1 edit
Originally posted by AgergEmbarrassed? Naw. I think he threw a good curve ball into this forum… Besides, isn't that how it always goes on here: we follow a particular avenue of enquiry that strikes us, and see where it goes?
Hmm...should I be embarrassed to say that perhaps a light-bulb has more ambience now than it did prior to reading this? the interpretation of yours wasn't really a thought I'd started with, and so I followed a particular avenue of enquiry; but I can see the validity in your interpretation (and hence motivation from JW's perspective to start this thread)
Originally posted by John W BoothLet me explain what I have been trying to say in a slightly different way.
My posts here are a reactionary position with respect to the religiosity surrounding theism.
You appeared to be saying, from the very begging:
"I am justified in holding a belief that cannot be proven or supported by rational means and that I do feel compelled to act upon. Christians are not justified in holding their beliefs which are far more complicated and require action."
Now I am not saying that you should believe Christians or they should believe you.
I am saying that if you are justified in holding your belief, then they too are justified in holding some of their beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere did I argue that I want to justify my belief?
I am saying that if you are justified in holding your belief, then they too are justified in holding some of their beliefs.
My OP: "I believe there is a God. I can't prove it exists. I feel no need to."
I kicked this off by explicitly NOT trying to justify it, surely?
I have a 'sense' that there is a God. You don't. I don't want you to agree with me. This 'sense' is certainly a reality. Take my word for it. Whether this 'sense' is "correct", I have no way of knowing, because there is no evidence to support it. Maybe there is no God and my 'sense' is an error of some kind.
I am not in the business of justifying my belief or wrapping it up in additional invented and groupthink beliefs.
Religion is all about justification.
Religious people claim to be in communication with this God. I don't. They claim it to be a "fact". I don't claim God's existence to be a "fact". The only thing I know is that I have a 'sense' that "he" exists. Religious people present no evidence that they are in communication with God and that he has issued detailed instructions to humanity. I don't see what the justification is for religious people to believe [in the case of Catholics, for e.g.] they are eating God's child. They claim that is a "fact". Without evidence. So I reject it. As do you.
I don't claim that the existence of God is a "fact". Without evidence, how can I?
I don't see how my belief/'sense' in anyway legitimizes theirs, as you suggest.
Originally posted by John W BoothI mean it in a slightly different sense than that. I realize you do not want to convert others, but you do seem to feel that it is 'OK' for you to maintain your belief in god. ie you feel it is justified for you to maintain that belief.
Where did I argue that I want to justify my belief?
You feel it is not 'OK' for Christians to believe in the resurrection. You feel that their belief is not justified.
I have a 'sense' that there is a God. You don't. I don't want you to agree with me. This 'sense' is certainly a reality. Take my word for it. Whether this 'sense' is "correct", I have no way of knowing, because there is no evidence to support it. Maybe there is no God and my 'sense' is an error of some kind.
Yet ultimately you do hold the belief that there is a god.
I am not in the business of justifying my belief or wrapping it up in additional invented and groupthink beliefs.
How do you know that:
1. Your belief is not an invented or groupthink belief?
2. That the resurrection of Jesus is an invented or groupthink belief?
I don't claim God's existence to be a "fact".
How can you not? You either believe he exist, or you don't, or you are agnostic on the matter. If you believe he exists, you believe it to be fact whether you 'claim' it or not. Even if you are partly agnostic, you think it is more likely than not that it is a fact that he exists.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's not justified. They cite their own religious literature as "proof" and "evidence". But literature isn't proof. I on the other hand make no attempt to offer "proof" or "evidence" that there is a God because there isn't any "proof" or "evidence" as far as I know. I may be wrong... I am only dealing with an unspecific 'sense', after all. How many Christians are as open minded and rational as THAT about their convoluted stories about the resurrection of God's half-human child after being executed?
You feel it is not 'OK' for Christians to believe in the resurrection. You feel that their belief is not justified.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I invented it, for what purpose did I do so (based on our long chat here)? It gives me no "answers". And it doesn't affect me.
I How do you know that:
1. Your belief is not an invented or groupthink belief?
2. That the resurrection of Jesus is an invented or groupthink belief?
What group's groupthink are you suggesting I am subscribing to?
The resurrection of Jesus is not 'sensed'. It is a detailed story laid out methodically and manipulated in "ancient texts" belonging to a religious movement. I've seen no evidence to indicate it is a "fact". I therefore conclude it is invented.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAssuming you are right, how does this in any way legitimize the unsubstantiated prescriptive religious creeds that pour out of the likes of vishvahetu and robbie corrobie? How is my criticism of the lack of substantiation invalidated in any way? How can you claim there is "no difference" between me and them?
I mean it in a slightly different sense than that. I realize you do not want to convert others, but you do seem to feel that it is 'OK' for you to maintain your belief in god. ie you feel it is justified for you to maintain that belief.
You feel it is not 'OK' for Christians to believe in the resurrection. You feel that their belief is not justified.
...[text shortened]... c, you think it is more likely than not that it is a fact that he exists.
I am saying that if you are justified in holding your belief, then they too are justified in holding some of their beliefs.
Let's say if you admitted you felt uncomfortable putting new shoes on a table, would that mean that all superstition, everywhere, no matter how far-fetched or fanciful, would be off limits to you in terms of critical analysis? Having a 'sense' or superstition that there is something wrong with putting new shoes on a table would mean, for instance, that people who believe they must circumscize their female children for religious reasons would be also justified in their beliefs?
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothMost religious people I know do not claim to have proof. Some claim that their faith is largely based on intuition. If they claimed that they have no proof and their faith is based on intuition, and they are not absolutely certain, then would you accept that their belief in the resurrection is as justified as yours?
I don't claim to have proof as religious people do. And I make no claim to be certain.
Originally posted by John W BoothI realize that vishvahetu just makes up whatever lies come into his head and robbie will say anything to support his religion or avoid admitting when he is wrong. But that doesn't mean it is fair to dismiss all religious people or all religious beliefs in the way you seem to do whilst simultaneously holding an unsubstantiated belief yourself.
Assuming you are right, how does this in any way legitimize the unsubstantiated prescriptive religious creeds that pour out of the likes of vishvahetu and robbie corrobie? How is my criticism of the lack of substantiation invalidated in any way? How can you claim there is "no difference" between me and them?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it is "[unfair] to dismiss all religious people or all religious beliefs in the way [I] seem to", does that mean I instead have to accept the things they believe in to be "facts"? Meanwhile, you don't? Only you can criticize or dismiss religion because you believe that there is no God? Is that how it works?
But that doesn't mean it is fair to dismiss all religious people or all religious beliefs in the way you seem to do whilst simultaneously holding an unsubstantiated belief yourself.
John, the passivity and minimalism of your belief in God is incredibly refreshing to behold in this forum.
But permit me to ask you some further questions.
You have a sense that God exists.
Consider now the proposition you have a sense of: "God exists."
Is it possible for you to articulate how reality would differ were this proposition true or were this proposition false? Would it make some difference or no difference to how reality was?
If it were to make some difference, again, what would that difference be?
If it were to make no difference, could "God exists" mean anything at all?
Best wishes,
IshDaGegg
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggI think it makes no difference. And I don't have any reason to think that it ought to make any difference.
Is it possible for you to articulate how reality would differ were this proposition ["God exists"] true or were this proposition false? Would it make some difference or no difference to how reality was?
God hasn't communicated with me. I have seen no evidence that he has communicated with anybody. So there is nothing for me to act upon. And I do not worship nor do I pray.
God hasn't issued me with any instructions. I believe that religion is all about humans issuing fellow humans with instructions. I have seen no evidence that God has issued anyone with any instructions. So I don't have to obey anything or avoid forbidden things on the basis of human certainty about what God's "will" is.
I have no idea what happens after death. Presumably it is the end. All evidence points that way. So there is no wishful thinking - as is so common among other theists - about immortality and having to "earn" the chance to be immortal during my lifetime by modifying my behaviour. I am not doing anything in preparation for death.
My life is about myself and it's about other people and my interactions with those other people, whether my 'sense' of God is justified or not. In short, I don't see how there is any impact on "reality".
Religion is all about impact and action. But I am not religious.