posted
"You and I define God differently. For my definition of God, it absolutely follows."
Then I think you have a meaningless definition of god. If knowing god logically follows from loving, then there's nothing that your god brings to the conversation that isn't there without him.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We tend to be acquainted with the hard cases. Isn't the argument that the vast majority of Muslims, for instance, are loving, faithful people who just want to raise their families? That's a billion. I know the Chinese treasure their children (the ones that get born, anyway) and Indians boast that they have no mental illness because their families are so strong. I'm prepared to believe South Americans are likewise fairly happy in their early family lives, and some of the most loving people I know grew up in Africa, not necessarily in easy circumstances.
I think Europeans and Americans over-think things and subsequently don't realize how happy they are. "Oh, this Baby Einstein video I've had my kids on might actually be lowering their IQs! They won't get into Darmouth now! All is lost!" and so forth.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "You and I define God differently. For my definition of God, it absolutely follows."
Then I think you have a meaningless definition of god. If knowing god logically follows from loving, then there's nothing that your god brings to the conversation that isn't there without him.
I disagree. I think such a God brings a lot to the table. Being able to love another person is very important. Being able to love your family and friends is a step above that. Being able to love your country is another step up in scale. The God described is a love above and beyond any of those things. It is possible to know and find this God with love alone. This is important because not everyone has a teacher.
If there was simply love, and no God, love would ultimately have no power. It would be simply another emotion, and I doubt it would ever be able to reach beyond ourselves. Without a God (a.k.a. higher power) backing it up, love, although functional from an evolutionary standpoint, fails to provide hope for humanity.
And hope is pretty important.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of default. If an action must be taken to a achieve a given state, then that state is not the default, regardless of how frequently that that state is obtained. If every single child were killed at birth, the default state of a newborn still wouldn't be "dead".
The analogy used earlier about clothing was a good one. Is "clothed" the default state of a human?
Consider your opinion on the iPod three months before the public knew about it. It existed - it had been in development for quite some time by then - but the default position was one where the iPod was not even a consideration. Forget trying to divine it's attributes - it didn't even exist as far as most people were concerned.
When it comes to knowledge, lack of belief is always the default. We may be instructed on various topics throughout our lives, taking our parents word as truth for most things, but the skeptic makes an effort to return to the default position on conclusions which they don't believe were arrived at through rigorous evaluation of evidence. A lot of those skeptics end up becoming atheists.
posted
It seems to take a lot of effort to get to your idea of a default state.
I'd say death is a default state. If people do nothing, they die. And if newborn babies aren't fed and kept warm, they die too.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, when I look at statistics for child mortality from preventable causes (hunger, war, HIV/AIDS, disease and so forth)*, I am not so optimistic about whether we are teaching children to love (or if we have even learned it ourselves).
*I think UICEF estimates 9.7 million a year.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Anyway, I believe in God because there is, in fact, this person we call God. I get important information and aid from him all the time.
How do you know that you're not merely delusional?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"he God described is a love above and beyond any of those things"
So, basically, the god described is love plus love plus love... nothing that isn't already at the table without god.
"If there was simply love, and no God, love would ultimately have no power. It would be simply another emotion, and I doubt it would ever be able to reach beyond ourselves. Without a God (a.k.a. higher power) backing it up, love, although functional from an evolutionary standpoint, fails to provide hope for humanity."
None of this follows from there being no god. Its certainly an opinion, but I don't think it can be demonstrated that love without god fails to provide hope. In fact, I feel hopeful quite frequently... and I'm fairly certain that hope isn't coming from god.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every culture not having a religion does not make belief the default.
For instance, non-belief could be the default, but the lack of good explanations for the things around them could lead people to come up with religious beliefs to explain them. Reach today, and religious beliefs have diversified and refined greatly and are taught to by far most people on the planet, but it still wouldn't be the default for people. That's merely one easy way for it to have happened.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of default. If an action must be taken to a achieve a given state, then that state is not the default, regardless of how frequently that that state is obtained.
There's a problem with the idea that the default state begins at birth. We have almost no control over our own lives for many years after that point. I submit that the default state must necessarily begin when we reach a state at which we can reasonably think and question. This usually occurs in adolescence.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the bright side, I rather suspect that the ratio of children dying of preventable causes is probably at an all time low. I don't have anything with a lengthy history handy but the charts here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6943975.stm at least show a drop in all areas between 1990 and 2004.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a problem with the idea that the default state begins at birth. We have almost no control over our own lives for many years after that point. I submit that the default state must necessarily begin when we reach a state at which we can reasonably think and question. This usually occurs in adolescence.
Now you are suggesting the default state of an adolescent or an independent individual, not the default state of a human being. In any case, the original question was about knowledge and the default state on a point of knowledge is to be unaware of it. Some atheists may have to return to that state on the question of God, but it doesn't make it a non-default position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there was simply love, and no God, love would ultimately have no power.
Why not?
Well, if we see love as simply another emotion, it still has power in the short-term. It can impact our perceptions and our actions. But if everyone in the world knew that there was no God, no higher power whatsoever, would love have the power to change the world? Would we be able to hope that this chemical reaction in our brains might be able to unite us all? Maybe, but I find it unlikely, because without God, love feels very small.
Adding God to the equation allows for miracles (yes, even without a teacher). It allows for a hope that love can be shared, even with strangers. It allows the idea that maybe love is beyond a chemical reaction in our brains, that maybe it's a force that unites all of us...
Belief in a God that supports love (whether He is real or not) adds power to love. I suppose that was my point, and that's how I should have worded it.
My final point still remains, of course, I don't feel such a God is worthless. Just because he's not commanding you to obey spelled out laws, just because he's not ordering you to follow "specific name" from "specific date" doesn't mean he's worthless.
He still gives us hope for life beyond death and hope for peace on Earth. He can still bring a sense of inner peace, without ever saying a word.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, if we see love as simply another emotion, it still has power in the short-term. It can impact our perceptions and our actions. But if everyone in the world knew that there was no God, no higher power whatsoever, would love have the power to change the world? Would we be able to hope that this chemical reaction in our brains might be able to unite us all? Maybe, but I find it unlikely, because without God, love feels very small.
So you believe that atheists experience a less satisfying version of love than theists, or are you saying that the love experienced by atheists is still enhanced by God but without their knowledge?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: It allows the idea that maybe love is beyond a chemical reaction in our brains, that maybe it's a force that unites all of us...
Actually the Force that unites all of us is controlled by the midichlorians within us. Keep up Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a problem with the idea that the default state begins at birth. We have almost no control over our own lives for many years after that point. I submit that the default state must necessarily begin when we reach a state at which we can reasonably think and question. This usually occurs in adolescence.
Now you are suggesting the default state of an adolescent or an independent individual, not the default state of a human being. In any case, the original question was about knowledge and the default state on a point of knowledge is to be unaware of it. Some atheists may have to return to that state on the question of God, but it doesn't make it a non-default position.
You This is a much less interesting question if we make the default state birth -- before we have any control over our state and frankly, at a time before we can be aware of what we thought. How do you know babies don't come out believing in God?
It makes much more sense to talk about a time when we are in control of our choices.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can split hairs all you like, but this is a much less interesting question if we make the default state birth. The answer remains that we believe whatever our parents told us until and unless we made some changes at a point in time when we were capable of doing so.
You're the one who asked why atheists don't believe in God. You were given an honest answer which is a part of many atheists' personal philosophies - that the default state on any question of belief is not to believe. You disagreed with that point, so I was trying to help you understand what "default" means in that context. I wasn't attempting to be pedantic and hair-splitting.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It makes much more sense to talk about a time when we are in control of our choices.
It's specifically the belief that much of religious belief is sparked and nurtured during those times when we were not in such control that causes some skeptics to seek to revert to the "default" state of disbelief and attempt to evaluate the available evidence anew and reason to a conclusion independent of childhood indoctrination.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think that we should believe in things without a reason to believe in them, and that the more we change our behavior based on a belief, the stronger that reason to believe should be.
While we are growing up, we are taught to believe all sorts of things, without good reasons to believe them. This doesn't mean our natural state is not to believe, or to believe. It means we're taught things. But once we believe them, to change what we believe, if we're going to act on changed beliefs, we'll need strong reasons to do so.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "If there was simply love, and no God, love would ultimately have no power. It would be simply another emotion, and I doubt it would ever be able to reach beyond ourselves. Without a God (a.k.a. higher power) backing it up, love, although functional from an evolutionary standpoint, fails to provide hope for humanity."
None of this follows from there being no god. Its certainly an opinion, but I don't think it can be demonstrated that love without god fails to provide hope. In fact, I feel hopeful quite frequently... and I'm fairly certain that hope isn't coming from god.
Now now, I didn't say God was the only source of hope. There are tons of different sources for hope outside of God and love. The fact that you are frequently hopeful is well... congratulations? It's not that big of a deal.
You said it was a worthless definition of God, I tried to show that this God could bring things to the table, like hope and inner-peace, and you just countered by saying those things are achievable without God. Okay, sure, and I can achieve an orgasm without a woman, but that doesn't make it the preferred state.
It sounds like you would describe any God that doesn't offer to alter reality for you as worthless. I mean, what do any of them bring to the table that you can't pull off by yourself, except for, of course, the things that are impossible for mortals to do on their own, like heaven and hell, immortal life and what-not. I really didn't think that this was what you meant.
If this version of God does provide people with hope and inner-peace, who are you to call it worthless? It's serving a function. Maybe to you it looks like masturbation, but from their point of view the love they have is beautiful, and your love without God appears incomplete.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So you believe that atheists experience a less satisfying version of love than theists, or are you saying that the love experienced by atheists is still enhanced by God but without their knowledge?
Enhanced by God without their knowledge, if I must choose, but as stated above, different strokes for different folks.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You said it was a worthless definition of God, I tried to show that this God could bring things to the table, like hope and inner-peace, and you just countered by saying those things are achievable without God."
And if they are achievable without god, then if you want to say that this definition of god brings something to the table, you're left trying to show that your hope is better in some way then my hope. Good luck with that... and if you can't, then your god hasn't brought anything to the table.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If this version of God does provide people with hope and inner-peace, who are you to call it worthless?"
People can believe all sorts of things, and through that belief, act or think in such a way that they are better off then without that believe. But as an explanation for anything, the belief isn't very useful other then explaining why the person is acting or thinking in certain ways, which is why I say that the definition doesn't bring anything ot the table. Used in the way god appears to be used here, "god" is interchangeable with, well, a whole variety of other words in the english language, depending on who is speaking.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. This has really taken off, and notably not on topic...
Dagonee: From Rivka
quote: Logic is overrated.
My response
quote:I think this is the most offensive thing I've heard on this entire forum. I'm not joking. Do you also propose, on the same Logic, that illogical things are underrated, that astology should be used to predict the future and that we should treat disease using the four humors approach? (I am disgusted.)
quote: I'm pretty sure that few people are going to feel motivated to do this in a thread that contains this:
quote:I think this is the most offensive thing I've heard on this entire forum. I'm not joking. Do you also propose, on the same Logic, that illogical things are underrated, that astrology should be used to predict the future and that we should treat disease using the four humors approach? (I am disgusted.)
That is taken out of context. How is my defense of logic and repugnance at its dismissal going to scare off reasonable arguments from theists?
Also, to Rivka, I think I was originally overly upset, but I realize you probably were saying that flippantly (I still stand that I like logic quite a bit.)
C3PO: That's a cute email. (not sarcastic)
It seems like the "default position" would have to be the non-belief and ignorance of baby-hood. but it also seems irrelevant, because in my mind, a belief worth maintaining can be repeatably supported. Whether I was raised believing in evolution or not I really hope I would look at the evidence and logically conclude that I support it. So default belief or not... it seems like there should be a conclusion that can be agreed upon!
I would like to suggest again that we stay on topic, but... free forum. I really would like responses to the questions I posed, not dodging around and then discussing side-topics.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is taken out of context. How is my defense of logic and repugnance at its dismissal going to scare off reasonable arguments from theists?
What's with the assumptions that this would "scare" someone off? Quite simply, discussing this topic with someone who would say what you said is not enjoyable to most people. You made up a bunch of stuff about Rivka's statement to express your disgust.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I jumped to my conclusion I grant. It would have been better to just say I find that very rude, and waited for argument. (I do find it disturbing to propose that logic is overrated. That was the point of my explosion..) (Dag, you're very good at making everyone realize when they step out of bounds.)
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not saying that "no god" is the default position. "Not believing in a god" is. There's a difference. It's subtle, I admit, but there.
I'm curious, how might someone go about testing whether belief or non-belief is the default position? It seems to me like there are too many unknown or uncontrollable factors involved in belief to be able to generalize what a default position may be.
Easy. Look at a claim: It's raining men.
Default position: Lack of belief in it.
This holds true for any claim in which there is no evidence for said claim happening in the past.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: It would have been better to just say I find that very rude, and waited for argument.
It would have been better. Still would have been an over-reaction, but at least it wouldn't make it quite as obvious that you have never read any of my posts (outside religion threads at least), nor my post right after.
You are very young. But the good news is that you'll probably outgrow that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Hold old is he Starsnuffer? is english his first language? To me it looks like he's using entirely the wrong words to describe his reaction. I find it hard to believe someone thinks the statement "logic is overrated" is "rude." I mean, I agree with him insofar as I think its hard to overrate logic. But... his reaction is curious, to say the least).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah sorry Rivka, I completely glanced over your next post (it was small.. and there were two whole new pages to read...) I find that I tend to react vehemently only to later regret my vehemence and wish I'd been more kind and peaceful. *humble-ness(as per usual in cases like this, I realize the truth in other people's criticism of how I reacted and apologize)
Paul, I'm nearly 18 and English is my first language. I used "rude" because I believe logic makes so much sense, to dismiss it (as I took it, seriously) just seems disrespectful to so many scientists and discoverers... things like that. I used "disgusted" because I find a mistrust in logic to be... horribly self-deceptive and generally not-helpful to society. (See: genuine belief in horoscopes, astrology, UFO anecdotes, etc etc. these sorts of positions irritate me and I find they are not good, to say the least)(Source for stance on these issues in particular:Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark)
(I <3 logic) (I always feel like there's a lurking danger of being berated after I post... grumble )
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
My degree is in chemistry. I taught HS science for 10 years. My father is a physicist, my mom a mathematician, and my grandfather worked on the Manhattan Project. I have a healthy appreciation for logic.
I also think that logic is not the best tool in all situations, and if it were, we'd all be Kohlinar'd Vulcans.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claim: There is no God Default position: Lack of belief in it. There is no evidence for said claim.
Claim: There is no Easter Bunny Default position: Lack of belief in it. There is no evidence for said claim.
Of course there's evidence that there is no God; there's as much evidence there as there is that there's no such thing as the Easter Bunny. The God that is left over once you whittle Him down to avoid being erased by all the evidence against Him doesn't look like what most Americans mean by "God" at all.
--------
BTW, Starsnuffer, don't confuse "logic" with "reason."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The default position for anybody, starting when they are young enough to understand, is to believe any and all claims.
As we grow older and learn skepticism, the default position is to believe things which seem to support our worldview, and to disbelieve things which seem to contradict it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And at 18 months, my youngest would climb the stairs just to upset me - at least that's how I interpretted her turning to look and smiling at my grimace of fear. I guess I knew another toddler who would go in the street to get honked at by cars. We moved to a dead end street, and without that feedback, she stopped.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to demonstrate, though.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
But then I became religious. It started for me with prayer. I exercised a particle of faith, a wish or hope or crazy hypothesis only, and prayed to a God whom I didn't believe existed. I got back some kind of answer, something that came from outside of me, that wasn't something I made up or invented or wished into being. I was positive of that. Then I kept on trying from that point and got more and more confirmation.
Tatiana, could you explain any more how the answer felt outside of you? Sometimes when I'm with someone I love I get a feeling that I don't feel any other time---sort of a stillness in my chest underneath my breastbone that makes me think I'm blending in to the nature around me. It feels a bit like (and I know this is a silly comparison) going down a big hill in a roller coaster without any fear. But I couldn't say that that feeling came from outside of me.
The answers I get to prayers (and they don't always come) are always things that I know are from outside me. For instance, they're things I wouldn't have thought of, thoughts appearing in my head that aren't things I would have come up with. They don't have the flavor of my thoughts. Sometimes they come in the form of suggestions, sometimes as answers to questions. Always very low-key and easy to ignore if I want to ignore them. The still, small voice is how we describe it, but it's not an audible voice but just a stirring, an image, thought, or feeling, in the heart or mind. Sometimes it comes in the form of a "true" dream, one that feels particularly meaningful and vivid, and that causes me to wake up immediately afterwards, usually in the middle of the night when I wouldn't ordinarily wake, and ponder its meaning. What you describe, that feeling in your chest, doesn't sound like anything I've ever felt. I've felt a lot of peaceful happy good feelings from being in love, at various times, but they seem different from what you're describing.
When I desperately need to know something, when I pray with all the energy of my soul, that's when I do usually get some sort of answer eventually. Even if I don't, I get the sense that God is watching over me with great care and interest. I know that I haven't been abandoned.
And I'm able now to do things I could never do alone. I can draw on an infinite strength when I need it, and have the ability to overcome, to keep going, to forgive, to let go of hurt, to have confidence, to resist temptations that I know I could never have had on my own. I'm much more, as a person, than I was before.
Also, before, I would let myself off the hook on certain things. I would say things like "I'm just like that, I can't do that, I'm no good at that" and not try to improve in those areas. Now I realize I have to keep trying. "Be ye therefore perfect." I know that I have a divine nature and I'm not allowed to get away with those excuses.
Another thing is that before I thought it was okay to do things that only hurt me. That didn't matter to me. I didn't have to be good to myself. Now I do. It matters. God won't let me off the hook on that because he loves me and sees me as being of great worth. Now it's an important moral principle to take care of myself and be good to myself as well as others. And if I can't even take good care of myself, how could I ever be a good mother or friend or daughter? How could I be responsible enough to take good care of others?
I used to be much needier, as a person, too. Now I take my needs to God and he fills them, not in the way of an imaginary friend, but with substance. I have love in abundance now, that comes from being so loved myself. I have love overflowing. Now I can look forward with a perfect brightness of hope. Life is wonderful for me now, it's a constant miracle. The universe is my playground. I'm having a wonderful time. Before I felt like an uninvited guest to the existence party.
God has made a huge substantial difference in my life, and I know he's not just my imagination. My imagination was never so fruitful, so hard but also good, so pure and true, as this. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It feels a bit like (and I know this is a silly comparison) going down a big hill in a roller coaster without any fear.
I've begun to feel this in the last few months. I'm not sure if it's good or bad. I'm used to more of a thrilled feeling, like when an airplane makes a turn. One day I was feeling really upset with some people and I had the impression that I didn't need to worry about what they thought. And that feeling came with it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Anyway, I believe in God because there is, in fact, this person we call God. I get important information and aid from him all the time.
How do you know that you're not merely delusional?
Somalian, if my experience of God is a delusion or a hallucination, then it's at least as internally self-consistent, logically satisfying, elegant, and persistent over time as this other hallucination we call reality or existence. So I'm going with it. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
