to follow those principles, life would be indescribably better."
Couching the word "Fairly" before absolute doesn't negate the word "absolute".
Your moral absolute it another persons oppression. When moral authority is believe to come from a "higher power" one can more easily justify personal evil toward fellow man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
Many Christians, most if not damn near all, view god as omnipotent. You disagree. Fine.
And of course, all of this goes back to the famous Epicurus quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
And everyone can play the Home version. Fun for the whole family.
The problem with Kain's "God", and frankly all "Gods" comes from this lines:
"G-D set the universe in motion according to certain moral principles. These principles are likewise fairly absolute."
"Following those moral principles is a duty of Man here on Earth. Were everyone to follow those principles, life would be indescribably better."
Couching the word "Fairly" before absolute doesn't negate the word "absolute".
Your moral absolute it another persons oppression. When moral authority is believe to come from a "higher power" one can more easily justify personal evil toward fellow man.
Ciretose, I did state that when they appear to conflict (the fairly portion, though I do dislike speaking in absolutes, because I find I can always learn a thing that better shapes how I saw things the day before), that it is due to not enough information. I wasn't trying to oxymoron anything with 'fairly absolute'. I won't cherry pick your quotes, please take mine as a whole if you wish to criticize it.
I do not know that 'my moral absolute is another person's oppression' however. For certain though, if one is employing the principles which I believe to be imbedded morality, you cannot also commit personal evil toward fellow man.
Personally, I think you're wrong though. The 'problem with my G-D' is the one I stated. I have no logical reason to believe in Him that I know of, and He well could be simply the anthropomorphization of my conscience. The idea that there is a creator of morality is not a problem in and of itself, unless you disagree with morality itself. Moreover, unless you refuse to believe in morality whatsoever, it doesn't matter if I'm completely wrong about its source. If morality exists, if there is a 'right' and a 'wrong', whether that is due to my G-D's creation or simply an evolutionary byproduct of higher minds, then that morality exists, and those who act against it are 'wrong'. One does not need my style of belief to oppress people, and if one follows what *I* believe to be the Will of G-D, one absolutely will not oppress people. Because it's immoral.
Sure, from there we get into the argument of whether or not it is oppression to tell a church that they can't be mean to queers even if their holy book says so, but I think these are issues with term, just like ascribing 'evil' to an unthinking earthquake that kills people. I say it is not oppression to keep people who want to harm others from doing so, and that it is semantics to claim otherwise. Again, most moral issues are only confusing when we lack all the information.
But my beliefs about G-D were really meant only to give Lillith's Thrall something to employ those logical arguments he offered upon. I don't actually feel comfortable suggesting that other people need to believe in G-D the way I do. I'm of the opinion that practicing morality is more important than practicing any particular faith or creed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are obsessed with asking the wrong things as regards to the existence of God.
If you are discussing whether there is a God, then one of the most important questions is whether it takes an active hand in our lives. If it doesn't, sure, it may make you feel good about honouring the creator through prayer, but the point of doing so is rather questionable. THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE. If we try to measure this, using the classic assumptions that prayer works, God hears prayers, and so on, the results are utterly depressing. Apparently, there is a slight negative correlation between surviving severe illness and how many people pray for you. The places that have been seen as holy sites of healing have only ever a few uncertain cases to show regarding efficacy. I may have missed more recent discoveries in this, but as far as I see it, the fact is: God doesn't exist, doesn't listen, doesn't care, or doesn't have the power to change things. Take your pick. Further questions to study at home: Why would God need our adoration and prayer? If you built an anthill and controlled every aspect of the ants' lives... would you care that they worshipped you?
Next up, people discuss morality. The problem here is that religious sects of all stripes have taken to following basically the normal human code of reasonable behaviour (don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, i.e. don't do stuff to people that you don't want others to do to you) after removing certain things they don't like (sex and some other stuff), and preaching this as the platinum standard of How humanity should live. Religious people see this as something amazing, and follow these rules BECAUSE THEY ARE WRITTEN IN A BOOK SOMEWHERE, non-religious people usually figure that what their mirror neurons tell them is good enough, and it works for them. We all have a morality, and if you don't put all of that in a moldy old book (which always leads to having to cut stuff from what the book really says), you will develop it yourself. When anthropologists have studied different cultures, they have found an amazing number of constants as to how you're supposed to live there, which really is just an expression of the way all our mirror neurons work. A study was done that showed just this. They asked religious people and atheists whether they would shoot someone if they could do it and have no consequences from it. Both groups said no. Then they asked them whether those in the other group would. The atheists said no, many religious said yes, they believed atheists would kill people just because. Finally, they asked the religious people if they would do it if they found that there is no God. A surprising number said yes.
So... absolute morality? Yes, and you don't need a God to motivate it.
Please, please, NEVER link to the abstract of a scientific publication.
Provide a citation if you must.
I have no confidence that you actually read the whole thing, nor that you vetted the methods therein. Posting that is a waste of my time. I only include this response so that hopefully nobody else takes it seriously.
Yeah. Abstracts are pretty lame. I want to know if they have done it RCT or not, otherwise placebo can far and away explain it and more. And... call me a skeptic, but I seriously doubt that a study on social workers' methods set rigorous methods enough to check for placebo. And I am not paying for reading the whole article.
It's all Onanism, of one kind or another.
Hey, don't knock Onanism, it's the only part of the Bible I really love!
(Apologies to Allan Konigsberg)
THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE. .If that's true, then we should note that
Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer
http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/17/2/174.abstract
Personally, I'm much more interested in the role of religion - the support of the church community - in recovery.
That article looks at 17 studies. 7 showed evidence for the efficacy of prayer, 10 did not.
A Harvard study of 1800 coronary patients showed a negative correlation. People who were informed that they were being prayed for and were prayed for had a higher mortality rate.
The Mayo Clinic did its own study back arouond 2001-2003, they did not find a link between prayer and better health outcomes for their coronary patients.
Most of the studies supporting prayer tend to have small sample sizes. Like the study that followed 40 AIDS patients.
Seems nothing has happened to change my views yet, then. Thank you, Irontruth.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe in G-D because it's logical.
THANK YOU.
Contrary to the accusations on these boards, atheists aren't trying to repress people of faith. We aren't trying to shut down your churches. We're not even mocking you. We're mocking the irrational position that the existence of God can be deduced using empirical evidence -- because it can't.
Yeah. Abstracts are pretty lame. I want to know if they have done it RCT or not, otherwise placebo can far and away explain it and more. And... call me a skeptic, but I seriously doubt that a study on social workers' methods set rigorous methods enough to check for placebo. And I am not paying for reading the whole article.
I managed to get access. Skimmed it. They organized it well enough that I could find the results in question, which turned out to be a very slight correlation between positive outcomes and face-to-face prayer. Discussing the results here is rather unscientific, I confess; but maybe their prognosis improved because they had more attention, companionship (or the bedpan got emptied more often)?
This doesn't support or refute LT's claim, since I really don't believe a single lit review gives us anything to go on.
I don't believe in G-D because it's logical.THANK YOU.
Contrary to the accusations on these boards, atheists aren't trying to repress people of faith. We aren't trying to shut down your churches.
Awww... so.. next thursday is open then? *finds some dice*
I don't believe in G-D because it's logical.THANK YOU.
Contrary to the accusations on these boards, atheists aren't trying to repress people of faith. We aren't trying to shut down your churches. We're not even mocking you. We're mocking the irrational position that the existence of God can be deduced using empirical evidence -- because it can't.
By the standards articulated by the religious, all of that is not just repression but blatant fanaticism. Which is funny because they do the same stuff and far, far more to one another (And to us, of course. But we don't count.) every day without blinking an eye.
Awww... so.. next thursday is open then? *finds some dice*I don't believe in G-D because it's logical.THANK YOU.
Contrary to the accusations on these boards, atheists aren't trying to repress people of faith. We aren't trying to shut down your churches.
Sshhhhhh!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you could have skimmed it and saw that it was well enough organized to provide the needed information BEFORE you criticized it for being an abstract.
You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of prayer, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.
Of course you could have skimmed his reply, seen the "I managed to get access," and concluded that he meant the actual paper, not just the abstract, BEFORE you criticized him for being close-minded.
You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of people who disagree with you actally checking facts, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.
|
Of course you could have skimmed it and saw that it was well enough organized to provide the needed information BEFORE you criticized it for being an abstract.
You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of prayer, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.
Of course you could have skimmed his reply, seen the "I managed to get access," and concluded that he meant the actual paper, not just the abstract, BEFORE you criticized him for being close-minded.
You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of people who disagree with you actally checking facts, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.
Heh!
Side note, I have a friend that is really into new age movements and Reiki healing. I'm a believer. I've felt energy and static coming off her hands and she did improve pain I had from an injury by holding her hands over it. She doesn't like to let people know she is hurt or sick WHILE she is hurt or sick if she thinks that they will pray for her. In her system, they believe that when you think about a person and visualize them, you contribute to their physical and mental state. If you want to help someone, you need to visualize them being well. When people pray, they have pity for them and picture them in their sickened state. Sense she doesn't believe in god helping, only in an interaction between people's auras and the energy in the earth, the prayer doesn't do anything - the visualization does.
I'm a big believer in the Placebo Effect. I also think that, all other things being equal, sick people probably do better if they have friends and relatives visiting them -- even if said friends and relatives are doing New Age stuff.
That doesn't mean I attribute the difference to magic powers or visualization techniques, however.
Eh, who knows. Killing the magic by focusing on it as a placebo doesn't do any good right now. Once science can give me the bonus of the placebo while calling it a placebo by activating the real mechanism involved, we might be onto something. I try not to think about these sorts of things in the terms you are giving because I don't see how looking behind the curtain can help me.
I like to know how things actually work, not just how I want to imagine them working. That way they can be more efficiently implemented, expanded, and/or improved upon.
Just saw this gem: Nessie v. Evolution THAT is a waste of my tax dollars. It's also fraud.
Dear God. The depths of Loch Ness can't come close to the depths of the benighted ignorance on display there.
Just saw this gem: Nessie v. Evolution THAT is a waste of my tax dollars. It's also fraud.Dear God. The depths of Loch Ness can't come close to the depths of the benighted ignorance on display there.
Ah, good old Accelerated Christian Education. More than anyone would want to know.
If you're on G+, the first half of PZ Myers' inaugural podcast was about ACE and heavily featured the writer of the linked articles.
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/598730_381577925240168_1609759291_ n.jpg
This awesome!
Nah, I think the one I posted is awesome.
I never get to see pictures when I'm at work. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome is posting links that work. Ok maybe not awesome...
That works!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The study gave a slight positive correlation for FACE TO FACE prayer. Otherwise put: placebo works, just as it always has. What a surprise. I liked the heart patient study better, it actually showed something interesting. It had a control group, it was randomized, and it checked how people reacted when prayed for with and without their knowledge. Not knowing about it did not help anything, but if you were told about it, it hurt you a little. It opens up a whole new field of income for the churches...
"The doctors say you are not doing well. I represent a whole congregation... And we could be persuaded NOT to pray for you... For a price, of course..."
Nocebo reactions can be just as real as placebo effects.
I do feel a bit cheated though....Lilith's Thrall is definitely not going to explain how my G-D is logical through Spinoza.
As for religious/anti-religious oppression, it occurs. (Bugley or Norse Wolf, you said something about this) There seem to be people everywhere who proselytize, and within that group, there are those who do it really dickishly. There's nothing that can be done for it, other than to set a better example and call it out when you see it. There are also some people who are really sensitive to being proselytized, considering it oppression. Nothing really can be done for that either. I don't push my religion on people and I don't particularly care for a belief system pushed on me either. That said, I'm always happy to hear about someone else's belief system...they are fascinating, whether religion, anti-religion or non-religion based.