58
   

Why believe in god? The theist perspective.

 
 
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 01:31 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
God is necessary for existence

Smile
Define "existence" !
Dead flies don't "exist" for starving frogs. Existence is a function of the cognitive requirements of species specific observers and their perceptual biases. It has no objective independent status.


Goddamn nice post, fresco! Very succint. Cool
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 02:04 am
@FBM,
Appreciated.
0 Replies
 
brandonsays
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 02:16 am
@fresco,
Yet, if you don't really exist, neither does your argument. Do you not perceive the inherent absurdity with positing that we don't exist in reality? If we don't exist, then neither does our cognitive functioning, which is required for us to argue whether we exist or not. The whole exercise is self refuting, and ultimately logically absurd. You have literally lost your mind if you really believe that. But I don't think you believe that in reality. You simply are lying, and can't commit to consistent rational thought for one reason or another. I invite you back to reality. There's no shame in it whatsoever.
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 02:49 am
@brandonsays,
You have a vested interest in maintaining your "self-integrity" with has a requirement of "a God". I do not. I am aware (in line with the observations of countless others) that my experience of "self" is inconsistent and a function of situational factors. Arguments which undermine the interests of a particular self would certainly be deemed by you (the believer) to have "no existence" in its eyes despite the fact that this ironically reinforces the perceptual bias argument per se.
Logic based on a premise of naive objective realism is vacuous.
Like all believers in gods, you seek the absolutist cocoon of "certainty" and "meaningfulness of your existence" in the face of the inevitability of change and mental incapacity. You only need to look at the continuous paradigmatic shifts in scientific knowledge about we call "reality" to appreciate the simplistic nature of such wishes about "certainty".
Of course you can always attempt operate the catch-all clause of believers that "all knowledge is in the gift of God", thereby putting up the mental shutters against potentially troublesome thoughts. Smile
brandonsays
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 02:56 am
@fresco,
Ok. Perhaps either you are on a higher perceptual, plane than I am, which would explain my inability to make any rational sense in your statement, or your statement is utter BS. I prefer the latter to the former, but since I don't exist in reality (or at least not in my sleeping moments), what difference does it make what I (O non-exuatent one), believe? Right?
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 03:07 am
@brandonsays,
It makes no difference to me (all of them) unless those beliefs impinge on my "freedom". Unfortunately this is not always the case when I find myself, for example, in a tiresome airport security queue. To paraphrase one celebrated atheist "All believers in "an afterlife" are guilty of giving mental succour to the rationality which drives fanatics to seek early entry from "this life".
brandonsays
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 03:47 am
@fresco,
Excuse me, but fanatical theists are not the only ones who distort belief systems. Ever heard of the Soviet Union? Let's try to be rational about this. I've been a believing Christian for over 30 years, and I'm still here. Haven't knocked off any non-believers in any suicide mission for truth. Why? You think maybe actual Christian teaching might have something to do with it? There are fanatics all around us, and they come in many stripes. Let's not assign them to groups that are otherwise rational and moral. Then maybe we can learn to get along better.

I believe in an afterlife. I believe it to be true. If it is true, then what some fanatic does with it should be inconcequential to it's status as truth.

It seems you think that beliefs are false whenever someone abuses them. I could find exception to a myriad of beliefs that way. But would I be right in doing so? Truth, in my view is such regardless of what others choose to do with it. Harm comes from peoples' choices, not from something as neutral as a chosen belief. To be sure, there are some dangerous and harmful beliefs, don't get me wrong. But their harm and danger are evident by what they support, not by how they are abused. The Christian belief in an afterlife does not support any kind of suicide mission.


fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 06:10 am
@brandonsays,
Beliefs are functional, rather than true or false. Functionality has both a psychological and social dimension. Some militant atheists argue that in "open" societies such as ours, belief in "an afterlife" which has psychological functionality as palliative for deists, can be become dysfunctional or pernicious at the sociological level. Other militant atheists such as historical communists make the mistake of substituting one form of "rationality" with another which can be equally subversive to individual freedom. In short, people "want answers". When there are none, they invent them and attempt to reify those answers by recruiting others to their belief systems in order to establish a veneer of parochial social functionality. Historically, Christianity has had as much blood on its hands as any other ad hoc coercive belief system.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 06:15 am
@fresco,
What leads you to believe, fresco, that airports are safe places. Doesn't the security shout at you that they are not.
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 06:20 am
@spendius,
Certainly unsafe to the wallet ! (£3 for a croissant!)
0 Replies
 
brandonsays
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 03:38 pm
@fresco,
Fresco, there is such thing as true and false beliefs.

I can believe, for example, that my sister is the president despite evidence to the contrary. This belief might be "functional" for me, but it would still be false.
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 12:10 am
@brandonsays,
Sorry, but on practical dynamic analysis, "truth" and "falsity" merely denote degrees of social agreement. The idea of "absolute states" is essentially a religious one.
Of course there can be overwhelming agreement about some statements we call "facts"(1) like " biological relationships", but the terms "sister" and "brother" can denote a multitude of other aspects of relationship without which any human concept would be vacuous (2). I put it to you that the concept "God" significantly lacks any consensual agreement.
(1)fact from facere Latin..to construct.
(2) Wittgenstein: "Meaning is use".
brandonsays
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 01:05 am
@fresco,
The propositions you offer then are neither true nor false then? What if I were to affirm them as true? Would you then acknowledgevthat there are such things as true facts?

Seriously, your philosophy is so utterly incoherent, I'm not certain if you actually believe it.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 01:35 am
@brandonsays,
I acknowledge that the expression "true facts" equates to "cognitive constructions about the world for which there is overwhelming agreement".

Your "common sense views" amount in general to what philosophers call "naive realism". You are not actually "doing philosophy", one function of which is "to examine common sense assumptions". What appears bizarre (unfamiliar) to you is a set of well established positions in contemporary philosophy involving terms such as "theories of truth", "pragmatism" and "existentialism".

Since you appear to be content with your belief system you are unlikely to have the urge to "shop around". A philosopher would merely remark that belief systems are like "fashion" and subject to similar social forces. We acquire them through social conditioning and we tend to ignore the significance of comparative anthropology from our parochial comfort zones
FBM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 07:02 am
@fresco,
Looks like this one's another dud. Same old word salads and poor grasp of logical argumentation, compounded by lack of evidence to support his claims. Ho-hum.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 09:21 am
When Klaatu landed on earth he was met with a slug from a .45 by the hostile frightened primitives-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/klaatushot_zps44a0c011.jpg~original

But later recovered and passed on some fantastic knowledge to the human race-
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rennie-blackboard_zpsea5116e4.jpg~original


Jesus too was a kind of Klaatu-
"I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23, Matt 13:35)

But sadly he got the same sort of reception by the hostile frightened primitives. Even today he makes them rock n roll in fear..Smile
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 09:54 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Historically, Christianity has had as much blood on its hands as any other ad hoc coercive belief system.


Without regard to your chosen metaphor, would it not be more accurate to say that Christians, as a whole, have had as much blood on their hands as any other group of subscribers to an "ad hoc coercive belief system?"

To what extent do you distinguish believers from beliefs and belief systems?
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 10:10 am
Quote:
Fresco said: Historically, Christianity has had as much blood on its hands as any other ad hoc coercive belief system.

Huh? this sounds pretty unwarlike to me-
"Love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the destitute, tend the sick, visit the prisoners, look after the poor"- Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 12:30, John 13:34, Matt 25: 37-40)
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 12:46 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
On the basis that belief systems are co-extensive with their socially acquired self-image, we can argue that people don't have beliefs, they are their beliefs.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 03:48 am
@fresco,
That seem tautological to me fresco.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 03:07:01