(February 15, 2021 at 1:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 14, 2021 at 6:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Would you care o give an example of an honest way to dismiss your silly religion, in your estimation?

Why are you asking a Muslim if they found an honest way to dismiss Islam ? There obviously isn't any, from my perspective. I think some arguments for the existence of a just God are compelling, I accept the existence of a God. A just god in turn has to have already sent us guidance, I look at the candidate religions for perfect guidance, Islam is the closest match. bingo.

Maybe you're referring to the falsifiability criterion. I actually don't think this criterion can applied outside of the realm of scientific theories. There is no problem with something both true and unfalsifiable. Besides, Islam relies on the quranic text plus a substantial amount of authentic hadiths. If we accept consistency and correctness of scripture as a falsifiability criterion, it's already vulnerable to being falsified if any of the hadiths and/or quranic verses is shown to be false beyond any doubt.

A word of warning here : I don't have a rebuttal for every existent religion on earth. I am just giving my evaluation of the traditional belief systems. Christian trinitarian belief just happens to be something that can be dismissed outright, because it contains a plain logical impossibiltiy: the trinitarian god. Islam endorses monotheism, to my knowledge there is no logical problem with the existence of a unique God, for which I think there are compelling arguments. In this sense, Judaism is superior and less obviously false than christianity.

I thought that Christianity implied a unique god.... just one with 3 "sides", to help with distinguishing the roles. As I see it, one is the creator side, another is the human relations side and the other is the inner human side. You may only consider the creator side to be a god, but Christians will claim that god is so much more.

If Islam is so based on texts, then it is falsified by itself, as all texts are man made, thus man biased... and, as such, all they can be is a representation of the people who wrote them. Sure they may have been pious believers and wrote things in such a way as to seem like it was the absolute truth.... to them. But all that they wrote may have zero bearing on reality.
How can we ascertain if the writings of old times are grounded on reality?... I'd go with Science as that which discovers and explains reality to us. Thus far, there is no god in this reality, leading me to conclude that, very likely, the gods that mankind has worshipped in the past have all been products of human imagination, including Islam and Christianity.

Pascal's wager (and anything similar) is just a way to get people to fake it till they make it. A well known psychological fault in human brains. Given that it requires exploiting a shortcoming in human psyche, I don't think it would ever have been god approved. It would be priesthood approved, though, which is telling...

Why would a god value belief? If a god is interested in having people accept it as part of reality, wouldn't it be an obvious part of reality?
The priesthood, however, would indeed value belief by their congregations... If your livelihood depends on something that can't be shown to be real, only blind belief, faith, or whatever you wish to call it can avail them. Charisma and gullibility are well known to exist within humanity, so I attribute this factor a far greater chance of being aligned with reality than of any god existing and wishing humans to simply believe it exists.

Wager for wager, odds are there is no god at all, just people convincing people that there is.

(February 15, 2021 at 5:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Right, because, in addition to this being a world where an almighty djinn will punish everyone who laughs at your ineptitude...it's also a world where your own silly comments aren't posted on a board for anyone to read.

That's just a true proposition.  You tell me, any way to honestly dismiss it?

You could've just answered my question instead of this gibberish. Do you think a true proposition like "a triangle has three sides" can be "dismissed honestly"? It's a yes or no question.

(February 15, 2021 at 6:20 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(February 15, 2021 at 2:10 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: If one dismisses  belief in God dishonestly and/or without carefully assessing it, then they are in this case really exposed to an infinite loss.

In my case, belief in gods -- any gods -- has been a non-starter my whole life.  It just doesn't feel real to me, so much so that I can't even pretend to believe.  This is what honesty looks like in my life, and this is a facet of belief versus non-belief that you should seriously consider.

Since when we're supposed to accept beliefs based on feelings ? I don't think any sane person spent their entire life without considering the possibility of a higher power, at least once. Even denying an assertion already entails thinking about this assertion, that is, atheists(most of them?) forcibly thought a lot about the god question.

I don't deny that one can be honest and still not believe in any god. What we're discussing here is how one is supposed to evaluate the truth of a traditional religion. My argument was, not evaluating a religion at all is better than evaluating it dishonestly.

---

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: I thought that Christianity implied a unique god.... just one with 3 "sides", to help with distinguishing the roles. As I see it, one is the creator side, another is the human relations side and the other is the inner human side. You may only consider the creator side to be a god, but Christians will claim that god is so much more.

That's not what trinity says. There are literally three gods (Father, Son, HS), but they are still one god as whole. So you cannot replace "gods" with "sides". The three sides of a triangle are sides, not triangles.

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: If Islam is so based on texts, then it is falsified by itself, as all texts are man made, thus man biased... and, as such, all they can be is a representation of the people who wrote them.

That's not really true. If a deity communicates with people, it should use some means intelligible to them, therefore texts are a possibility.

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: But all that they wrote may have zero bearing on reality.
How can we ascertain if the writings of old times are grounded on reality?... I'd go with Science as that which discovers and explains reality to us. Thus far, there is no god in this reality, leading me to conclude that, very likely, the gods that mankind has worshipped in the past have all been products of human imagination, including Islam and Christianity.

First of all, the existence of God and the truth of particular religion are two different things. Secondly, even if all religions are a product of human imagination, it still doesn't mean there is no god. I think that the right approach is to evaluate the existence of God separately of any religion, that is, consider traditional arguments in favor of its existence. And only afterwards, based on whether you reach a personal or a non-personal god, evaluate the content of traditional belief systems, that give more thickness to what we're supposed to do to follow god's path.

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: Pascal's wager (and anything similar) is just a way to get people to fake it till they make it. A well known psychological fault in human brains. Given that it requires exploiting a shortcoming in human psyche, I don't think it would ever have been god approved. It would be priesthood approved, though, which is telling...

I don't think religious people generally defend Pascal's wager. Only the idea of the risk of infinite loss is interesting.

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why would a god value belief? If a god is interested in having people accept it as part of reality, wouldn't it be an obvious part of reality?
The priesthood, however, would indeed value belief by their congregations... If your livelihood depends on something that can't be shown to be real, only blind belief, faith, or whatever you wish to call it can avail them. Charisma and gullibility are well known to exist within humanity, so I attribute this factor a far greater chance of being aligned with reality than of any god existing and wishing humans to simply believe it exists.

Wager for wager, odds are there is no god at all, just people convincing people that there is.

It all comes down to what you think about the arguments that are generally presented in favor of God's existence. It's true that people can be gullible and might believe in things for irrational reasons. But what should be kept in mind is that people can, too, hold true beliefs for irrational reasons, and may only look for better reasons or arguments in an a posteriori fashion. You cannot dismiss such beliefs just because some people held them irrationally.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 15, 2021 at 5:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Right, because, in addition to this being a world where an almighty djinn will punish everyone who laughs at your ineptitude...it's also a world where your own silly comments aren't posted on a board for anyone to read.

That's just a true proposition.  You tell me, any way to honestly dismiss it?

You could've just answered my question instead of this gibberish. Do you think a true proposition like "a triangle has three sides" can be "dismissed honestly"? It's a yes or no question.

You appear to be answering the question fine all by yourself.

(February 15, 2021 at 6:20 pm)Astreja Wrote: In my case, belief in gods -- any gods -- has been a non-starter my whole life.  It just doesn't feel real to me, so much so that I can't even pretend to believe.  This is what honesty looks like in my life, and this is a facet of belief versus non-belief that you should seriously consider.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Since when we're supposed to accept beliefs based on feelings ?

Why not? In the absence of empirical evidence, a belief essentially is based on feelings.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I don't think any sane person spent their entire life without considering the possibility of a higher power, at least once. Even denying an assertion already entails thinking about this assertion, that is, atheists(most of them?) forcibly thought a lot about the god question.

I've considered the possibility on more than one occasion. I've dismissed it every time. The assertions of religion are not adequately supported by real-world data, so it's a waste of my time to consider the issue again. I'm prepared to reopen the issue if and only if better data is found - testable data, not scriptures or believers' personal experiences or philosophical thought experiments.

Again, please consider that whatever convinced you may simply not be enough for someone like me.

(February 16, 2021 at 4:56 pm)Astreja Wrote: Again, please consider that whatever convinced you may simply not be enough for someone like me.

This is the theme of the day. Thank you.

(February 13, 2021 at 11:01 am)Klorophyll Wrote: What's more, I am not sure you're thinking about this the right way. The truth of a religious cult and the existence of God are really two different things. You say you discovered that your former religion is simply false, now it's a stretch to reject to existence of any deity outright, which seems to be your position currently.

That's another horrendous insult to every religious person around the world. There is no shortage of religious people who lived fullfilling emotional lives and had highly successful careers in something. Religion, after all,concerns itself with metaphysical issues, for which it's irrelevant whether you "know youself" pretty well or not. Nobody can rule out the existence of the tiniest conception of any deity so far. And very sophisticated people were induced by fear, not religion, to believe in some deity. Maybe religion actually does them a favor and tells them that the God who reveals himself through their respective scriptures won't punish anyone for not getting the right answer, as long as they are honest. So, fear has no role to play here whatsoever, for those who understand the content of their reliigon, at least.

So, take a deep breath, you're just throwing insults to believers, left and right.

I'll repeat it again: the existence of what you refer to as "invisbile entity", and the truth value of your former religious cult, are two separate issues. It's common to read about people who revolt against God simply because their particular religion, among other beliefs, turned out to be false.

Such a being is actually just enough not to punish you for being a victim of a manipulative lie, that's why you might go to heaven, not because you chose to stick to a lie. And, you know, it's quite arrogant to think your position is more virtuous than God's.

I wish, in a conversation about my personal experience you had chosen to ask me questions instead of telling me what you think I feel or what I have done. You've made assumptions about the cult I was a believer of that were incorrect, you've pushed this narrative that I did no exploring at all after my own religion was proven false, when in fact, I did, and you've used my vulnerability as an opportunity to bully me and try to sell me on the idea of "you don't have good, rational, honest reasons for not believing in a god. Any god is better than none, even if it is wrong. Except the trinity. That just don't make sense."

Which, considering that last point and your flimsy stance on honesty, isn't all that surprising.

(February 16, 2021 at 7:23 pm)Five Wrote: I wish, in a conversation about my personal experience you had chosen to ask me questions instead of telling me what you think I feel or what I have done.

Or to imply in any way that someone is being dishonest or not adequately diligent for rejecting religious assertions. Utterly unforgivable.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: I thought that Christianity implied a unique god.... just one with 3 "sides", to help with distinguishing the roles. As I see it, one is the creator side, another is the human relations side and the other is the inner human side. You may only consider the creator side to be a god, but Christians will claim that god is so much more.

That's not what trinity says. There are literally three gods (Father, Son, HS), but they are still one god as whole. So you cannot replace "gods" with "sides". The three sides of a triangle are sides, not triangles.

The trinity notion claims that there are three persons in the godhead.
Not three gods. Just three different "tasks" attributed to the one god.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: If Islam is so based on texts, then it is falsified by itself, as all texts are man made, thus man biased... and, as such, all they can be is a representation of the people who wrote them.

That's not really true. If a deity communicates with people, it should use some means intelligible to them, therefore texts are a possibility.

If a deity communicates with people, then that deity communicates with all people. Not just a few select individuals who then get tasked with spreading the message, because then the result is a mess - which is what we see in the world.
Also, all the supposedly divine texts in existence were manifestly penned by humans - none by the divine.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: But all that they wrote may have zero bearing on reality.
How can we ascertain if the writings of old times are grounded on reality?... I'd go with Science as that which discovers and explains reality to us. Thus far, there is no god in this reality, leading me to conclude that, very likely, the gods that mankind has worshipped in the past have all been products of human imagination, including Islam and Christianity.

First of all, the existence of God and the truth of particular religion are two different things. Secondly, even if all religions are a product of human imagination, it still doesn't mean there is no god. I think that the right approach is to evaluate the existence of God separately of any religion, that is, consider traditional arguments in favor of its existence. And only afterwards, based on whether you reach a personal or a non-personal god, evaluate the content of traditional belief systems, that give more thickness to what we're supposed to do to follow god's path.

I agree that the truth of religion and the reality of a god are two different things.
However, every religion hangs on the premise that a god exists. (except Buddhism, let's ignore that wrinkle)

So, does a god exist? any god?
What is a god and what does it mean to exist?
To exist is to be real, to be a part of reality.
God is usually considered to be the creator of all there is... at the least, the creator of the Universe, at the most, the creator of reality.
If we're just going for "creator of the Universe", then it seems to be just a somewhat powerful alien.

If we're going for "creator of reality", then one can't logically exist (i.e. be a part of reality) and create it. The created must be subordinate to the creator.
As such, reality can't have been created by anything, given that this thing would have had to not exist.
Religious philosophers walk around this by claiming that the creator would have created itself simultaneously with reality... but come on... that just reeks of intellectual desperation.

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: Pascal's wager (and anything similar) is just a way to get people to fake it till they make it. A well known psychological fault in human brains. Given that it requires exploiting a shortcoming in human psyche, I don't think it would ever have been god approved. It would be priesthood approved, though, which is telling...

I don't think religious people generally defend Pascal's wager. Only the idea of the risk of infinite loss is interesting.

Would there be infinite loss if the god was a just one?

(February 16, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 16, 2021 at 6:51 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why would a god value belief? If a god is interested in having people accept it as part of reality, wouldn't it be an obvious part of reality?
The priesthood, however, would indeed value belief by their congregations... If your livelihood depends on something that can't be shown to be real, only blind belief, faith, or whatever you wish to call it can avail them. Charisma and gullibility are well known to exist within humanity, so I attribute this factor a far greater chance of being aligned with reality than of any god existing and wishing humans to simply believe it exists.

Wager for wager, odds are there is no god at all, just people convincing people that there is.

It all comes down to what you think about the arguments that are generally presented in favor of God's existence. It's true that people can be gullible and might believe in things for irrational reasons. But what should be kept in mind is that people can, too, hold true beliefs for irrational reasons, and may only look for better reasons or arguments in an a posteriori fashion. You cannot dismiss such beliefs just because some people held them irrationally.

Not "some people"... all those unaware of their own psychological shortcomings - and that would be almost all humans prior to the early 20th century.

To look for better reasons for believing after you're already believing, is just feeding a bias.
In my opinion, people shouldn't need to believe whether there is or isn't a god. They should just know - no irrational reasons required. Just pure evidence equivalent to that found for so many other phenomena. If, at some time in their evolution, mankind came across evidence for the divine, then that evidence should have remained intact for us to look into after all these years of worship... and yet, after all these years, all that mankind has managed to show is a multitude of religions and accompanying gods, and the arguing between said religions leading to conflicts and wars and loss of life. The perfect way for any god to reveal itself, huh?

But if the god is not real, or just doesn't care, then all this bickering is completely justified as a purely human psychological phenomenon.

Speaking for myself, my goal isn't to maximize my happiness but to have as few false beliefs as possible.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
--George Bernard Shaw

(February 17, 2021 at 10:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Speaking for myself, my goal isn't to maximize my happiness but to have as few false beliefs as possible.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
--George Bernard Shaw

That is very true. And I think that feels like a broader conversation to have. Is it better to believe and know as many true things as possible? Better than believing things that are false?

For me, having been lied to and finding out the truth, from the perspective of having to find out and going through that traumatic pain, for that reason, I'd say I want to believe in as many true things as possible. I don't think it's a good reason, though. Because what if I never found out something was false but it was something I could have found out? If I never did, all my life, the reveal never hurt me. In what ways did the false belief hurt me? Is the bare truth and reality always better/inherently good(in a wellbeing sense)?

IMO, a "god" that needs humans to get its message out is almost certainly an invention of humans and therefore not worth bothering with.