Premier Rock Forum

Well you lost me around that turn. I guess you win.

galanter wrote:How I've defined God is a common minimal definition, not a set-up.

A "common minimal" definition?

Checkmate.

Nice game, you put up a good fight, better luck next time.

My fundamental problem with the God's existence debate is that it supposes that there is some special value in considering whether or not something so utterly un-knowable (and to my mind, indefensible as any form of reasoned construction) should get special consideration as to its possibility or likelyhood.

Of course I don't know that there is no God. Of course. I also don't know with any certainty that there isn't someone in Red China wearing his own Electrical Audio jumpsuit, sitting in the lounge of his own recording studio typing these same words as I type them. There is simply no reason for me to believe that it is so, and to spend the time it takes to consider it seems foolish and unproductive. The only reason anyone considers a God is that those who have actively assumed the mantle of faith keep raising the issue. It is their argument that I am answering, not my own.

The fact that they alone keep the "debate" alive is enough for me to brand them as desperate and delusional. I see it as an indulgence that agnostics like yourself feel obliged to pamper them with considering these ridiculous notions, and this kind of babying can get us as a race nowhere. It weakens intellectual rigor to have to keep making these qualifications to the patently true as an appeasement, and it then becomes leverage for the theists to assert some sort of intellectual parity with people grounded in reality. They question "reality," and "truth," and the quest for advancement in many arenas stagnates.

Forgive me for not wading through the first ten pages and my apologies if this was stated earlier. Intelligent Design was created (throat clearing) because several supreme court decisions (Engel v Vitale) draw a pretty firm line in the sand about what was a violation of the establishment clause and what was not. The whole point of ID is to claim a "nondenominational higher power" drew up the blueprint in the hopes that this would fly under the radar of the existing decisions.

By it's very definition ID cannot stand up to the scientific method and should not be taught in biology. It can and probably should be taught in a theology class about creation myths along with Inca tales of Lake Titicaca and Greek mythology.

steve wrote:My fundamental problem with the God's existence debate is that it supposes that there is some special value in considering whether or not something so utterly un-knowable (and to my mind, indefensible as any form of reasoned construction) should get special consideration as to its possibility or likelyhood.

Of course I don't know that there is no God. Of course. I also don't know with any certainty that there isn't someone in Red China wearing his own Electrical Audio jumpsuit, sitting in the lounge of his own recording studio typing these same words as I type them. There is simply no reason for me to believe that it is so, and to spend the time it takes to consider it seems foolish and unproductive. The only reason anyone considers a God is that those who have actively assumed the mantle of faith keep raising the issue. It is their argument that I am answering, not my own.

The fact that they alone keep the "debate" alive is enough for me to brand them as desperate and delusional. I see it as an indulgence that agnostics like yourself feel obliged to pamper them with considering these ridiculous notions, and this kind of babying can get us as a race nowhere. It weakens intellectual rigor to have to keep making these qualifications to the patently true as an appeasement, and it then becomes leverage for the theists to assert some sort of intellectual parity with people grounded in reality. They question "reality," and "truth," and the quest for advancement in many arenas stagnates.

"something so utterly un-knowable"

"Of course I don't know that there is no God."

HEY! Welcome to the agnostic team!

But seriously the reason God is more important than the skinny kid in Red China wearing his own Electrical Audio jumpsuit is this (if nothing else)...

God matters to *other people* a whole lot more than your hypothetical engineer. Theists actually outnumber atheists and agnostics combined.

Now I know that it's easy to get frustrated by the religious right and the various spokespersons out there. But most institutions seem to bubble up obnoxious people into leadership positions. And authority and expertise is misused in every discipline and sector. I think the majority of religious people are pretty reasonable well meaning people, and are not significantly holding back the species or whatever...

Slagging people off is good sport and all...but if one is really interested in
cultural/social/political progress I think something other than the two sides hurling insults at each other is going to be required. Nothing impedes progress more than absolutist ideologues who have no doubts and thus no need to listen. A little dose of agnosticism on all sides might be just the thing to at least get people into the same boat if not rowing together.

cheers, Phil

galanter wrote:
God matters to *other people* a whole lot more than your hypothetical engineer. Theists actually outnumber atheists and agnostics combined.

So what? That doesn't offer even the vaguest argument.

galanter wrote: Now I know that it's easy to get frustrated by the religious right and the various spokespersons out there. But most institutions seem to bubble up obnoxious people into leadership positions. And authority and expertise is misused in every discipline and sector. I think the majority of religious people are pretty reasonable well meaning people, and are not significantly holding back the species or whatever...

Whether someone is a "nice person", is hardly the debate. Steve is right, hanging on to unjustified beliefs does more damage than good. If in the US you have college educated politicians standing on the floor of the Senate arguing that Stem Cell Research is immoral. I'm sorry, but if you think that science shouldn't rigorously follow one of the most promising lines of study because of someone's 1st century ideas... well that's just dumb. Personally all this bullshit doesn't really effect us here in Europe. Politicians get fired for expressing strong religious views, and so they should. If someone is so unreasonable then they cannot be trusted in public office.

galanter wrote: Slagging people off is good sport and all...but if one is really interested in
cultural/social/political progress I think something other than the two sides hurling insults at each other is going to be required. Nothing impedes progress more than absolutist ideologues who have no doubts and thus no need to listen. A little dose of agnosticism on all sides might be just the thing to at least get people into the same boat if not rowing together.

cheers, Phil

“A little dose of agnosticism on both sides?” Firstly Steve and I aren't proposing anything, the theists are. All we are saying is we have an absence of something. . And theists aren't well known for moving on a belief system that claims to have certainty to moral and material answers to questions of social and public policy.

It seems to me that in the face of a failed philosophy that requires giving attributes to a God, so you can created an argument, you have returned to: "well there are a lot of them... so there must something to it." and "well, couldn't you at least cut them some slack?”

No and no.

Dennis: Heya, Jimmy
Jimmy: Hey Dennis! How's your magic elf?
Dennis: I wish you'd stop making fun of my magic elf. He surely is real. You must admit the POSSIBILITY that he's real.
Jimmy: I don't see why I have to. We had this discussion before, remember...
Dennis: Okay, listen. You know how modern science speculates that there may be other universes, perhaps an infinity of universes, and how each universe may have its own laws of science...i.e. an infinity of different laws of physics and physical constants etc? Take that infinity of universes and draw a circle around it. My elf is what allows all of that to exist.
Jimmy: Whoa, that's an extraordinary elf you have there.
Dennis: Well, I'm an extraordinary person.
Jimmy: So, as I understand it, this elf is definitely in the range of the unknowable, correct?
Dennis: He's SUPRAunknowable, right.
Jimmy: How do you know about the elf? How are you privvy to this knowledge?
Dennis: How are you privvy to the knowledge my elf does not exist, something which you keep saying time and time again with what stinks like faith to me.
Jimmy: Let's leave this issue alone for a moment...tell me about your elf. He allows everything to exist, right?
Dennis: That's what I said.
Jimmy: Okay. Remember your circle around the infinity of universes? That was AWESOME. Now let's inscribe the circle inside an n-sided polygon. Your magic elf is also inside the polygon. I submit that DANZIG is what allows all THAT to exist!
Dennis: You can't do that! My elf is the master.
Jimmy: However your elf is unknowable to human beings, that is how unknowable DANZIG is to your elf. Now, you must admit that you can have no knowledge of this DANZIG and are an agnostic regarding his existence.
Dennis: Danzig, from...
Jimmy: Yes, he may choose to inhabit the elf's plane of existence, or even sub-that into our plane of existence, and may even form a band called the Misfits...
Dennis: You're just saying all this to make fun of my elf.
Jimmy: I don't know how you are getting all this knowledge of the unknowable. Either you have this knowledge, or you don't and are simply imagining it. If you can imagine it, well, you can imagine anything and you must admit that all that may be possible as well - you must be an agnostic EVERYTHING. Do you admit that position?
Dennis: I was talking about my elf. Not about Danzig, or mythical creatures like unicorns or Gods or-
Jimmy: Oh, my corn dog is done. Catchya later.

I have contributed some crap to this forum in my time.

This thread, however - notwithstanding some cogent posts from our more intelligent members - is just the fucking worst.

This thread is the worst in the history of the universe.

I'm confused by the people who just pop in and say "This is SO STUPID" or "This is the worst".
If the debate is not to your taste, no one is sitting by you with a gun, forcing you to read it.
Or perhaps you see through every single argument, crystal clear, and stand intellectually above us all. If so, if you would stoop yourself to our level and shine your light on these issues, I would be personally very grateful.

As for 'worst thread in the history of the Universe', well, I imagine you would find that here http://www.poopreport.com/phpBB/index.php

M_a_x wrote:I'm confused by the people who just pop in and say "This is SO STUPID" or "This is the worst".
If the debate is not to your taste, no one is sitting by you with a gun, forcing you to read it.
Or perhaps you see through every single argument, crystal clear, and stand intellectually above us all. If so, if you would stoop yourself to our level and shine your light on these issues, I would be personally very grateful.

M_a_x, you would be one of the people I refer to as a more intelligent member, and I have found your posts in this topic lucid and nicely written, for whatever that's worth to you.

I really wasn't joking when I said I have submitted some crap to this forum in the past. It's just that this thread has so comprehensively depressed me that I felt the urge to express my displeasure. I did it of my own free willy.

And this:

This thread is the worst in the history of the universe

is me shining my light on these issues.