Why does science always upstage God?

[vulcanlogician]

"Buddhism in theory" is the only Buddhism that I (and Nietzsche for that matter) are concerned with.

But thanks for sharing the video. Very informative. And, yes, Westerners have a romanticized view of Buddhism. But there are plenty of ideas worthy of consideration in ancient Indian texts. Plenty worth rejecting too. So I try to approach the subject, become aware of any nuances, and consider one idea at a time.

When you depart a "religion in theory" and begin to examine a "religion in practice" you'll always find institutions with pyramid like power structures and abusive patterns of behavior. Some worse than others. India has some of the most abusive and interpersonally destructive religious practices in the world. I'm very aware of that.

But good ideas are good ideas. And Indian thinkers had some... even the mystics.

There has never been a period of human history where humans, within or without, for or against, internally or externally who did not conflict with others.  Humans are tribal, regardless of label.

Sure. But what does that have to do with the differences in religions?

[Brian37]

There has never been a period of human history where humans, within or without, for or against, internally or externally who did not conflict with others.  Humans are tribal, regardless of label.

Sure. But what does that have to do with the differences in religions?

"Religion" is nothing more than our species excuse to claim we are different. We are not different. The only "differences" humans can argue are the pathetic excuses we make to claim we are different. 

If one can rightfully, and should rightfully accept, that we all are born and die, and eat shit and fart, then all the other labels are nothing but excuses to excuse social pecking orders.

[Soberman921]

Religion is a lot of things, but rarely an "excuse." Sure there are cynical people who claim a religion simply to justify positions they hold for other reasons but cannot support. But I think most true believers see their religion as providing an explanation for what they see in the world, which also allows some sense of meaning and purpose. We can argue with their reasoning, but I rarely challenge someone's conscious motivations for what they claim to believe.

[Brian37]

Religion is a lot of things, but rarely an "excuse." Sure there are cynical people who claim a religion simply to justify positions they hold for other reasons but cannot support. But I think most true believers see their religion as providing an explanation for what they see in the world, which also allows some sense of meaning and purpose. We can argue with their reasoning, but I rarely challenge someone's conscious motivations for what they claim to believe.

Um no. Just the opposite, religion is the majority of excuse. "Religion" is nothing more than the word "tribalism" on meth.

[Soberman921]

I don't doubt that tribalism motivates a lot of religious practices and affiliations, but that isn't the same as an excuse which is a disingenuous reason someone offers. Are you saying religious people don't believe any of the things they claim to believe? I don't know how you would demonstrate that, and it imputes a great deal of bad faith, so to speak. I tend to take people at their word that they believe what they say. If you don't, how do you determine who is sincere and who isn't?

[GUBU]

[quote pid='1675432' dateline='1513840811']
I'm glad you asked! Let's dig into this post and question what you've said. I will go one at a time and maybe we can get a good conversation going. I will defend the Christian God of the Bible. I am not advocating for a general theism. I think general theism has as many holes and inconsistencies as atheism.

You ask "why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation"

Because your conclusions are formed by your presuppositions. You're not a neutral truth seeking autonomous being and I'll show you why I say that:

1. You have decided there is no God and that "everything has a alternate, more feasible explanation." Even though that isn't true, and if it were true you couldn't prove that it's true because you don't know everything. In fact, I would challenge you that the big bang and evolution are both "more feasible". I think there is evidence to challenge that.

2. "More feasible" to you means naturalistic. So immediately you preclude the supernatural in your premises because you assume they are less feasible.

So this affects the way you look at the universe. There is nothing wrong with the evidence. It's very clear that God exists. In Romans 1 God tells us that people

"suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning God has clearly shown you at least two things about himself: his eternal power and divine nature. And these two things are so clear that your unbelief is inexcusable. In fact, the word there "without excuse" is the Greek word we get apologetics from. So what he is actually saying is that you are without a reasonable defense.

You see, you never question yourself, your presuppositions, or what formed your worldview. The problem is not with the evidence, it's with you and the way you view the evidence.

Have you any evidence for the above bullshit?  Because that's the difference between science and religion  in science nothing is accepted without tons of evidence and then only provisionally.  In religion evidence is anathema.

---

Humans have and always will be tribal, so "good" is relative, not to be confused with morality or empathy.

To Hitler's rise he was "good" for Germans, but he was hardly moral in the grand scope. Same with Stalin and Saddam.

Ok, what's the grand scope of morality?

Society. Most definitely not some imaginary being who mandates mass murder, mass rape, mass torture, racially based chattel slavery and an extremely hierarchical social structure based on accident of birth.

---

There are tons of them which can do so, a great many used to be christian, after all.  Maybe you just travel in different social circles?  At any rate, study after study has confirmed what we experience on the boards every day.  Atheists know more about religions than their own adherents do.  It's probably an artifact of demographics.

There are an almost infinite number of christian positions on any issue. All ayost does is pick which position to stand under depending on what the atheist is presently arguing. So what that he constantly contradicts himself; he is an idiot, full of sound and fury, signyfing nothing.

[ayost]

Well, what Romans is saying is that if God revealed it to you, then the message got through. You are suppressing your knowledge of God. Which I think you second sentence demonstrates pretty clearly.

Well, you may be reading it wrong because of your presuppositions about the world, gods, and other people, don't you think?  Not magic book, mind you, it says silly things like that all the time.  My comment.  

I can't see the utility in suppressing something that doesn't matter to me - the existence of a god is inconsequential to my opinion of their religions.

---

I mean, that would clearly challenge my beliefs, I guess. I'm not sure how that matters here, though.

In what way?  You don't assume that the criticisms you offered for atheists wouldn't also apply to you in that event?  That you might deny the god in your living room?  Suppress clear evidence?

In fact, I posit that you have - and that your comments are clear evidence that you are suppressing the truth of zues in your living room.  Or maybe you just never met the guy.  50/50?

First of all, feel like I came in hot when I was here before. Not my original intention, but the head butting got the best of me. So sorry about that, but for that reason I disengaged. I'm also hoping we can avoid the insults and condescending, harsh language so we can have a conversation. If cutting wittiness is your m.o. that's cool, I will just try to read through it as not personal, haha.

OK, so I have been thinking about what you said here, about suppressing the knowledge of Zeus. Which is an interesting counterpoint. At first I was like "This is dumb, we all know Zeus and snake gods don't exist. That's not even an honest critique." And then I thought well what if Grand Nudger was actually a religious person he was earnestly told me I am denying the knowledge of Zeus. What would I say then? So this frustrated me for a while. Then I thought what if he wasn't a person just trying to punk me on a forum. What if he was a Muslim and he told me I was suppressing the knowledge of Allah. So that's how I thought about it. 

And I think that it still represents the same suppression of truth, but from a very different position. So I went back to Romans 1 starting with verse 18 and thought it out in that context. Now, I know you're denying that you're suppressing any truth, I get that, and not to be insulting, but I believe what the Bible says about us before I believe what we say about us. I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. I also believe the evidence shows that we lie about ourselves. I say all of this just for context, so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't say that to edge you on and I'd like to set aside debate on the Bible being true in an effort to focus on suppression, though they are closely tied together. So in that context:

The truth that is being suppressed: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen (meaning the Christian God).

You got me sidetracked on the type of evidence. We are not talking about the evidence of God showing up in your living room, or a miracle, or anything supernatural. That is not the truth that is being suppressed. The truth that is being suppressed is knowing that God exists through creation. Does that answer every question about God? No. I'm not saying that.

Atheist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by denying that God even exists.
Theist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by creating another god that closely resembles but isn't the true God.

That theist could believe in Allah, Zeus, carved snake gods, you name it, the deity doesn't matter. The believer in Zeus or snake gods is just one step "closer" I guess you could say, in that they at least understand a god exists and the respect that eternal power and divine nature, even if that respect is perverted (Romans addresses that in the following verses). The believer in Allah is one step closer from them, knowing that there is only one God and maybe some other basic info. The atheist is one step "further away" in that he lacks that initial respect for a creating being. Also, I really don't like the further away/closer analogy, just FYI.

But my response would be mostly the same, and that's to try to do an internal critique of whatever worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects the experience of reality. To which I can imagine you jumping up and down screaming "Christianity doesn't reflect reality!!!" Hahahaha. Fair enough. I'm laughing as I type that. But unless we can have an honest conversation we can't hash these things out. I think I can defend the consistency of Christianity (not individual Christians) and show that it reflects the actual experience of life. And you can call it "my version of Christianity", I'm fine with that. The reason I chose Reformed theology over, say, Catholic theology is because Reformed theology was consistent and reflected my experience in reality more than Catholicism. We can do a critique of any theology and see if it's good theology. I'm convinced Reformed theology is the most sound.

To you, the evidence for Zeus is of the same nature as the evidence for the God of the Bible. I think part of your argument hinges on the idea that any god is a made up god so the evidence for each is the same. I think if we're being honest, you'd have a hard time defending that in a public debate. I think the evidence for the truth of the Bible and Jesus is orders of magnitude better than Zeus or carved snake gods. It's grounded in history and people. First. I think we have to want to actually know the truth no matter where it takes us, not just win debates or punk out people on forums.

So if you want to actually defend the existence of Zeus, that's fine, we can explore that worldview. I know you think atheism doesn't have a worldview, fair enough, we could also explore your personal worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects your experience in reality. Maybe you want to do neither, that's also fine, haha.

[The Grand Nudger]

First of all, feel like I came in hot when I was here before. Not my original intention, but the head butting got the best of me. So sorry about that, but for that reason I disengaged. I'm also hoping we can avoid the insults and condescending, harsh language so we can have a conversation. If cutting wittiness is your m.o. that's cool, I will just try to read through it as not personal, haha.

OK, so I have been thinking about what you said here, about suppressing the knowledge of Zeus. Which is an interesting counterpoint. At first I was like "This is dumb, we all know Zeus and snake gods don't exist. That's not even an honest critique." And then I thought well what if Grand Nudger was actually a religious person he was earnestly told me I am denying the knowledge of Zeus. What would I say then? So this frustrated me for a while. Then I thought what if he wasn't a person just trying to punk me on a forum. What if he was a Muslim and he told me I was suppressing the knowledge of Allah. So that's how I thought about it. 

And I think that it still represents the same suppression of truth, but from a very different position. So I went back to Romans 1 starting with verse 18 and thought it out in that context. Now, I know you're denying that you're suppressing any truth, I get that, and not to be insulting, but I believe what the Bible says about us before I believe what we say about us. I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. I also believe the evidence shows that we lie about ourselves. I say all of this just for context, so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't say that to edge you on and I'd like to set aside debate on the Bible being true in an effort to focus on suppression, though they are closely tied together. So in that context:

In the spirit of your condescending rejection..I suppose I can only condescendingly reject the notion that you believe magic book before you believe what people say about themselves.  You don't really believe that - you're just suppressing...something or other.

The truth that is being suppressed: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen (meaning the Christian God).

By whom?  Not by me.  Not by you.  You've never seen that, you're just suppressing....something...

You got me sidetracked on the type of evidence. We are not talking about the evidence of God showing up in your living room, or a miracle, or anything supernatural. That is not the truth that is being suppressed. The truth that is being suppressed is knowing that God exists through creation. Does that answer every question about God? No. I'm not saying that.

Atheist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by denying that God even exists.
Theist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by creating another god that closely resembles but isn't the true God.

That theist could believe in Allah, Zeus, carved snake gods, you name it, the deity doesn't matter. The believer in Zeus or snake gods is just one step "closer" I guess you could say, in that they at least understand a god exists and the respect that eternal power and divine nature, even if that respect is perverted (Romans addresses that in the following verses). The believer in Allah is one step closer from them, knowing that there is only one God and maybe some other basic info. The atheist is one step "further away" in that lacks that initial respect for a creating being. Also, I really don't like the further away/closer analogy, just FYI.

But my response would be mostly the same, and that's to try to do an internal critique of whatever worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects the experience of reality. To which I can imagine you jumping up and down screaming "Christianity doesn't reflect reality!!!" Hahahaha. Fair enough. I'm laughing as I type that. But unless we can have an honest conversation we can't hash these things out. I think I can defend the consistency of Christianity (not individual Christians) and show that it reflects the actual experience of life. And you can call it "my version of Christianity", I'm fine with that. The reason I chose Reformed theology over, say, Catholic theology is because Reformed theology was consistent and reflected my experience in reality more than Catholicism. We can do an internal critique of any theology and see if it's good theology. I'm convinced Reformed theology is the most sound.

To you, the evidence for Zeus is of the same nature as the evidence for the God of the Bible. I think if we're being honest, you'd have a hard time defending that in a public debate. I think the evidence for the truth of the Bible and Jesus is orders of magnitude better than Zeus or carved snake gods. It's grounded in history and people. First. I think we have to want to actually know the truth no matter where it takes us, not just win debates or punk out people on forums.

So if you want to actually defend the existence of Zeus, that's fine, we can explore that worldview.

Why would you think I'd have a hard time comparing one mythology to another in the public sphere?  

At any rate, the point wasn't that I could defend the existence of zues..but that you couldn't...and now..haven't, managed to defend your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion about suppression..which I now maintain you don't hold at all..because why not?  Goose and gander.  

You talk about an honest conversation, but there's no possibility of having one if you can't simply accept that some of us have never seen gods ass, and have no need to suppress gods ass if we did see it. Consider this. It wouldn't matter to me if zues or the jewish god or the christian god, or ganesh.... appeared in my living room. Nothing about my life changes in the absence or presence of any gods. I'd think, well shit, look at that, and then continue along with my day and my life exactly as before. The claim we're disagreeing with doesn't amount to much more than your (and the authors) inability to understand why and that other people do not believe..and, for at least some, why the status of this belief yay or nay is so unimportant. To you, whether or not the god you believe in exists may be of utmost importance..and that's to be expected as a believer - but it doesn't matter to me whether the god you believe in, or any god, exists.

Now, however, you're tying that belief and that gods existence to a demonstrably false claim in a magic book. Do you think that's wise? Is that the behavior of a person who respects or values the god, or god belief?

I know you think atheism doesn't have a worldview, fair enough, we could also explore your personal worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects your experience in reality. Maybe you want to do neither, that's also fine, haha.

Will it be me telling you what my worldview is, and you telling me I just can't believe whatever I told you?

FWIW, I think that the excerpt provides clarity on a good question that early cultists asked. What about people who don't believe? Magic book says alot about that group of people, much of it directly at odds with the notion that you're flogging now. Magic book tells us, for example..that all those who love and seek him will find him. That implies another group who doesn't..and won't. That no one who knows him keeps on sinning, and that those who do..don't. That whoever knows god listens to these shamans...but that whomever does not know god...won't. You can see how all of this may have been concerning to people, and especially with respect to the beginning of a religion where some members of a family may be christian while loved and valued others are not. What is god going to do about them, why don't they believe what I believe? Do these people who've never seen and don't know god end up in the pit? Does any of that fit with the image of god then forming as a benevolent force rather than a tribal ally? Whether real or imagined, these are questions and concerns that people..and yes, even christian people, have had with the character of the god described in these myths.

[ayost]

First of all, feel like I came in hot when I was here before. Not my original intention, but the head butting got the best of me. So sorry about that, but for that reason I disengaged. I'm also hoping we can avoid the insults and condescending, harsh language so we can have a conversation. If cutting wittiness is your m.o. that's cool, I will just try to read through it as not personal, haha.

OK, so I have been thinking about what you said here, about suppressing the knowledge of Zeus. Which is an interesting counterpoint. At first I was like "This is dumb, we all know Zeus and snake gods don't exist. That's not even an honest critique." And then I thought well what if Grand Nudger was actually a religious person he was earnestly told me I am denying the knowledge of Zeus. What would I say then? So this frustrated me for a while. Then I thought what if he wasn't a person just trying to punk me on a forum. What if he was a Muslim and he told me I was suppressing the knowledge of Allah. So that's how I thought about it. 

And I think that it still represents the same suppression of truth, but from a very different position. So I went back to Romans 1 starting with verse 18 and thought it out in that context. Now, I know you're denying that you're suppressing any truth, I get that, and not to be insulting, but I believe what the Bible says about us before I believe what we say about us. I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. I also believe the evidence shows that we lie about ourselves. I say all of this just for context, so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't say that to edge you on and I'd like to set aside debate on the Bible being true in an effort to focus on suppression, though they are closely tied together. So in that context:

In the spirit of your condescending rejection..I suppose I can only condescendingly reject the notion that you believe magic book before you believe what people say about themselves.  You don't really believe that - you're just suppressing...something or other.

The truth that is being suppressed: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen (meaning the Christian God).

By whom?  Not by me.  Not by you.  You've never seen that, you're just suppressing....something...

You got me sidetracked on the type of evidence. We are not talking about the evidence of God showing up in your living room, or a miracle, or anything supernatural. That is not the truth that is being suppressed. The truth that is being suppressed is knowing that God exists through creation. Does that answer every question about God? No. I'm not saying that.

Atheist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by denying that God even exists.
Theist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by creating another god that closely resembles but isn't the true God.

That theist could believe in Allah, Zeus, carved snake gods, you name it, the deity doesn't matter. The believer in Zeus or snake gods is just one step "closer" I guess you could say, in that they at least understand a god exists and the respect that eternal power and divine nature, even if that respect is perverted (Romans addresses that in the following verses). The believer in Allah is one step closer from them, knowing that there is only one God and maybe some other basic info. The atheist is one step "further away" in that lacks that initial respect for a creating being. Also, I really don't like the further away/closer analogy, just FYI.

But my response would be mostly the same, and that's to try to do an internal critique of whatever worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects the experience of reality. To which I can imagine you jumping up and down screaming "Christianity doesn't reflect reality!!!" Hahahaha. Fair enough. I'm laughing as I type that. But unless we can have an honest conversation we can't hash these things out. I think I can defend the consistency of Christianity (not individual Christians) and show that it reflects the actual experience of life. And you can call it "my version of Christianity", I'm fine with that. The reason I chose Reformed theology over, say, Catholic theology is because Reformed theology was consistent and reflected my experience in reality more than Catholicism. We can do an internal critique of any theology and see if it's good theology. I'm convinced Reformed theology is the most sound.

To you, the evidence for Zeus is of the same nature as the evidence for the God of the Bible. I think if we're being honest, you'd have a hard time defending that in a public debate. I think the evidence for the truth of the Bible and Jesus is orders of magnitude better than Zeus or carved snake gods. It's grounded in history and people. First. I think we have to want to actually know the truth no matter where it takes us, not just win debates or punk out people on forums.

So if you want to actually defend the existence of Zeus, that's fine, we can explore that worldview.

Why would you think I'd have a hard time comparing one mythology to another in the public sphere?  

At any rate, the point wasn't that I could defend the existence of zues..but that you couldn't...and now..haven't, managed to defend your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion about suppression..which I now maintain you don't hold at all..because why not?  Goose and gander.  

You talk about an honest conversation, but there's no possibility of having one if you can't simply accept that some of us have never seen gods ass, and have no need to suppress gods ass if we did see it.  Consider this.  It wouldn't matter to me if zues or the jewish god or the christian god, or ganesh.... appeared in my living room.  Nothing about my life changes in the absence or presence of any gods.  I'd think, well shit, look at that, and then continue along with my day and my life exactly as before.  The claim we're disagreeing with doesn't amount to much more than your (and the authors) inability to understand why and that other people do not believe..and, for at least some, why the status of this belief yay or nay is so unimportant.  To you, whether or not the god you believe in exists may be of utmost importance..and that's to be expected as a believer - but it doesn't matter to me whether the god you believe in, or any god, exists.

Now, however, you're tying that belief and that gods existence to a demonstrably false claim in a magic book.  Do you think that's wise?  Is that the behavior of a person who respects or values the god, or god  belief?

I know you think atheism doesn't have a worldview, fair enough, we could also explore your personal worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects your experience in reality. Maybe you want to do neither, that's also fine, haha.

Will it be me telling you what my worldview is, and you telling me I just can't believe whatever I told you?  

FWIW, I think that the excerpt provides clarity on a good question that early cultists asked.  What about people who don't believe?  Magic book says alot about that group of people, much of it directly at odds with the notion that you're flogging now.  Magic book tells us, for example..that all those who love and seek him will find him.  That implies another group who doesn't..and won't.  That no one who knows him keeps on sinning, and that those who do..don't.  That whoever knows god listens to these shamans...but that whomever does not know god...won't.  You can see how all of this may have been concerning to people, and especially with respect to the beginning of a religion where some members of a family may be christian while loved and valued others are not.  What is god going to do about them, why don't they believe what I believe?  Do these people who've never seen and don't know god end up in the pit?  Does any of that fit with the image of god then forming as a benevolent force rather than a tribal ally?  Whether real or imagined, these are questions and concerns that people..and yes, even christian people, have had with the character of the god described in these myths.

Ok, did you think this response to you I just typed was condescending? Because I tried to be as neutral with my language as I could be and still hold to and explain my position. Is all you heard condescension?

[The Grand Nudger]

I can believe, wholeheartedly, that you tried..but you might just hold a fundamentally condescending belief, in that one, don't you think?

Having already determined that you feel compelled to reject anything that anyone else tells you about what they do or don't believe which conflicts with your own beliefs - perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to describe why you feel compelled to reject as much, since that's your belief..and your beliefs about your beliefs somehow escape such criticism. Why would it be a problem, for you, if the claim were not true. If I..in short...exist?