On 15 Oct, 18:03, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Yet you keep on demanding it
>
> In response to claims that people have it.
If that's true, then it's fine; but as I say, the demand is
meaningless, both for you - because there will be no evidence
forthcoming, and for the people of whom you're demanding it, because
they don't need it.
> The "to them" part makes it NOT *objective* evidence. Objective
> evidence exists independent of opinion.
Yes, indeed: but again, belief doesn't require *objective* evidence.
It requires only that the believer believes they have evidence to
sup****t the belief. If there was evidence that convinced you then
you'd be a believer, whether it was 'objective' evidence or not.
> >then you have misunderstood the nature of belief.
>
> I'm not addressing belief - I'm asking them to post the OBJECTIVE
> EVIDENCE they claim they have.
But in doing so you can't get around the fact of their belief, and the
fact that their belief is based on evidence which is obvious to them
and obvious nonsense to you. The point is that until you are shown
something that convinces you, you will write off any and all evidence
as insufficient. If one day someone said something or showed you
something that convinced you, you would not care whether the evidence
was objective or not.
> It may have an effect on someone reading the thread who isn't quite
> convinced that there's something to believe in.
What has someone else's decision to believe or not to believe got to
do with you?
> And you keep misrepresenting what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting
> what I'm doing, and keep misrepresenting what I'm doing ...
Where have I done so? I've asked you questions about what you're
doing; and tried to show you how I see what you've said. It's up to
YOU to represent what you're doing so that others can understand it.
Or, you could just write me off as an idiot, or a liar, or whatever,
if you'd rather not discuss it at all.
> >And you're probably right. But the fact still remains
> >that the absence of evidence is not... Like I said, you know the
> >rest.
>
> And I'm not inferring anything from lack of evidence other than lack
> of evidence.
And if you were arguing that you have no need or reason to believe in
any given religion then we'd have no difference of opinion. But what
you're also doing is arguing that other people should think as you
do. And that's where I start to have a problem, just as I'd have a
problem with a theist claiming that everyone should believe in his
god.
> But the claimants' refusal to present any might affect the undecided.
So we're settling firmly on the notion that the objections and the
demands and the challenges are for the benefit of some prospective
third party. Okay, so be it.
> Nothing different now. I'll keep asking people who claim to have
> objective evidence to post it, and you'll keep misrepresenting my
> requests.
I remind you that you're the one who's already made the groundless
assumption that I'm a Christian. Perhaps we misrepresent each other?
> >You're saying that all these disparate
> >cultures throughout millennia of history have repeatedly done so for
> >no reason?
>
> Other than lack of psychological maturity, yes.
And how would you define 'psychological maturity'? What's the
benchmark? What's the ideal? What's 'fully mature', psychologically
speaking?
> >You missed or ignored my point. Even objective evidence has to be
> >viewed and interpreted through subjective perceptions.
>
> That discussion is useless UNTIL there's some objective evidence
> posted.
But until that point is addressed, no evidence need be accepted as
objective.
> Remember, an omnipotent god *IS* capable of producing
> evidence that can't be.
But need not do so. And even then, we would be accepting the a priori
notion that a god has to be omni-whatever. In other words, a religion-
specific definition of 'god'.
> > Everything we
> >perceive depends on the function of our perceptions.
>
> Not when there's an omnipotent god in the equation.
Who says there is? I'm talking about *religion*, not necessarily
Christianity. Taoism, for example, doesn't even *have* a specific
god, much less one that we can assume would want to do this or that.
> I'll agree that you should be silent about my posts to others.
Oh, really? No, I choose to exercise my right to free speech: the
right you seek to deny me by telling me that as a religious person I
should remain silent.
> And yet you misrepresent.
So you keep saying. But you've managed to avoid saying how.
> >You, for example, have suggested that
> >religion in itself is a mark of insanity - yet psychological
> >professionals do not generally agree with you.
>
> RELIGIOUS psychological professionals. Would you ask the Pope whether
> Lutheranism or ****nto is the one true religion?
Never mind the Pope. I'm asking you why "religion" isn't listed in
DSM.
> >I think you saw my question: how do you visualise the concept of
> >'god'?
>
> As someone else's fantasy. Do you need me to say it a few more times?
Only if you want to keep avoiding the question. You can play semantic
games all you want, but the fact is that when someone names a concept,
we tend to visualise our personal impression of that concept. In
other words, when someone says 'god', you're likely to see your idea
of what a 'god' is, and then THAT is "someone else's fantasy". My
suspicion is that, when someone says 'god', you see the Christian
God. I base that on the fact that, like Bill, many of your
assumptions are centred on the Christian God. Many of your
preconceptions about what a god would, wouldn't, should do are rooted
in a presumption that we're talking about that specific god. In
addition, your dismissal of me as only being able to see things from a
Christian point of view suggests to me that you yourself are seeing
things only from the point of view of someone who thinks of 'religion'
as 'Christianity'. If I'm not with you, I'm against you - and if I'm
against you, I must be Christian. Isn't that how you thought it
through?
> >> If your definition of 'god' is the one the dictionary uses, we don't
> >> believe in your gods.
> >>From dictionary.com: "any deified person or object".
>
> You had to go all the way down to the SEVENTH definition?
Oh, I'm sorry - is there some rule of dictionaries that says only the
first one is valid? Don't be silly.
My definition of 'god' is, as you can see, one that the dictionary
uses. It's not 'the' one the dictionary uses, because the dictionary
offers quite a few. And THAT is my point: if you're only
concentrating on the one that defines the god of the monotheisms, then
that's largely why you can't and won't understand what I'm saying to
you.
> We don't believe in any of those.
And despite the insistence of some, there's no reason why you should.
But at the same time, it highlights the dangers in applying religion-
specific arguments (and prejudices) to all forms of religion.
> >And yet Bill, for one, tells us repeatedly that God is a male creator
> >of the world, all-powerful, who sits in Heaven and threatens us with
> >Hell.
>
> That's how Christianity defines their god, God.
Yep. But it's not how *religion* defines 'god'. That doesn't stop
him claiming to be arguing against religion, though - when the truth
is he's arguing against Christianity.
As I've said before, if someone's opposing Christianity and says
they're opposing Christianity, then I'll leave it to Christians to
meet their challenge. If, however, they're calling *me* - a non-
Christian - insane or stupid or dishonest or whatever else and are
presenting their arguments against *Christianity* as evidence, then
why *shouldn't* I respond questioning the validity of those arguments?
> I see someone who, regardless of apparent chronological age is still a
> little child. One thing I *don't* see is the thing he's referring to.
I wonder. You seem to have a pretty precise impression of what 'god'
is considering you have no personal view of the concept.
> Maybe that's because I was never brainwashed - I've been an atheist
> every day of my life, since the day I was conceived.
I thought you said that where religion didn't exist, neither would
atheism? Who preached to you in the womb?
> were being silly. When I got a little older I thought they were
> crazy. Then I matured and understood that calling people crazy was
> impolite.
Really? So now you prefer to hold forth about their 'psychological
immaturity'. Because that's far more polite. Right?
> If you're talking about anything supernatural that you believe
> actually (not just in your mind) exists, post the evidence your claim
> says you have.
Nothing supernatural exists. Everything that exists is natural.
That, of course, doesn't rule out gods, ghost, demons, angels, UFOs,
or anything else. If they exist, they're all natural.
But to take your statement here, this is partially what I'm getting
at. This is why your ire about religion doesn't take into account
what religion can be. You (and you're not alone, by any means) only
seem to recognise the sort of religion you hate: Christianity, and
faiths similar. You don't apparently acknowledge the idea of religion
without a god. You don't acknowledge the existence of religion
focused on real-life, objective things or people. And that's where my
problem comes in. You lecture about 'religion', and how those who
call themselves religious are insane - but you don't draw any
distinction between those people and what they believe. That's why
you assumed I was a Christian. The idea of any other kind of religion
doesn't seem to compute.
Or have I got you all wrong?
> If you're claiming something that you claim only exists in your mind,
> so be it, but I'm not interested in your thoughts, and it's not what
> I'm discussing.
You're not interested in my thoughts? Then why ARE you talking to
me? If I were not interested in yours, I wouldn't have spent a moment
in discussion with you.
> So you're using the word 'god' to mean 'existence'. Why? We have
> words to describe nature, human nature, the sea, sky, etc. We don't
> need another one.
We don't have another one. I'm using the ones we already have.
> If you want one word for all of them combined, try
> 'everything'. There's no reason to invent a loaded word to describe
> something we have many non-loaded words for.
Well, aside from the point that, as I said, I've 'invented' nothing,
here we hit a problem. Because, you see, this is how I see the
cosmos. This is how I see what is. Through my own, individual
perceptions. And everything that science can tell me I will gladly
learn, because it shows me in more and more detail just how
breathtaking, how staggering, how unimaginable in scale, that
'everything' truly is.
Now, you may not think that that 'everything' deserves such flighty
and irrelevant things as awe, or respect, or reverence. But that's my
choice to make for me - because I don't make it for anyone else. And
you tell me I'm insane, and dangerous, because I consider myself
religious, and because you know what religion is. Religion is
fundamentalist Christianity, which is trying to take over your country
and tell you how to live. So you rail against it - but in doing so
you attack everyone, Christian or not, who happens to believe that
there is more to the universe, and to our lives, than the cold and
joyless processing of numbers.
> >Perception, Al, is all you can have. Ever. That's the point I'm
> >trying to make.
>
> That's close to solipsism.
Yes, it is, isn't it? Good. You evidently see what I'm getting at.
>>> He's also defined as being omnibenevolent. That doesn't square with
>>> cru****ng belief.
>
>> So don't we have an answer to Bill's question, then?
>
> I wasn't asking Bill to post evidence, was I?
I didn't say you were, did I? No, I'm just interested in the idea
that you don't think that an omnibenevolent god would crush belief.
Which would undermine one of Bill's basic arguments: that any 'real'
god would have done just that by now.
> Might I introduce you to 'to', referred to on occasion as a number one
> greater than 1?
'Two', possibly?
> Or as a synonym for 'also'?
Not sure about that one. I suppose in a list of statements, you might
use it like that.
> YHWH, Allah and El are
> gods, not Gods. Are you a Steve? Some people are referred to as
> 'Steve'.
Yes, thanks. I'm aware that 'God' is a proper noun while 'god' is a
mere noun. That doesn't change the fact that all these gods are also
referred to on occasion as God by their followers.
>>Again, we return to the same point: absence of evidence blah blah
>>blah.
>
> Presence of claim of evidence. You're misrepresenting me again.
No, I'm not misrepresenting you. You've said, numerous times, quite
clearly, that something that has objective existence leaves objective
evidence of its existence. Taking that statement as a premise (though
I'm not entirely convinced it's a rule and not an assumption), you've
argued that if there was an objective god there should be objective
evidence for its existence. Which would be true, but which is NOT the
same as us being in a position to be aware of that evidence.
I AGREE that it's down to the person making the claim to prove it.
However, it is also worth bearing in mind that, as I said, the fact
that we cannot see evidence of a thing does not prove that there is no
evidence to be seen. Therefore, it is more truthful to say that there
is no evidence to show that a given thing exists than to make an
absolute statement that it doesn't, or worse, that it can't.
> You evidently don't understand a word I've said.
Apparently neither of us has any idea what the other is saying.
What's more, since you've already stated you're not interested in my
thoughts, there seems little point in attempting to discuss it any
further. What say? Shall we put an end to this pointless waste of
time?
|
