God: No magic required

[Silver]

Religion basically comes down to rejecting smug certitude in favor of personal curiosity and finding, for oneself, whether it's possible to believe in God and to find a way to communicate with God, which is meaningful to the individual in question.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

It is possible to believe in anything whereby the individual finds personal meaning for anything. Due to the fact that the person accepts it without adequately questioning whether or not there is evidence to support the belief, it is a veritable sign of delusion to continue believing in it. A mind that will accept something for which there is no evidence to support it is susceptible to all sorts of nonsense.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Kitanetos ,

You say: "A mind that will accept something for which there is no evidence to support it is susceptible to all sorts of nonsense."

Here is the Wikipedia definition of yoga:

>>Yoga (Sanskrit: योग) is the physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India with a view to attain a state of permanent peace.[1][2] The term yoga can be derived from either of two roots, yujir yoga (to yoke) or yuj samādhau (to concentrate).[3] According to Yoga-Yajnavalkya, Yoga is the union of the individual psyche with the transcendental self.[4]<<

Do you consider the above to be consistent with physical reality, or more consistent with B.S.? What is the evidence that yoga unites the "individual psyche" with the "transcendental self?"

Yet you can go into virtually any 24 Hour Fitness or LA Fitness or Gold's Gym or whatever health club you can find, and there will be lines of yoga enthusiasts waiting for the next yoga class to start.

People do it because they try it and they find that they like it. The only thing that one needs to "accept" is that it meets a need or enriches a life or is simply something which is enjoyable to do. Again, religion can be carried to extremes and can be a destructive force, but so can red wine.

It is difficult to explain faith to someone who doesn't have it. I might use the analogy of explaining sight to a born blind person, but that would be just as gratuitous as comparing religion to palm reading, so I won't.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Simon Moon]

Of course, I can't offer "proof" of "facts" (that the factual dark energy of the universe - or hypothetical dark energy of the multiverse - could contain organized sentience). What I have suggested is plausibility.

By what method did you determine plausibility?

I mean, plausibility is a far step beyond possibility, and should (unless one is gullible) take into consideration evidence for a mechanism that could explain how dark energy could organize itself into sentience.

Got any?

It was only after I decided that it was plausible that there could be a God that I decided that it wouldn't be a waste of my time to determine if it were possible to develop a belief in said postulated God through regularly participating in several types of religious services.

How is that any different than gullibility?

Again, my motivation for so doing was that (1) I was impressed by the robust medical literature supporting the hypothesis that there are both mental and physical health benefits (including impressively increased longevity) associated with religiosity and (2) I had some personal behavioral issues which were refractory to secular management strategies.

As far as I can see, all those studies do, is point to the fact that people with a strong social structure do better then those without. Nothing in the studies offers a shred of evidence that a god is involved.

So, as explained, I did what I did and it's thus far working for me. It doesn't mean that you need to do it yourself, and it certainly isn't offered as "proof" of anything. It's only offered to support the point of view that there are objectively rational reasons for people like me to actively explore the possibility of developing belief in something which is provable only at the level of the individual. Of course, I can't prove it to you, and I'll never have it proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to me (and many of the most famous religious people in history readily "confessed" to having doubts).

Still sounds like gullibility to me.

[Silver]

It is difficult to explain faith to someone who doesn't have it.

Not at all. Faith is the dismisal of reality. Plain and simple.

---

I might use the analogy of explaining sight to a born blind person

Oh, this silly fallacy again.

Sight can be explained to a blind person, for the blind learn to see through their hands, creating images in their minds from what they feel.

---

Yoga

No point in bothering with that hooey.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Simon:

You say:

>>By what method did you determine plausibility?

>>I mean, plausibility is a far step beyond possibility, and should (unless one is gullible) take into consideration evidence for a mechanism that could explain how dark energy could organize itself into sentience.

>>Got any?<<

See my prior post, #50.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

---

Simon (#53) quotes me:

>>Again, my motivation for so doing was that (1) I was impressed by the robust medical literature supporting the hypothesis that there are both mental and physical health benefits (including impressively increased longevity) associated with religiosity and (2) I had some personal behavioral issues which were refractory to secular management strategies.<<

He objects:

>>As far as I can see, all those studies do, is point to the fact that people with a strong social structure do better then those without. Nothing in the studies offers a shred of evidence that a god is involved.<<

Simon, you won't accept benefits (proven by a preponderance of evidence, if not beyond a shadow of doubt), in the absence of a proven mechanism. I'm happy to accept the benefits without fully understanding the mechanism.

I've already written that I personally don't believe that God cures cancer or otherwise intervenes to alter physical reality. Maybe he does; but, as stated, I don't personally have faith that God does this sort of thing. On the other hand, it's unambiguously clear that religion offers many benefits, quite apart from "social structure," including the impact of prayer relating to solace, courage, resolve, endurance, focus, discipline, humility, morality, and (as explained before) a sense of companionship with a deity which very definitely can attenuate loneliness.

All of the above can offer a wide array of healthful benefits, from stress reduction to avoidance of STDs.

All the "proof" a theist requires is his/her own personal experience with theism. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't work, stop doing it. It's just like anything else in life, of a voluntary nature. People do it because they like it, not because they are stupid or delusional.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Silver]

If it works, keep doing it.

Live and let live is a pretty sentiment regarding most of life. However, I cannot adhere the cliche statement to religion and its ignorant followers for the simple reason that religion causes real people to do real harm to other people. As far as I am concerned, there is no inherent good in religion or its belief system, for even to fall prey to the lie of happiness that religious belief instills is not preferable to the miserable truth.

[Mr Greene]

The one thing that I'd continue to debate is the magnitude of the "stress" inflicted on atheists (and to only a lesser extent, secular agnostics) by the viewpoints of the Fox News viewership (less than 2,000,000 people out of more than 300,000,000) and even the entire religious wing of the Republican Party. We are a polarized society; there is a group of people who hate atheists, but this is the same group (including Rush Limbaugh) which is now criticizing Pope Francis as being a "Marxist."

The most objective information you offered to support your point of view (2nd of your links) of more general "persecution" was an 11 year old study from the University of Minnesota. This study reported that atheists were the least trusted of the various groups of people about which the respondents were polled. But, looking at the actual numbers, 54% of the respondents agreed that atheists "shared [the respondents'] view of society." I'm sure that a similar poll taken today (11 years later) would show that number to be up considerably. So a majority of Americans feel that atheists share their view of society. In the history of persecuted minorities, that's not so bad. The Catholic bishops claim that they are a persecuted minority. Atheists, Catholics, and Evangelicals all watch NFL football on big flat screens and drink craft beer while so doing. If they don't like football, they can choose between Hannity, Maher, Maddow, Limbaugh, Stuart, and so on. Life sure is tough for these persecuted minorities. I'm not an expert on the UK, but do I listen to the BBC most nights. Don't see a lot of evidence for anti-atheist bias there.

Yes the situation in the UK is a lot different from the position in the US, I've heard numerous stories of people being bullied and even dismissed from work once it was discovered that they were atheists, particularly in the bible belt. Here religion is in it's death throes, the pews are occupied by the decrepit remnants of the pre WWII generation and according to the Archbishop of Canterbury will "die out in a generation". That seems to be true for the Anglican church, the Catholics are more tied to immigration from eastern Europe, whilst the unestablished protestants find themselves forced to amalgamate to survive (and then schism because they can't stand to be in the same building as each other).

[lweisenthal]

Hi Kitanetos,

>>As far as I am concerned, there is no inherent good in religion or its belief system, for even to fall prey to the lie of happiness that religious belief instills is not preferable to the miserable truth.<<

Happiness is not a lie; it is happiness. Solace is not a lie; it is solace. Freedom from substance abuse or behavioral dysfunction is not a lie; it is improved well-being, not simply for the believer, but for those whose lives are impacted by said believer. Attenuation of loneliness is not a lie, and so on.

Humans have had religion since the dawn of humanity. Religions endure because they fill a need. Religion isn't right for everyone, but it is beneficial to many. Your argument against religion is that my religiosity degrades your reality. Let's call this the second hand smoke theory of religious impact on society. The solution is separation of church and state, as opposed to religious extinction, which will never happen, as proven most recently by the attempted extinction of religion by government edict in the Soviet Union.

If you feel that societal atheism is important, you need to make your case to theists that they have it all wrong; you can't impose atheism by edict or wishful thinking, and you sure can't do it by denigrating theists as being stupid and delusional.

Let's turn this around. I pride myself in being open minded. I'm open minded to the possibility that both I and the world would be better off were I an atheist, rather than a theist. So persuade me. Convince me. All of the trash talking and gratuitous insults and trite slogans which have been offered as the chief response of certain participants do nothing to change my views. But I'm open to being persuaded by a thoughtful and compelling argument. Can anyone offer such an argument? If you can't persuade the likes of me, how on earth do you ever hope to persuade an actual evangelical? Or are you interested only in hanging out with the other cognoscenti, laughing along with your friends at Bill Maher's jokes, directed at easy targets, such as talking snakes and magic underwear?

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Silver]

Happiness is not a lie; it is happiness.

It is too a lie if one has arrived at that false happiness by way of substituting reality for fantasy. Should I be glad that someone is no longer doing drugs? Certainly. Should I be content that the invididual has substituted drug addiction for ignorance? Hardly.

---

But I'm open to being persuaded by a thoughtful and compelling argument. Can anyone offer such an argument?

There are plenty of them. A forum and internet full of arguments that can help you to understand the religious fairy tale for precisely what it is. Do not take my word for it, though. Do some reading. Open that mind further. Or don't.

[LastPoet]

So persuade me. Convince me. All of the trash talking and gratuitous insults and trite slogans which have been offered as the chief response of certain participants do nothing to change my views. But I'm open to being persuaded by a thoughtful and compelling argument. Can anyone offer such an argument?

Atheists aren't here to end your views, to the point of extreme solipsism, theists can't even:1: define a god; 2: provide evidence for your god. I don't need to be convinced.

Most definite of all, I am not here to convince you. I am here to point and laugh at all the bullshit you can pull out of your ass for pure asinine reasonings.