God: No magic required

[lweisenthal]

I think everyone may have scared Larry away.

Hi Popsicle, by no means. I've been impressed and gratified by a number of the more thoughtful replies and comments.

I try not to get consumed with real time debating with a half dozen simultaneous debate opponents. It becomes a black hole, with regard to time. Yesterday, I had to do some actual work (medics have to work on weekends, not infrequently). Then I watched the Super Bowl. Today, I've got a lot of work to do on my day job. I'm very pleased that people are still sufficiently interested to wish to continue this thread. I'm happy to stay engaged, as long an anyone else remains interested in so doing. Many of the recent comments don't really require a response. A couple of these comments do appear to be asking me for a response, and I'll definitely reply, by and by.

I'm gratified that Resetsu is reading the blog I tried to link, but wasn't permitted to by this blog editor. It's great that Resetsu made the effort to actually copy and post one of the pages, and thereby facilitated the efforts of any others who wish to find and peruse my writings related to the current subject matter. In addition to the blog in question and Disqus, an easy way to see the sorts of things I write is to Google "Weisenthal/Huntington" or "Larry Weisenthal" or "Dr. Weisenthal" or whatever. There's also a ton of archival material on Google Groups, which can be accessed under my name or else under "runnswim," which is a part of the email address I used for my sports related discussions. As I wrote, my life is pretty much an open book, and I'm certainly not a closet conservative religionist, out to save souls from damnation. Religion-wise, you'll find that I've devoted a vastly greater amount of time arguing against the rigid doctrines of such religionists, than I've spent quibbling with atheists and agnostics about this stuff.

Note to blog editor: No, this wasn't a sneaky attempt on my part to circumvent the blog rules against advertising. It's simply that I don't want anyone thinking that I'm hiding an agenda. Resetsu posted a page from my blog, wherein all I do is to link to this particular thread on this particular blog. I think Resetsu's implication (I'm not great at understanding his/her thinking) is that I'm somehow trying to secretly "use" this atheist blog for some nefarious purpose. So I'm just trying to be transparent. I don't provide any commercial service relating to this stuff. I don't write self help books or run a counseling service or anything like that. It's just something in which I have an interest, and I personally find it much more stimulating to talk and debate with opposite minded people than to stay inside of a cozy bubble, with friends and like-minded people. I've had more than 20,000 posts to political blogs and virtually all of them have been on conservative blogs, arguing with political and religious conservatives, many of whom probably hate my guts even more than Resetsu (though seldom have I encountered a debate opponent with a higher ratio of personal invective to thoughtful counter-argument). Anyway, kind editor, if you find that anything in this post is in violation of your advertising rules, I'd ask you to simply delete whatever part of it crosses whatever line may exist.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Chad, My main assertions are simply the following:

(1) There are objective "this life" personal advantages associated with theism, as opposed to atheism, in terms of mental and physical well-being, including longevity.

In the USA there is certainly a reduced chance of being disowned by your family, fired from your job, and potential in-laws blocking your relationships; so there is an advantage to at least pretending to believe theistic claim. I'm not sure it is a net gain, though.

(2) Therefore, it is not irrational for a present day non-theist to determine if it's possible for he/she to morph into a theist.

I'm not so sure it's rational to desire to believe something you don't think is true because of the perks.

(3) Theism is perfectly compatible with state of the art knowledge and theory, relating to physical cosmology, without the need to invoke mysticism or magic.

So is atheism, and atheism is more parsimonious.

[Popsicle]

Ok thanks Larry, will look forward to reading more on the topic.

I think everyone may have scared Larry away.

Hi Popsicle, by no means. I've been impressed and gratified by a number of the more thoughtful replies and comments.

I try not to get consumed with real time debating with a half dozen simultaneous debate partners. It becomes a black hole, with regard to time. Yesterday, I had to do some actual work (medics have to work on weekends, not infrequently). Then I watched the Super Bowl. Today, I've got a lot of work to do on my day job. I'm very pleased that people are still sufficiently interested to wish to continue this thread. I'm happy to stay engaged, as long an anyone else remains willing to do so. Many of the recent comments don't really require a response. A couple of these responses do appear to be asking me for a response, and I'll definitely reply, by and by.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Mister Agenda]

(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.

It's different from what scientists do in this respect: you can find anything you're looking for in your own head, whether it really exists or not. You're suggesting we jump down the rabbit hole of trying to convince ourselves something is true. That's not seeking, that's self-induced gullibility.

[Mudhammam]

I love how Larry naively thinks beliefs are simply "chosen" based on the personal advantages their alleged to bestow. If I believed that the FSM kept me wrapped in his warm, loving, noodly embrace and was part of a flock that sustained itself through weekly sermons and fellowship devoted to the FSM, perhaps it could in a superfluous way make me feel happier, more confident, and even healthier. Isn't that how many delusions work? But notice the big, glaring "If" at the beginning of the proposition. The reason I don't enjoy those potential benefits is that I don't believe in the FSM, nor would I join its church because I did (maybe I could join because its women adherents are attractive and still reap the same psychological rewards). It sounds like Larry's argument is not for belief but for having healthy relationships and being active in the community. Well then, great. And no shit.

[lweisenthal]

[Rampant.A.I.]

[lweisenthal]

[fr0d0]

"I've got a little blog where I discuss some of this stuff in slightly more detail:"

Wow.. MORE detail?!

Welcome Larry. Beautiful writing!

[Minimalist]

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.

Roughly the same plausibility as a bunch of leprechauns dancing the tarantella while wearing lederhosen in Jerusalem during a Passover seder but, if you want to con yourself I can't see where you are doing anyone else any harm.