Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eduk wrote: A bias is by definition unfair. Perhaps you do not realise the definition of the word? Also you are suffering from a serious lack of logic if you can't spot the clear formal logic mistake you have made here.

Did you see the quotes around the word "bias"?

1. Spectrum says something wrong (let us for not just assume that it is 100% wrong)
2. Spectrum is an atheist
3. All atheists are wrong

Do you see any problems with the above?

Nope.

The question being asked is "why Believe in a god when it is impossible to prove?" Don't take it personally if my answer (or Francis Bacon's answer) makes you uncomfortable.

The question being asked is "why Believe in a god when it is impossible to prove?" Don't take it personally if my answer (or Francis Bacon's answer) makes you uncomfortable.

You misunderstand me. It makes me feel uncomfortable for you. Granted you could find yourself in a position where you have authority over me and in that instance then yes I would be uncomfortable for myself and my loved ones. Also there is a perspective where you can look at life on the planet and through time as a whole. So any, even small, unreasonable beliefs are of net cost to life as a whole. No one is an island and beliefs can cause butterfly like effects, so in that sense I am against all unreasonable beliefs even if the apparent effect on myself seems insignificant. As I also worry about my progeny and life as a whole. Any amount of suffering is worse than no suffering. Of course that's complex.
I am with Spectrum in that I take a romantic view of the world and believe that humans are capable of a lot more than they commonly achieve. Sure the reality is that some people are beyond help (many are beyond my help or willingness to expend the necessary time and energy to help) but I don't just like to write people off.
For example I believe you are more than capable of coming to your own conclusions that your religion is made up whole cloth. You do have the potential to do that. I have heard many stories of people being devout believers and believing that they were justified in their various beliefs. However they made the choice to stop compartmentalising their belief and open it up to the same critical faculties which they would routinely apply to other areas of their life. This inevitably leads to the realisation that they no longer believe. This is not a position they were argued into directly but one that they took themselves (although it's possible an argument may have helped them).
I notice for example that you have a large amount of intellectual dishonesty. Now maybe you are fine with this. But the person you are hurting far more than anyone else is yourself. Perhaps you feel the joke is on others but again in my experience it is often the case that when you are in the wrong the joke is on you (so to speak).

Why have there always been people who believe in God's?

Because there have always been gullible people.

Eduk wrote:

The question being asked is "why Believe in a god when it is impossible to prove?" Don't take it personally if my answer (or Francis Bacon's answer) makes you uncomfortable.

You misunderstand me. It makes me feel uncomfortable for you. Granted you could find yourself in a position where you have authority over me and in that instance then yes I would be uncomfortable for myself and my loved ones. Also there is a perspective where you can look at life on the planet and through time as a whole. So any, even small, unreasonable beliefs are of net cost to life as a whole. No one is an island and beliefs can cause butterfly like effects, so in that sense I am against all unreasonable beliefs even if the apparent effect on myself seems insignificant. As I also worry about my progeny and life as a whole. Any amount of suffering is worse than no suffering. Of course that's complex.
I am with Spectrum in that I take a romantic view of the world and believe that humans are capable of a lot more than they commonly achieve. Sure the reality is that some people are beyond help (many are beyond my help or willingness to expend the necessary time and energy to help) but I don't just like to write people off.
For example I believe you are more than capable of coming to your own conclusions that your religion is made up whole cloth. You do have the potential to do that. I have heard many stories of people being devout believers and believing that they were justified in their various beliefs. However they made the choice to stop compartmentalising their belief and open it up to the same critical faculties which they would routinely apply to other areas of their life. This inevitably leads to the realisation that they no longer believe. This is not a position they were argued into directly but one that they took themselves (although it's possible an argument may have helped them).
I notice for example that you have a large amount of intellectual dishonesty. Now maybe you are fine with this. But the person you are hurting far more than anyone else is yourself. Perhaps you feel the joke is on others but again in my experience it is often the case that when you are in the wrong the joke is on you (so to speak).

Believe as you wish. The point is, you don't like my answer to the question.

Why even bother posting comments on the forum? It doesn't feel like you can possibly get much out of it?

Why bother asking questions like "Why believe in a god when it is Impossible to prove" if you're not interested in the answer?

Well I agree with that.

As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures. I don't ask you or anyone else to agree with this; only to accept that I do. Of course, my reasons go also go much, much deeper, but if skeptics shut themselves off to something as basic as this, what's the point of talking about the deep things of God?

Dark Matter wrote:

Spectrum wrote:
You will note I have supported most of my views with thorough arguments and relevant references.

It has been pointed out to you by myself and others that your arguments fail.

Like most scientist re scientific theories, I will be very happy and waiting for someone to prove my philosophical argument wrong. If there is, that would be an intellectual and philosophical improvement over an argument [mine] so it should be appreciated.

Many have pointed out and express their views on my argument but none of them are sound nor convincing.
If there is any convincing point I would have accepted it, keep on arguing on it or raised a new thread to focus on it, so far there is none.

I am just expressing my views and I do not expect any one to accept or agree. Most of the points I have presented are clues, hints and are tip-of-icebergs of various deeper issues. Preferably, one should not accept these ideas until they have done extensive research to verify the claims I have presented.

All that's fine, but what you present is a poorly formulated straw man that avoids the questions I asked above: 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 'Why is the universe intelligible?' 'What must be in order for what is to be as it is?' and 'What is the mysterious power behind the things that exist? Given man's innate desire to have answers for these questions, it is dehumanizing to argue that it 'doesn't matter,' 'that it's a matter of probabilities,' 'I don't know,' or say that people who try to answer these kinds of questions suffer from some kind of psychological angst.

I did not say it does not matter, I am for all the above questions.
What I have resisted to the above is when theists stand on the edges of the known and take a leap of faith into unknown and impossible to insist God is the ultimate of those 'somethings.' As I had argued this is due to the very instinctual impulsive primal reason.

Clearly, I am not the first person perceive the dehumanizing nature of atheism.

The term 'atheism' was first coined sometime during the 16th century as a derogatory term to resist the truths of reality, i.e. there is no God, as such a proposition is a psychological threat to theists.
This instinctive impulse has a certain survival value and is common between people in tribes of of "us versus them" which give rise to the common racist, sexist, etc. condemnations of the "other" that had lead to terrible evils [genocides] and violence committed on innocents.
What is of concern to humanity with these theistic related evils and violence is the ultimate ground is 'God' [God said so!] where God is an impossibility and illusory.

The instinctual dehumanization and condemnation of non-theists was recorded long ago in the Bible;

• The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. -Psalm 14:1

The basis for all these condemnations of non-theists is psychological to counter a perceived threat against the psychological security of theists.

Note my call is always; to resolve the issues of all theistic related evils, terror, and violence, there is a need to acknowledge 'God is an impossibility' and that the basis of theism is psychological, so there is a need to divert the focus into the psychological.

-- Updated Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:33 pm to add the following --

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures. I don't ask you or anyone else to agree with this; only to accept that I do. Of course, my reasons go also go much, much deeper, but if skeptics shut themselves off to something as basic as this, what's the point of talking about the deep things of God?

I agree with the above to some degree BUT ...;
Note my signature below, I believe in the past [something is better than nothing] and even the present [to some extent] and given the psychological state of the majority of human beings, religion and theism was & is a critical necessity.
In the past, theism was an optimal choice given the pros [especially psychological] outweighs the cons [evils, terror, oppression, violence, etc.].

Humanity has since progressed very much since the emergence of the Abrahamic 'gods' and evidently the cons of religion are beginning to turn and outweighing the pros. The extreme is when extremists get access to easily and cheaply available WMDs when these evil prone theists could exterminate the human species. Based on God's promise it is a win-win for them regardless as ultimately they will be rewarded by God in Paradise, more so if they kill all non-believers.

Now that we have argued 'God is an Impossibility', why persist in such an illusory belief that continue to give moral support to extremists to commit terrible evils in the name of God. It is critical the extremists must be convinced their God is an impossibility and illusory to defang their beliefs - thus no more theistic based evils - and this has to start with the majority of the theists [moral supporters].

-- Updated Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:46 pm to add the following --

Eduk wrote: ..
Which actually rather supports Spectrum's psychological angst theory. He is saying you are suffering from cognitive dissonance because you don't know something and therefore your brain is giving you an answer and rewarding you for doing so. This is a well understood neurological process that all humans suffer from to greater or lesser extent.
..

I agree with all the points you raised in the above post and what is highlighted above is critical to my thesis.
The point here is all humans has the potential to face that existential related cognitive dissonance, i.e. the DOOM - Despair Of Own Mortality (inevitable]. For the major of theists, this potential is activated subliminally as a severe crisis & dilemma and theism provide immediate relief to soothe the dissonance.

This existential crisis is manifested subliminally in a range of degrees depending on the psychological state of the theists. This impulse is very subliminal and that is why most theists cannot nail the main reason why they believe in a God [illusory and impossible] except that it really works to soothe some psychological angst and discomforts.

Spectrum wrote: Like most scientist re scientific theories, I will be very happy and waiting for someone to prove my philosophical argument wrong. If there is, that would be an intellectual and philosophical improvement over an argument [mine] so it should be appreciated.

Many have pointed out and express their views on my argument but none of them are sound nor convincing.
If there is any convincing point I would have accepted it, keep on arguing on it or raised a new thread to focus on it, so far there is none.

You are fooling yourself. Fact is, you've made assertions, but no philosophical argument.

What I have resisted to the above is when theists stand on the edges of the known and take a leap of faith into unknown insist God is the ultimate of those 'somethings.' As I had argued this is due to the very instinctual impulsive primal reason.

I edited your comment to omit "and impossible to" because it didn't make any sense. But even if you're right, even it is "due to the very instinctual impulsive primal reason," that doesn't mean it's wrong. It makes it more likely to be correct. By definition, "instinctual impulsive primal reason" is closer to reality-in-itself than sophisticated but estranged thoughts.

The term 'atheism' was first coined sometime during the 16th century as a derogatory term to resist the truths of reality, i.e. there is no God, as such a proposition is a psychological threat to theists.
This instinctive impulse has a certain survival value and is common between people in tribes of of "us versus them" which give rise to the common racist, sexist, etc. condemnations of the "other" that had lead to terrible evils [genocides] and violence committed on innocents.
What is of concern to humanity with these theistic related evils and violence is the ultimate ground is 'God' [God said so!] where God is an impossibility and illusory.

The instinctual dehumanization and condemnation of non-theists was recorded long ago in the Bible;

• The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. -Psalm 14:1

The basis for all these condemnations of non-theists is psychological to counter a perceived threat against the psychological security of theists.

Even if you're right, so what?

Note my call is always; to resolve the issues of all theistic related evils, terror, and violence, there is a need to acknowledge 'God is an impossibility' and that the basis of theism is psychological, so there is a need to divert the focus into the psychological.

'God is an impossibility' is a stupid assumption based on infantile reasoning, e.g.:

Humanity has since progressed very much since the emergence of the Abrahamic 'gods' and evidently the cons of religion are beginning to turn and outweighing the pros. The extreme is when extremists get access to easily and cheaply available WMDs when these evil prone theists could exterminate the human species. Based on God's promise it is a win-win for them regardless as ultimately they will be rewarded by God in Paradise, more so if they kill all non-believers.

Now that we have argued 'God is an Impossibility', why persist in such an illusory belief that continue to give moral support to extremists to commit terrible evils in the name of God. It is critical the extremists must be convinced their God is an impossibility and illusory to defang their beliefs - thus no more theistic based evils - and this has to start with the majority of the theists [moral supporters].

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:You are fooling yourself. Fact is, you've made assertions, but no philosophical argument.

Note my syllogistic argument together with the justifications in the OP and various posts.
As usual you are just brushing my views with a broad brush, like all are irrelevant, only assertion no philosophical arguments, etc.

I edited your comment to omit "and impossible to" because it didn't make any sense. But even if you're right, even it is "due to the very instinctual impulsive primal reason," that doesn't mean it's wrong. It makes it more likely to be correct. By definition, "instinctual impulsive primal reason" is closer to reality-in-itself than sophisticated but estranged thoughts.

I wonder how you could insist "instinctual impulsive primal reason" is closer to reality than well-reasoned and justified rational thinking. Instinctual thinking and reasoning are very close to animal instincts. The Flat-Earth, Sun around Earth, concepts are based on primal thinking. That the Sun will rise tomorrow re Problem of Induction is due to primal thinking and driven by psychological impulses. 'God exists' is the mother of all impulsive primal reason.

What is beneficial to the progress of humanity is rational and critical thinking with philosophical wisdom. Such thinking rules out beliefs such as God exists as real.

The term 'atheism' was first coined sometime during the 16th century as a derogatory term to resist the truths of reality, i.e. there is no God, as such a proposition is a psychological threat to theists.
This instinctive impulse has a certain survival value and is common between people in tribes of of "us versus them" which give rise to the common racist, sexist, etc. condemnations of the "other" that had lead to terrible evils [genocides] and violence committed on innocents.
What is of concern to humanity with these theistic related evils and violence is the ultimate ground is 'God' [God said so!] where God is an impossibility and illusory.

The instinctual dehumanization and condemnation of non-theists was recorded long ago in the Bible;

• The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. -Psalm 14:1

The basis for all these condemnations of non-theists is psychological to counter a perceived threat against the psychological security of theists.

Even if you're right, so what?

Because I am right, all theists must acknowledge 'God exists as real' is an impossibility and illusory to the extent extremists will lose grounds and leverage to commit evils and violence in the name of a God.

'God is an impossibility' is a stupid assumption based on infantile reasoning, e.g.:

Your assertion has no credibility at all unless it is supported by justified arguments.
You don't seem to understand it is your one-liner that is in fact a stupid assertion based on infantile [primal] reasoning to counter some perceived illusory threat of your own making.

Spectrum wrote: As usual you are just brushing my views with a broad brush, like all are irrelevant, only assertion no philosophical arguments, etc.

Yup. I sure am. But that's only because they are.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 3:00 am to add the following --

You said absolute perfection is an impossibility. By whose definition? Yours? And what constitutes "absolute perfection?" Recall your history of quoting Thomas Aquinas and highlighting what you thought would refute what I was saying? Remember that it was pointed out to you that the very the same excerpt refuted the point you thought you were making?

Of course you don't.

As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures. I don't ask you or anyone else to agree with this; only to accept that I do

Humans are mammals. We, as far as I am aware, share an ancestry with all life on the planet (at the very least we share an ancestry with the vast majority of life on the planet). We are clearly more intelligent than all other life on the planet, but those are the terms in which we are distinguished, not magic.
I can imagine a 'higher' life like you some 3.8 billion years ago looking at some prokaryotic cell and deciding that you were magically special and it wasn't. Perhaps you crush it on a whim and perhaps humans never exist.
Likewise I can imagine an 'alien' life so evolved from us that we appear as a prokaryotic cell to it. I sincerely hope it doesn't hold similar opinions as to your own (it is of course highly doubtful that it would).
I accept that you do believe animals aren't special and you are special. I accept that you believe that. You are wrong to believe that and it damages you and others though so while I accept that you do believe I don't accept that you should believe.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 11:30 am to add the following --

It is funny because I feel our special intelligence instead of giving us the right to treat other life as we will instead gives us the responsibility to treat life in a proper manner. Don't get me wrong I'm not a hippie, being alive is destruction, everything leads to entropy, I eat meat, I have had pets, I don't think animals are mini humans (as in there is no need to anthropomorphize). But still life and the process of life deserves respect and care.

I haven't been through ever reply here so I may be repeating someone. If so, apologies in advance.

There are actually two questions here:

1. Is there a god?
2. Is believing in a god somehow useful?

The answer to 1 is "probably not" because there's no evidence for one. I say "probably" because evidence might very well arise tomorrow, but in the thousands of years of trying, the success rate in proving the existence of a divine superintelligence has been zero. In a world or universe where the was a god, the existence of said god should be plainly obvious. Just the very fact that there is some dispute should put to bed the notion of an omnipotent divine superintelligence that answers prayers, is interested in humanity and cares what you do - especially when you're naked, apparently.

The answer to 2 is a bit more problematic.

To be sure, some wonderful, progressive and humane acts have been carried out by believers of all stripes, regardless of the god in which they may believe. One does not have to go too far or look very hard to see, for instance, Christian organizations offering up their assistance to those in need based in their religious beliefs. And some works of art (including music, poetry, visual arts, etc) that have been created for the glory of their gods by societies all over the world are without parallel.

Sadly, one also does not have to look very hard to see horrors of all kinds carried out by those who believe in the very same god, that read the same holy books, that call themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever.

On balance, as an atheist I have no problem saying that religion has proven to be useful in some circumstances in the past. But I think that humanity has outgrown its usefulness - think post-theism - and we would be better off spending our efforts in benefiting humanity without using religion as a tool.

Eduk wrote:

As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures. I don't ask you or anyone else to agree with this; only to accept that I do

Humans are mammals. We, as far as I am aware, share an ancestry with all life on the planet (at the very least we share an ancestry with the vast majority of life on the planet). We are clearly more intelligent than all other life on the planet, but those are the terms in which we are distinguished, not magic.
I can imagine a 'higher' life like you some 3.8 billion years ago looking at some prokaryotic cell and deciding that you were magically special and it wasn't. Perhaps you crush it on a whim and perhaps humans never exist.
Likewise I can imagine an 'alien' life so evolved from us that we appear as a prokaryotic cell to it. I sincerely hope it doesn't hold similar opinions as to your own (it is of course highly doubtful that it would).
I accept that you do believe animals aren't special and you are special. I accept that you believe that. You are wrong to believe that and it damages you and others though so while I accept that you do believe I don't accept that you should believe.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 11:30 am to add the following --

It is funny because I feel our special intelligence instead of giving us the right to treat other life as we will instead gives us the responsibility to treat life in a proper manner. Don't get me wrong I'm not a hippie, being alive is destruction, everything leads to entropy, I eat meat, I have had pets, I don't think animals are mini humans (as in there is no need to anthropomorphize). But still life and the process of life deserves respect and care.

you don't see a contradiction here? I'll spell it out for you when I get back. I have things to do. Think about what you said in the meantime.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 8:38 pm to add the following --

The contradiction is this: to respect and care for life-processes, to take responsibility for treating the natural order properly, is to rise above it.