More Religious Nutters

[Whaleboy]

I think trying to prove or disprove God's existence is pointless and silly. I told Agathon not to talk about things he had no experience with, he countered that because of his immense smartness that didn't matter, and it went from there.

I can't answer for Agathon but it seems to me that he's referring to his background as a philosopher. I know that both you and I are reasonably well read in philosophy, particularly that which surrounds religion and I use it to inform my atheism. You'll know then that philosophical "smartness" is relevant to the debate.

As for why trying to disprove God's existence is pointless - why do you think this is so? I take God to mean the Judaic God and I think that this concept is very refutable and given the importance of religion/the lack thereof today, you certainly can't say that the argument is pointless/academic.

So, assuming you accept the latter point, do you agree that God is inherently irrefutable and not subject to rational principles? That seems to be the basis of your argument but I just want you to confirm that my understanding is correct.

The scientific method only accepts evidence of a sort very unlikely to indicate God; anything that can be repeatedly provoked by methodical experiments and observed would not resemble a sentient deity in action. I'm fine with that; we wouldn't have accomplished anything if we were always trying to second-guess invisible entities. But we're essentially beginning with the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist when we use the scientific method. It's not fair or sensible to cite "lack of scientific evidence" when there can be no scientific evidence. That's tautological. It's not a question the scientific method is equipped to solve.

You know I think the biggest problem with your argument here is that you assume that "existence" can include things which aren't, in principle, subject to the scientific method. I think the only distinction that's relevant here, forgetting superstition, is supernaturalism vs. nature so can supernatural things, in principle, exist without being bound by rational principles?

I think that any sensible definition of existence would exclude the supernatural so any question the scientific method is not equipped to solve cannot, by definition, concern anything that actually exists.

Seriously, though, I find Agathon's insistence that I disbelieve my own experience rather strange. If I disbelieve my own experience in that regard, why should I not also disbelieve his telling me to disbelieve it? Maybe this is all a vision sent to me by Satan, or the Illuminati, to make me forsake God. Maybe it's all a dream. Maybe the Matrix is real...or not. Uh-uh. I'm going to assume that I'm sane. If I'm going nuts, it doesn't really matter what I think, I'm just a crazy person. Actually, I suspect if Aggie had his way I and all my ilk would be in straight jackets, which is one of the reasons I'm not feeling too friendly towards him. I trust nobody who wants to burn books. But that's another matter.

Well it's not for us to diagnose your mental state via the Electrical Interweb. There are sufficient numbers of people who suffer from a sufficient number of religious (and otherwise) experiences to warrant a decent explanation. Could it be something as simple as epilepsy? I'm not aware of any study that shows a higher incident of epileptics among the religious but I do suspect that it is something to do with a state of mind which will eventually be qualified.

Agathon's already explained that a religious experience can be no more objectively verifiable and communicable than your experience of the colour "red". I also expect that most atheists have, out of sheer frustration with the religious' inability to comprehend their arguments, wanted to see them in straitjackets. That tends to pass because we're a less violent bunch than you lot .

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Hint: the people of Commerce weren't the ones who wanted to change their name.

Hint: And that's the difference. They changed b/c others were the problem. The nutters in 666 area code are changing b/c the area code is the problem (not others). Try again.


edit: The people of the 666 area code would want to change regardless if anyone outside the area made a comment b/c as the article staes they are "good Christian people". The people of Commerce know and understand the reason for the change and it is b/c they are tired of others calling them ****, PA (as Rufus puts it). Not at all the same thing. Perhaps you don't grasp it?

[BlackCat]

Ehrm, Wezil, Kuci is nitpicking - it's not the good people of Commerce that want to change name - it's some people in Intercourse that wnat that.

Btw, the example isn't exactly good - it seems like the good people of Intercourse takes a bit of pride in their unusual city name

http://www.800padutch.com/intercourse.shtml

[Wezil]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Ehrm, Wezil, Kuci is nitpicking - it's not the good people of Commerce that want to change name - it's some people in Intercourse that wnat that.

Gotcha. I read Rufus as Intercourse = Commerce.

So they (Intercourse) want to change to something besides Commerce... My point still stands as the motivation is different.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem is that the scientific conception of truth is the one that we actually work with in all our beliefs, whether we care to or not.

No, the scientific method is what you work with. I do not believe science can solve everything. Whether you can accept that or not, this conversation is over. I'm worn out trying to explain, and it seems I'm no good at it.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Agathon
If your argument is that it is pointless to try to prove God's existence, the reason is that it probably can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and hence rational people have no business believing it.

Why should the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt be neccessary requirement for belief?

[Whaleboy]

Why not summarise your points for those of us who aren't inclined to hunt through 9 pages of thread?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why not summarise your points for those of us who aren't inclined to hunt through 9 pages of thread?

There's no need, just quote people you think are wrong and tell them why. That's what Mr. Perf does!

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
There are sufficient numbers of people who suffer from a sufficient number of religious (and otherwise) experiences to warrant a decent explanation.

I wouldn't call it suffering, because the experiences are generally pleasant, and harmless. The worst thing that they can cause is some silly beliefs to be supported.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Agathon's already explained that a religious experience can be no more objectively verifiable and communicable than your experience of the colour "red". I also expect that most atheists have, out of sheer frustration with the religious' inability to comprehend their arguments, wanted to see them in straitjackets. That tends to pass because we're a less violent bunch than you lot .

Oh for Pete's sake, Elok isn't a great menace to society or anything. Certainly he believe some nutty crap, but believing in some nutty crap doesn't make you crazy or anything.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why not summarise your points for those of us who aren't inclined to hunt through 9 pages of thread?

Even I have to acknowledge that they weren't that hot in the first place. I made them as asides without really thinking, and they were taken for serious arguments. Then vanity obliged me to defend them anyway; that's the trouble with vanity.

Like I said, I believe argument about God's existence is pointless--not because deciding once and for all wouldn't be great, but because the two sides have entirely different ways of looking at things. There's no common ground for argument, all that happens is both sides get depressed, bored or angry. I don't enjoy being any of those, and I get sick of encountering arguments that mean nothing to me and trying to explain why.

[Whaleboy]

It looks to me as though it's one of those classic oblique debates where the two sides can't engage because they don't agree on definitions. The one I pointed out earlier; existence, seems to be the crux. Once you've defined that (and a few other terms to) the debate should fall into place pretty quickly.

[Perfection]

Nah, Elok's just pissed that he can't figure out how to make his belief in God intellectually coherant.

It's okay though, I still loves him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

No, the scientific method is what you work with. I do not believe science can solve everything. Whether you can accept that or not, this conversation is over. I'm worn out trying to explain, and it seems I'm no good at it.

There are an infinite number of theories that are consistent with any evidence we have, just as you can draw an infinite number of curves through three points. This means that we cannot choose between competing theories on grounds of truth. We choose between them on grounds of coherence, simplicity and explanatory/predictive value. That is, in essence, what science does, and it is what we all do. Science is just what we get when we are particularly rigorous about it.

It's also the case that none of our beliefs are immune from revision, so there's no infallibility in human knowledge. But again, that's just what science is. It's important to note that the skepticism that arises from this is familiar scientific skepticism. Traditional philosophical skepticism arose from treating claims about epistemology as if they were somehow prior to science rather than part of it. But since we don't choose between theories on grounds of truth, we don't have to worry about philosophical skepticism anyway.

Gods are the products of attempts at explanation. They just aren't very good ones. People are free to establish theories of reality that include deities, but they have been demonstrated as useless theories, which explain nothing. The most successful theories we have omit God, as Laplace said.

You shouldn't get angry, Elok. This is just a philosophical discussion, and a reasonably polite one by internet standards.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

Like I said, I believe argument about God's existence is pointless--not because deciding once and for all wouldn't be great, but because the two sides have entirely different ways of looking at things. There's no common ground for argument, all that happens is both sides get depressed, bored or angry. I don't enjoy being any of those, and I get sick of encountering arguments that mean nothing to me and trying to explain why.

This is wrong too. There's always common ground for argument. It is forced on us by the nature of language.

[Perfection]

ANSWER MY QUESTION AGA