the case against the case against god

[Alex K]

@abaris

Pfff, All you've proven is that Gorillas can be supernatural, too

But seriously,
@MysticKnight, all you do is label the ways the brain experiences its own activities as "supernatural". You have provided no reason to think that anything fishy is going on, and hence he name is very misleading and only serves to obfuscate.

It has been quite impressively shown in split brain patients that the brain works hard to generate the illusion of unity of the self by interpolating and lying even when it is provably wrong.

[Simon Moon]

But seriously,
@MysticKnight, all you do is label the ways the brain experiences its own activities as "supernatural". You have provided no reason to think that anything fishy is going on, and hence he name is very misleading and only serves to obfuscate.

And the only justification for doing so is a fallacious argument.

MysticKnight's original claim in this thread:

Seeing a connection to God and knowing the connection is real should be enough proof. I think goodness, love, greatness, praise, value, are signs of this connection, and with reflection people can see we are connected to the Divine

It can be rewritten something like this:


Premise1 - We are connected to God
Premise2 - Goodness, love, praise, value are signs of this connection
Conclusion - therefore God exists

It is obvious that he is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent. His first premise contains his conclusion.

Then he goes on to claim that we are the ones being disingenuous by being skeptical of his 'evidence' for the existence of God when we state that there are natural explanations for all of it.

[Esquilax]

Of course it must be those things. Subjective feelings are not evidence, and there's a simple way to demonstrate that: you feel that your god exists, and someone of another religion feels that their god is real. This is true of multiple religions, and at least a couple hundred followers. But they're all different gods, mostly mutually exclusive. Someone is wrong there. It's possible everyone is wrong there. But what's truly evident from that example is that "feeling" god inside you is not an accurate depiction of reality necessarily, because at least a few of the people reporting precisely the same effect you are, are by definition entirely wrong. So feelings produce, at best, both correct and incorrect results: how do you tell which is right?

Oh, and by the way: if I feel in my heart, as truly as you believe in your god, that rocks can talk, does that mean that rocks can talk? Or does that mean my feelings are factually wrong?

Hmm, I guess feelings aren't reliable evidence then.

If you have some false memories, it means memory is never reliable and you can never be certain of a certain memory?

Precisely. What it means is that your memory is capable of producing true recollections and false recollections, meaning you'd need some other way of determining which was which, and that can't just be "more memories."

It's the same with personal experiences; if your personal experiences can produce a false picture of reality then you cannot reliably claim that your personal experiences are evidence in and of themselves. You'd need some outside indication of which category your particular personal experience falls into, something objectively real to demonstrate that what you're experiencing conforms to reality.

And if you're having to look outside of subjective experience in order to verify your feelings about god, you can pretty much just skip the middle man and look to reality before coming to your conclusions. Of course, if you did that you'd find nothing to justify your personal feelings about god at all, which is why you're so set on keeping it all within the realm of your own subjective experiences and preferences, but then, it's hardly mine or any atheist's problems that your beliefs are indistinguishable from fantasy.

[Tonus]

If we take a more scientific approach, sure, it might not seem we have a soul. But who says that must be the approach we take? It seems it is as I said, you are ruling out the experience within and a conclusion of a spiritual nature.

I have yet to see any kind of consensus on how to take a "spiritual approach" or how to confirm that one person's spiritual approach is legitimate or not. The thing is, the scientific approach is another way of saying the scientific method, which was developed in order to remove as many biases, ambiguity, and fallacious reasoning as possible in order to get at the truth of a matter. "Spirituality" is awash in these things, and thus it is impossible to verify any conclusion reached via that approach. Your only option is to accept it on faith or reject it.

They are two completely different ways to explain our experiences and cannot stand on equal footing. When someone devises a reliable way to quantify such experiences, then I'll consider them. Until then the spiritual and supernatural realm remain a place where opinion replaces fact and where desire replaces truth. That's not reliable.

[robvalue]

Spirituality is defined to mean "whatever you like man, whatever feels good". It makes it quite useful for discussing weird unexplained feelings. But applying scientific testing has proved difficult as it accuses them of being "heavy guys in white coats" and fails the preliminary drug test.

[Whateverist]

They are two completely different ways to explain our experiences and cannot stand on equal footing. When someone devises a reliable way to quantify such experiences, then I'll consider them. Until then the spiritual and supernatural realm remain a place where opinion replaces fact and where desire replaces truth. That's not reliable.

Someone call for a devil's advocate? Internally, I think it is possible for a few well adjusted individuals to hold their religion and science on equal footing. Separate but equal footing. We've seen a couple here. Michael comes to mind. The trick is to be scrupulously clear with yourself which questions fall into which sphere. The great majority of theists don't seem to have the knack. Hell most don't have a clue why anyone would want to. For them religion creeps into and spoils their capacity for understanding the natural world.

[robvalue]

I have heard some people who quite clearly state that they know they are not being rational regarding religion, that they don't apply their scepticism to it. They just admit it makes no sense.

I respect that position more.

[Losty]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

Your username sounds like Christian troll when you say it out loud.

[robvalue]

You know, if I found out Yahweh exists, it would be the single most depressing thing that could ever happen. I would know we are all absolutely fucked. A tantrum toddler at the helm.

[Whateverist]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

Your username sounds like Christian troll when you say it out loud.

God I hate this smiley but look what you made me do. Plus the tea coming through my nose did not feel good.