God: No magic required

[Mudhammam]

Nihilism can't be good for your health.

If you define 'nihilism' as thinking that the existence and operation of the universe has no grand point, then it's only bad for your health if you can't find any value in your own life. Sucks to be in a cult that hammers home the point repeatedly that you're an unworthy piece of shit that should be thankful God stopped to scrape it off his heel, huh?

You fear the implications of such a state of events and this is why you have to pretend that there's a point behind it. It'll amount to nothing in the long run, but the fate of the universe won't be of any relevance to me when I'm dead anyway. I'm just happy to be here and it's enough that I enjoy what comes as long as I can. It would seem that I'm of more sound health than you since I don't need the delusion.

As the Pastafarians say, RAMEN!

[Esquilax]

Nihilism can't be good for your health.

You tell us: it's your kind that so often ends up salivating at the idea of the bloody end of the world. The only difference is that you've imagined the blandest, most vague possible reward for yourselves in the process.

I submit to you that this kind of second hand nihilism by proxy is so much sicker than having the guts to be direct about it.

Not that any of us actually are nihilists, because what you're saying is ridiculous bullshit. But hey.

[Whateverist]

Is it just me or does this seem like a variant of Pascal Wager, only the payoff is healthy living?

Puts me in mind of the "Stepford Wives". What sacrifices would you make for this gain you hope for? I wonder what the payoff in less stressful living one could expect with a lobotomy. I guess we all draw the line somewhere.

[max-greece]

Larry,

I agree with the point by point ('lessness) so I'll try to minimize it.

It would appear that your main thrust for theism is that it appears to extend longevity and that therefore it carries benefit.

Whilst this may be true (for a whole host of possible reasons) it is far from the only course of action you can take to achieve that. It would appear, for example, that leaving the US and moving to Japan, or the Greek Island of Crete, would have an even greater impact on your potential longevity. Those 2 regions appear to offer the greatest average longevity on the planet (and both are cultures that smoke heavily).

It is fully possible that theists are happier in their daily lives than atheists (I have no data on that) but even if this and the above are true it says nothing as to the truth of the belief itself.

I guess how important that is to you might vary. I can say I understand the lack of interest in what's real and what's imagined if it makes you happy - its just not something I aspire to.

We can therefore agree to disagree if you like. I don't really care one way or another what you or others believe as long as it doesn't impinge on others. There is, of course, a great deal we could say about that, in combination with the often expressed opinion amongst atheists that it is the more reasonable theist that provides cover for the extremist (the one with bombs strapped to his body, or the one that blows up abortion clinics and so on).

If that is true (and I am not saying it is, as yet) then your added longevity comes with a cost - one that might even be causal in the relative lack of longevity amongst non-believers. Would that cost be worth it?

Now I know you get uncomfortable with the Santa comparisons. Whilst I understand where you are coming from you need to understand that to me there is little difference in the belief's, although I was hoping to show you something else with it rather than merely getting you upset.

What I had hoped you would notice is the ease with which I defended Santa, almost to the point of making it seem reasonable from your initial attack. I pointed out he didn't live where you searched. I told you where he did live and that you can visit him. I even covered the flying issue.

Now suppose I could further point to research showing that children who belief in Santa gain benefit from it in relation to those that don't. Does that make Santa real?

[The Reality Salesman01]

The God Placebo!

[lweisenthal]

Hi Max,

You are a courteous gentleman. Thanks for the constructive tone.

I wouldn't assert that theism is the single most effective means of longevity extension or the only path which leads to happiness. I am merely suggesting that it's not illogical to pursue the possibility of "conversion" to theism for benefits which have nothing to do with desire for immortality or avoidance of theoretical damnation (I write the latter as a fellow non-believer in Satan and Hell). I further suggest that it's useful to consider the plausibility of a higher order of sentient consciousness, based on up to date theories in the field of cosmology.

Beyond the above (potential for improved state of well being and physical universe plausibility), it's then simply a matter of belief: does one have it or does one not have it? With respect to proving what is "real" (or not) -- well, that has never been within the realm of possibility (proof, that is, either way) and that's where it's likely to remain, no matter how much the likes of you and I may argue about it.

I do want to elaborate on one of your points -- about the benefits of religion being relating to "social structure," and atheists lacking the benefits of similar "social structure," because there aren't generally social groups of atheists which one may readily seek out, when one moves from place to place. What is important to realize is that the theist never feels alone; the theist feels that the theistic deity is always present -- a constant companion. A companion with whom one can speak; a companion to provide backbone, comfort, and even advice (have you ever seen movies such as "Fiddler on the Roof," in which the main character Tevia is always bouncing his ideas off of God, asking for advice, counsel, and inner strength and resilience? This sounds fanciful to you, and I'm certain that you feel it's entirely illusory, in a physical world sense, but I assure you that, for the believer, it's quite real.

I'd quarrel with your assertion that non-church going believers do not enjoy the physical and emotional well-being benefits associated with theism. I told you about my own "clinical trial" of attending weekly services in three different religions. I ultimately chose the one I did because -- among several reasons -- everyone left me alone with my own meditations -- they didn't try to smother me with kindness or draw me into a social group. After more than two years of perfect attendance at the weekly services, I have yet to make a single personal friend -- only because this is what I've chosen for myself. I think that religious belief is an intensely personal matter. I try not to discuss the details of my own beliefs, because I don't want to get drawn into debates with fellow worshipers who don't agree with the way that I view the (unshared) details of our shared religion. But the community worship (with, for me, an anonymous community of believers) facilitates and reinforces my own personal communication with the higher order of sentient consciousness (whom I call "God," because it is as good a name as any other for an entity which is entirely real to me, at this point). I'll probably always be mostly a loner, socially speaking, but, as the song goes, I now feel that I'll never walk alone.

Thanks for your generous gifts of attention and time.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA USA

Larry,

I agree with the point by point ('lessness) so I'll try to minimize it.

It would appear that your main thrust for theism is that it appears to extend longevity and that therefore it carries benefit.

Whilst this may be true (for a whole host of possible reasons) it is far from the only course of action you can take to achieve that. It would appear, for example, that leaving the US and moving to Japan, or the Greek Island of Crete, would have an even greater impact on your potential longevity. Those 2 regions appear to offer the greatest average longevity on the planet (and both are cultures that smoke heavily).

It is fully possible that theists are happier in their daily lives than atheists (I have no data on that) but even if this and the above are true it says nothing as to the truth of the belief itself.

I guess how important that is to you might vary. I can say I understand the lack of interest in what's real and what's imagined if it makes you happy - its just not something I aspire to.

We can therefore agree to disagree if you like. I don't really care one way or another what you or others believe as long as it doesn't impinge on others. There is, of course, a great deal we could say about that, in combination with the often expressed opinion amongst atheists that it is the more reasonable theist that provides cover for the extremist (the one with bombs strapped to his body, or the one that blows up abortion clinics and so on).

If that is true (and I am not saying it is, as yet) then your added longevity comes with a cost - one that might even be causal in the relative lack of longevity amongst non-believers. Would that cost be worth it?

Now I know you get uncomfortable with the Santa comparisons. Whilst I understand where you are coming from you need to understand that to me there is little difference in the belief's, although I was hoping to show you something else with it rather than merely getting you upset.

What I had hoped you would notice is the ease with which I defended Santa, almost to the point of making it seem reasonable from your initial attack. I pointed out he didn't live where you searched. I told you where he did live and that you can visit him. I even covered the flying issue.

Now suppose I could further point to research showing that children who belief in Santa gain benefit from it in relation to those that don't. Does that make Santa real?

[Simon Moon]

I wouldn't assert that theism is the single most effective means of longevity extension or the only path which leads to happiness. I am merely suggesting that it's not illogical to pursue the possibility of "conversion" to theism for benefits

You are assuming, that one could, by force of will (or some other mechanism) start believing in a god. Belief doesn't work that way.

My mind works in such a way that I am unable to believe things for which there is insufficient demonstrable supporting evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic.

I would be completely unable to 'convert to theism' unless the case for the existence of a god met its burden of proof via the above criteria.

I further suggest that it's useful to consider the plausibility of a higher order of sentient consciousness, based on up to date theories in the field of cosmology.

Interesting that the majority of physicists and cosmologists are atheist. Why aren't they seeing the same thing in those up to date theories as you are?

Most atheists are open to the possibility that a god exists. Plausible no, possible yes.

Beyond the above (potential for improved state of well being and physical universe plausibility), it's then simply a matter of belief: does one have it or does one not have it?

I do not have to compromise my intellectual honesty by believing something that is unsupported by evidence, in order to improve my well being. It has now been pointed out by several people here of non theistic methods to achieve improved well being, no supernatural beliefs necessary.

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true. How does one go about believing something that they don't accept to be true?

With respect to proving what is "real" (or not) -- well, that has never been within the realm of possibility (proof, that is, either way) and that's where it's likely to remain, no matter how much the likes of you and I may argue about it.

How do you know it will never be within the realm of possibility?

But here's the thing. The atheist position does not require proof that a god does not exist. It is only the position that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is the disbelief that a god does exist.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Simon, I do thank you and others for clarifying the definition of atheism. Lack of belief, owing to insufficient evidence, as opposed to militant assertion of impossibility. That was helpful to me.

With regard to how an atheist might theoretically "convert" to theism, I offered my own experience as a suggestion on how this might be done (this is a thought experiment only; I'm not expecting you to consider it worth the effort).

(1) Understand the potential advantages, health-wise.

(2) Be open to the physical universe possibility.

(3) Do the "clinical trial." Pick out a couple or three religions with convenient branch offices. Go to the services, as participatory theater. Suspend disbelief. Participate. See what happens. It's not really all that different from setting up an array of radio telescopes to intercept radio waves emanating from outer space, from postulated inhabited planets. There's no evidence at all that such extra-terrestrial life exists, but it's possible, and legitimate scientists have found it worth exploring.

My hypothesis (again, Google "Boltzmann Brain") is that massive amounts of energy may be organized into sentience. This energy could be dark energy, as well as ordinary energy. It could be energy in our universe; or it could be energy in another universe, out in the multiverse. My hypothesis is that this ("Boltzmann) sentient energy has the potential capability of communicating with our own sentient energy, based on bioelectricity -- our sentient energy being wired; God's sentient energy being wireless.

I tried this and it worked for me. I believe that I talk to God and I believe that God talks to me. Billions of human beings, since the dawn of homo sapiens, have believed the same thing.

As to why cosmologists haven't thought of this, en mass, I honestly think that it's because it's a new concept. They are aware of the physics; they just haven't been motivated to consider the theological implications. I don't think, though, that I'm either the first or last person to think in this way. I'd like for others to test the hypothesis and report their own experiences. If not here, then where ever. But I think that the concept is neither irrational nor fanciful and that curious atheists, lacking in certitude, might be motivated to try this, if only for the sake of intellectual curiosity.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

I wouldn't assert that theism is the single most effective means of longevity extension or the only path which leads to happiness. I am merely suggesting that it's not illogical to pursue the possibility of "conversion" to theism for benefits

You are assuming, that one could, by force of will (or some other mechanism) start believing in a god. Belief doesn't work that way.

My mind works in such a way that I am unable to believe things for which there is insufficient demonstrable supporting evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic.

I would be completely unable to 'convert to theism' unless the case for the existence of a god met its burden of proof via the above criteria.

I further suggest that it's useful to consider the plausibility of a higher order of sentient consciousness, based on up to date theories in the field of cosmology.

Interesting that the majority of physicists and cosmologists are atheist. Why aren't they seeing the same thing in those up to date theories as you are?

Most atheists are open to the possibility that a god exists. Plausible no, possible yes.

Beyond the above (potential for improved state of well being and physical universe plausibility), it's then simply a matter of belief: does one have it or does one not have it?

I do not have to compromise my intellectual honesty by believing something that is unsupported by evidence, in order to improve my well being. It has now been pointed out by several people here of non theistic methods to achieve improved well being, no supernatural beliefs necessary.

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true. How does one go about believing something that they don't accept to be true?

With respect to proving what is "real" (or not) -- well, that has never been within the realm of possibility (proof, that is, either way) and that's where it's likely to remain, no matter how much the likes of you and I may argue about it.

How do you know it will never be within the realm of possibility?

But here's the thing. The atheist position does not require proof that a god does not exist. It is only the position that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

Atheism is not the assertion that a god does not exist. It is the disbelief that a god does exist.

[Angrboda]

You didn't "convert" to theism. Stop telling lies. Or not. I don't really care. Twats like you come here, dishonestly pushing loaded agendas, seldom, if ever, leaving their self-created bubble of narcissistic obsession. So keep lying, spewing bullshit, and ignoring the very real problems your agenda faces because you aren't actually interested in anything but that agenda. You're a biased and incompetent douche bag, as I said initially, and all your efforts here will lead to nought, because you are dishonestly and unethically pursuing a corruptly informed agenda instead of actually participating.

[lweisenthal]

Hi Rasetsu,

I'm sorry that you don't like me.

Moving on, since you aren't interested in having a serious discussion with me, you might consider the same line of reasoning coming from a fellow atheist, to wit:

http://vulcanis.wordpress.com/2007/09/02...ave-hoped/

Boltzmann brains have vast theological implications, if correct. They may form the basis for a rationalised and scientific explanation for the existence of a god. As a devout atheist (who has gained some tolerance for religious discussion over the years) I do hold an active interest in rational theological discussion. The Boltzmann hypothesis seems to be the first plausible (although still highly unlikely) explanation for the existence of god that doesn’t involve mindless devotion and ‘leaps of faith’. Below is a post I found that outlines a basic theory, which I hope to develop further.

...snip...

Moving on from these requirements, a possible Boltzmann god may then arise from the constituents of an infinitely old universe rearranging themselves spontaneously so as to create order from chaos and in the process, give rise to an all knowing, all powerful entity. As a side note I would like to make the point that the name “Boltzmann Brains” is slightly misleading; our ideas of what constitutes consciousness is often clouded by our own experiences. So far, humanity is the only fully conscious entity in our observable universe, therefore we tend to describe consciousness in terms of ourselves. Boltzmann brains, and in fact other more exotic forms of alien consciousness need not necessarily be made up of the same stuff that makes up our brains. Nerve cells, blood vessels and electrical impulses can give way to, and are less likely to produce consciousness than more simple models such as silicon chips and even clouds of interacting atoms (such as Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe). Given enough time, anything that can happen, will. In this case, a universe that has existed for an infinitely long period has a higher likelihood of producing such a conscious entity.

Be open to possibilities. If you think that you know it all with sufficient certitude to rule out possibilities beyond your meager experience with the minuscule portion of the cosmos currently open to human exploration, you've lost your sense of wonder, which would be a great burden for anyone to endure.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA USA