God Delusion is Delusional

[TarkanAttila]

I’m well aware. In my interpretation, being respectful entails civility but does not entail agreeing with others’ ideas. It’s my sincere hope TarkanAttila (and others) are not offended by me sharing my opinion about his statement.

And this must be your way of setting an example of showing respect?

Honestly, I’m too numb to be offended. -_- You’re just one in a long line of insolence I’ve experiences over the years. You’re not particularly special or new. Just another hater. And you know what they say:
http://www.deviantart.com/download/153192357/HATERS_GONNA_HATE_by_spikewible.jpg

(Yes, this is residue of my life on a previous forum. Anyway…)

This isn’t to say I hate you. But by now, most of these sorts of comments start to sound the same. :-/

Which of my points did you find absurd:

That a display of power each generation would be insufficient?

That a loving God would ensure his people knew which faith to follow so they would not choose the wrong one and end up being burned by Hellfire for all eternity?

Or perhaps it was my proposal for ensuring everyone knew which path was the right path.

1. Is apparently correct. It would have to be a miracle explicitly done in the name of God by someone of God (such as the Virgin Mary - see Fatima, and Guadalupe FMI).
2. Firstly, I believe it is possible if not actual that God will allow people to know of Him after they die - but only if they have not been exposed to Him in all of his splendour. (In other words, if the only Christian you’ve seen is Jeremiah Wright, you’re forgiven for thinking Christianity is insane.)

Second, Catholics believe in purgatory. While we should strive to be the best saints we can be, purgatory is there for those worthy of Heaven but who still have some kinks to be worked out. (Virtuous atheists might fall into this category. I’m not sure.)

Third, consider the Catechism:

847…
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

In other words, non-Catholics who sincerely, try to find God even though they are not Catholic are given the consolation prize, which is also Heaven. At least, it’s likely this will happen, anyway.

That means atheists who have tried to find God by all means possible and failed may not be to blame and not be sinful. However, a man looking for an excuse not to believe in God (like Dawkins) shall quite likely die a spiritual death as well, as may those who try to lead others to atheism (also something Dawkins is guilty of, and mainly with rhetoric for that matter, not even with good arguments). But am I his judge and jury? No. I do see what he is guilty of, but I hope that he shall be saved from himself before he dies - or that God will have mercy on the poor sod.

1. Any man can know which path is the right path. He needs only to read the text and see those who have followed it by the letter. There are many examples of this on the Internet, and in this day and age it’s almost inexcusable for someone to be ignorant of the good that has been done in the name of God.

However, any man can also convince himself that Christians are wrong, or that something other than Christianity is leading them to do good, or that there are problems with Christianity that outweigh the good it does. This is especially likely in countries where Christians or Catholics are a minority, and are persecuted by the government, discriminated against by the people, and mocked by society.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Second, Catholics believe in purgatory.

I was raised as a Lutheran. Besides historic differences like indulgences, Catholocism was usually described as being similar except you had to pay 10% of your income and listen to the Pope. I forgot you gained purgatory in the exchange!

Any man can know which path is the right path.

If Catholic Christinianity were the right path, and everyone who sought the right path found it, we wouldn’t have Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Wiccans. We wouldn’t have Lutherans, and Baptists, and Quakers, and Latter Day Saints.

We would mostly agree there is a single god, who he/she/it was, and what they wanted. Some would choose to follow its commands, while others would seek freedom.

and see those who have followed it by the letter

I doubt many theists are able to follow their religious texts to the letter, and even if they did, without being a psychic stalker I should have no way of knowing.

If you mean we should seek out people who seem to enjoy life and emulate their actions and beliefs, there’s certainly sensible, but be wary of the dangers–their happiness may be transient, or faked, or you may misidentify the source.

To your point, I wouldn’t say the Christians I’ve met enjoyed life any more than the non-Christians or non-theists I’ve met. There are of course good and bad examples within all three groups.

There are many examples of this on the Internet, and in this day and age it’s almost inexcusable for someone to be ignorant of the good that has been done in the name of Chrstianity…

If you define “good” to be what your religious text says is good, that’s self-fulfilling. Most people who believe in a particular objective good will, from time-to-time, do what they judge to be objectively good. That’s true of inquisitors, Gandhi, and the 9/11 terrorists.

The Pearson history textbook at my school covered more unpleasant than pleasant things done in the name of Christianity. If you went to a Catholic School, perhaps you used a different history textbook than non-demoninational schools.

You’re not particularly special or new. Just another hater.

Shall I hold this up as an example of following Catholicism to the letter? You are not the first Internet handle, not even the first 12-letter Internet handle, to call me names. I reserve ‘hatred’ for more important things–like tax season.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

I pointed out that** if** life is absurd all your points inevitably fall into the same category!

I find aspects of both Camus (Absurdism) and Rand (Objectivism) appealing. Supposing no Gold Dragon nor Giant Leech had been sighted recently and there were no proof of their existance or non-existance, Camus would say we shouldn’t live our life in fear of such creatures. Rand would go further and say the creatures don’t exist in our world—although her mind is open to change if anyone were later able to prove their existance.

Engineer #1: I designed this airplane.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by a Gold Dragon?

Rand: Gold Dragons do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely Gold Dragons exist, and I see no record of Gold Dragon attacks on planes, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Engineer #1: It’s 2009. I designed this wetsuit for the harsh Amazon river.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by giant 3" leeches**?

Rand: Giant 3" leaches do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely giant 3" leeches exist, and I see no record of giant 3" leech attacks on wetsuits, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Camus’ phrasing seems to better describe the real situation, but Rand’s phrasing seems more succinct and practical.

** Giant, 3" T-Rex leeches were discovered in the Amazon River in 2010.

 

[tonyrey]

I find aspects of both Camus (Absurdism) and Rand (Objectivism) appealing. Supposing no Gold Dragon nor Giant Leech had been sighted recently and there were no proof of their existance or non-existance, Camus would say we shouldn’t live our life in fear of such creatures. Rand would go further and say the creatures don’t exist in our world—although her mind is open to change if anyone were later able to prove their existance.

Engineer #1: I designed this airplane.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by a Gold Dragon?

Rand: Gold Dragons do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely Gold Dragons exist, and I see no record of Gold Dragon attacks on planes, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Engineer #1: It’s 2009. I designed this wetsuit for the harsh Amazon river.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by giant 3" leeches**?

Rand: Giant 3" leaches do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely giant 3" leeches exist, and I see no record of giant 3" leech attacks on wetsuits, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Camus’ phrasing seems to better describe the real situation, but Rand’s phrasing seems more succinct and practical.

** Giant, 3" T-Rex leeches were discovered in the Amazon River in 2010.

In an irrational universe rationality is suspect. There is no guarantee that anyone’s conclusions about the nature of reality are worth considering. If all our thoughts are caused by physical events they are as fallible as our instincts and impulses. The one
fact that stands out above everything else is - as Pascal observed - that we are superior to the entire universe because we know that it exists whereas the universe knows nothing!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I find aspects of both Camus (Absurdism) and Rand (Objectivism) appealing. Supposing no Gold Dragon nor Giant Leech had been sighted recently and there were no proof of their existance or non-existance, Camus would say we shouldn’t live our life in fear of such creatures. Rand would go further and say the creatures don’t exist in our world—although her mind is open to change if anyone were later able to prove their existance.

Engineer #1: I designed this airplane.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by a Gold Dragon?

Rand: Gold Dragons do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely Gold Dragons exist, and I see no record of Gold Dragon attacks on planes, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Engineer #1: It’s 2009. I designed this wetsuit for the harsh Amazon river.
Engineer #2: Did you take into account an attack by giant 3" leeches**?

Rand: Giant 3" leaches do not exist.
Camus: It’s highly unlikely giant 3" leeches exist, and I see no record of giant 3" leech attacks on wetsuits, so let’s design as if they don’t exist.

Camus’ phrasing seems to better describe the real situation, but Rand’s phrasing seems more succinct and practical.

** Giant, 3" T-Rex leeches were discovered in the Amazon River in 2010.

You know, I suspect that considerably more people will have direct experience of God today, than will have experience of, say, a superstring, something which has never been experienced by anyone as anything other than an ideologically manifest mathematical convenience.

With a physik based on the 4 humors, medicine, nonetheless, was often found to work. It doesn’t mean that the 4 humors are the guiding principles underpinning our anatomies! Rand, if around at the time, however, would believe they were, and Camis would believe it likely…

…the consensus of which would affect the reality not one wit!

Hang on… so what are you arguing in favour of? Postmodern uncertainty?

 

[Pieman333272]

** Giant, 3" T-Rex leeches were discovered in the Amazon River in 2010.

This goes to show something about the whole “It’s so improbable it’s basically untrue” thing so often applied to God, needless to say by Dawkins himself…

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

tonyrey:

In an irrational universe rationality is suspect. There is no guarantee that anyone’s conclusions about the nature of reality are worth considering.

Aye–I think therefore . Further, I have decades of evidence that my senses have been helpful in informing my decisions.

When my front door’s closed I do not try to walk through it. The skeptic claims I can’t be certain it’s there. Maybe it’s a holigram or hallucination–conceivable, but extremely unlikely.

Hang on… so what are you arguing in favour of? Postmodern uncertainty?

I wasn’t arguing for or against anything, just discussing my concerns with both positions.

I’m leaning towards limited Scientific realism. Entity realism as proposed by Hacker and Cartwright is very interesting. Under entity realism our reason, sensory perceptions, and instruments/tools inform us and ontologically we believe “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” if and only if there’s strong evidence for that conclusion. An entity realist would say, “We have a front door and it’s closed”, as opposed to a constructive empiricist who would say “There’s adequate evidence for the existance of our front door and its closed state”. I feel comfortable saying my front door’s there and closed.

[A] physik based on the 4 humors, medicine, nonetheless, was often found to work.

A scientific theory can generally only be disproved, not proven. That’s because it’s almost always possible to construct two theories T and T’ that agree on all observed data but disagree on some data as of yet unobserved but potentially observable in the future. A modern scientist would therefore not claim the “4 humors theory” was true, only that it predicted observations better than the preceding theory.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Originally Posted by LifeIsAbsurd:
** Giant, 3" T-Rex leeches were discovered in the Amazon River in 2010.

Pieman333272:

This goes to show something about the whole “It’s so improbable it’s basically untrue” thing so often applied to God, needless to say by Dawkins himself…

According to Wikipedia, Dawson doesn’t claim to know for certain “God doesn’t exist”, but rather he doesn’t believe “God exists”. I.e., he’s an agnostic atheist not claiming to be certain of that which he’s not certain. Of course, whether one believes there’s a 0/10,000 or 1/10,000 chance of the Catholic God existing, doesn’t radically affect the day-to-day decisions one makes.

 

[tonyrey]

In an irrational universe rationality is suspect. There is no guarantee that anyone’s conclusions about the nature of reality are worth considering.

They inform but you form your decisions by using your power of reason.

When my front door’s closed I do not try to walk through it. The skeptic claims I can’t be certain it’s there. Maybe it’s a holigram or hallucination–conceivable, but extremely unlikely.

You’re confusing rationalism with scepticism. I am pointing out that** if **all our thoughts are caused by physical events they are as fallible as our instincts and impulses - which are notoriously untrustworthy. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth! We must be able to choose what to think rather than have our thoughts thrust into us by processes beyond our control. It is a delusion to think our power of reason and choice are merely quirks of nature…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I’m leaning towards limited Scientific realism. Entity realism as proposed by Hacker and Cartwright is very interesting. Under entity realism our reason, sensory perceptions, and instruments/tools inform us and ontologically we believe “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” if and only if there’s strong evidence for that conclusion. An entity realist would say, “We have a front door and it’s closed”, as opposed to a constructive empiricist who would say “There’s adequate evidence for the existance of our front door and its closed state”. I feel comfortable saying my front door’s there and closed.

Doesn’t sound bad, but fairly wishy washy… you could probably use this in any number of ways, to justify any number of positions… I’m not sure if that means it’s more reasonable or not!