Does God Exist?

Thanks for explaining.

This is how I interpreted it and why I said it makes sense to me. Unfortunately, I am not sure Writer is only/just purposefully absurd to get the juices flowing (this seems to be more Relaxxx's approach), he often really seems to mean his rigorous convictions about the bad aspects of religion making all parts of the religion atrocious, or the theistic belief on itself. Now, he already explained he doesn't have a problem with the man in a cave praising god and what not (which on itself is great) but what does that matter if he has a problem with the same kind of theist living in a majority in his own street (for example).

Agreed, but at first we don't have to find his perception as agreeable as he finds them to be. If he would, for example, start indoctrinating others that would may be become different, but he seems to share his views (that may be a bit particular to us) just like you, me or mr. Writer.

Also, where it comes to how he sees a form he thinks he recognizes, this is what happens to a lot of people stigmatizing religion as a whole as well. So, to me it merely seems same shit different stance.

 

Then what is your point? He has clearly addressed his devotion to religious ideology before and he made a false assertion based on emotion (which you conceded), which I see no other reason than his religious leanings caused him to make. I have never made these type of "convictions" in this discussion against the likes of OkieFreak, who eventhough I may disagree with at times, at least presents respect to antagonistic viewpoints in addressing them respectfully.

I mean you clamor for wanting independence from extreme religious fundamentalist viewpoints and talk about the variations in religious belief awhile back and now I make an assertion on a single individual being crippled to respond logically by his religious beliefs and you take it that I am convicting the scope of religious people. Which one do you want?

It is a problem because it bogs down discussion in emotional retorts or needing to layout guidelines of logic where we have to spend half a page or often times more getting to why the person is making such a comment. If he was a new poster, I'm sure most of us would have just dismissed it as trolling. Even with his religious bias, I think his response could have been delivered in a much, much more tactful manner. I still don't see his initial assertion vindicated by finally addressing the arguments on the following page.


"Not seeing the use of an argument" is something different than stating "Harris didn't make an argument." (Paraphrasing) This is an example of your lightly twisting of words Asmo I have mentioned before in another thread. You are committing a fallacy, although it's one I can generally overlook and don't even care about depending on the context, perhaps it is something you made be aware of regarding limitation in logic.

 

This Mr.Writer needs to get his pants out of his ass.

 

Every well meaning intent has a spiritual aspect and we are spirit reaching toward spirit in all things. I just don't think mr. writer goes far enough in his analysis in the question of why we are devoted to our good in the first place. Yes, everything can be stated in secular terms except for this devotional aspect of ourselves. I suppose you could explain it in terms of biologic compulsion or chemical reactions and in these we find good fortune. This implies to me there is something very basically organized about organization. In these terms god is relevant to everyone as it is functionally what we invoke as authority and around those invocations we organize our lives or seek recompense. It is relevant as a symbol in representing what that something organized about organization is. A symbol representing the ineffable or mysterious element of ourselves.

Same shit different stance is accounted for by saying all reactions of that nature are based on comparison to an ideal. I don't think he shares on the same level as others here. That is there is no reciprocity of respect for the truth. Doesn't care for or respect what others think as his firm belief is fundamental to his thought system, everyone who doesn't agree is wrong and they will get theirs in the end. It is not an overt attempt to indoctrinate but does lead to aggressive or inconsiderate responses.

 

"Does God exist?"

No.

 

What are you talking about?

 

I'm trying to be sucinct, because I see that the conversation has been dragging on since February.

 

Dragging on? So you have no idea as to the content only to the amount of time it has been active. Fact is it is a combination of more than one thread and has a degree of current interest and attention. How succinct can you be? What is it that you claim doesn't exist again?

 

One can be as succinct as I was in saying "no". God doesn't exist.

 

I disagree with Harris, but I've learned from him. One thing I find interesting about him is his willingness to explore deep meditation as a spiritual discipline, and his contention that atheists can be spiritual. What I find objectionable is that his logic is often faulty, but he doesn't realize it and spouts divisive nonsense with an air of superior wisdom. So let's consider those points of his.

1) "Even if we knew for sure (which we don't) that one religion was true, if we don't know which one it is, due to the bewildering array of incompatible belief systems on offer, every believer should expect damnation purely as a matter of statistics, and this should give religious people pause, though it never does."

What's wrong with this argument? It assumes that Christian and Isalmist fundamentalists are correct: that if there is a God, that God will damn those who don't believe in Him. This demonstrates a lack of theological sophistication. Roman Catholics, I believe, still follow the doctrine that "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church", but as any good Jesuit will tell you, this doesn't mean non-Catholics won't be saved. People don't get punished for what they do in good conscience. They are saved through their "invincible ignorance", which isn't as bad as it sounds. As Saint Justin Martyr put it: those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are accounted atheists". According to Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner taught that Jesus died for all people and that his death could therefore be effective for all, whether they have placed their faith in him or even heard of him. This concept was adopted by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and became an official part of Catholic theology (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2125). So, good Buddhists and Hindus could go to heaven through the atonement of Christ. The previous Pope was explicit in saying that good Muslims can go to Heaven. Pope Francis even raised eyebrows by saying that good atheists can go there too. So there's hope that even you may one day be singing in the Heavenly Choir, although they may put you in the back row near the brass section unless you change your tune. Muslims aren't quite so universalistic, but the Qur'an makes clear that "people of the book" who follow the teachings of the great prophets can be saved (Sura 2:62). And of course if the Taoists, Buddhists, Confucianists, or Jainists are right, no problem. Most of them believe each other's religions already.

2) "Religion does not bring anything to the table that cannot be gotten from secular systems of thought (morality, politics, spirituality, mythology)." That it depends on what we mean by "religion" and "secular systems of thought". Obviously Sam has gone a long way in practicing spiritual disciplines that originated with religion, and his views on reality and consciousness have adjusted accordingly. For example, in The End of Faith (p. 208), he challenges some of the views popular with 'phyicalists", including "most scientists", who believe that "our mental and spiritual lives are wholly dependent upon the workings of our brains", that "when our brains die, the stream of our being must come to an end", and that "brains produce consciousness." He argues: "the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death," and "nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case." This from a neuroscientist!"the fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand," he says "is an absolute mystery--rivaled only by the mystery...that there should be anything at all." What Sam seems to object to is the phenomenon of religion as an institution, complete with bureaucracies, rituals and doctrines about reality centered on the supernatural--an aversion with which I can sympathize. I'm a fan of the perennialist Professor Huston Smith, himself a Methodist, who argues that: "If we take the world's enduring religions at their best, we discover the distilled wisdom of the human race." Religious institutions at their best are a means of cultivating an awareness of transcendence and the "numinous" in our lives which Sam and the other three atheist "Horsemen" acknowledge is important, and it serves as a vehicle for mobilizing altruism. At the same time, it is undeniable that religions, particularly the fundamentalist kind, have been sources of organized ignorance and division. Can we work to preserve the benefits while working mightily to avoid the costs? I think so. That's what keeps me attached to it.

3) "Atheism is a religion the same way that non-tennis playing is a sport." Here I mostly agree, with caveats. Atheism comes in two forms: hard and soft. Hard atheism says "there is no God", and while that's not religion, it approximates the dogmatism of religion. Soft atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity, which is not per se a religion. If that's all it is, it faces the criticism that it is basically negative, which puts it at a disadvantage with belief systems that offer positive guidance. Many atheists I know combine atheism with some positive set of beliefs like naturalism, humanism, objectivism, Marxism, or existentialism. So we would need to examine each of these as alternatives, which is something I won't do here. I submit that atheism can become a religion when it approximates a level of dogmatism associated with religions. When naturalism becomes scientism, for example, and proclaims that science has everything pretty much figured out or will in the forseeable future, it is faith-- assurance in what hasn't happened yet. And when Sam Harris rails against religion in general and Islam in particular as inherently violent and evil, moderates not excepted, he is being as fanatical as any religious fundamentalist.

 

What doesn't exist? God you say. What model are you comparing to?

 

I disagree and I think it was exemplified in OWB's initial complete disregard in acknowledging the arguments of Harris' position I've been on about for a minute. I am on this example because I think it illustrates There is a level of religious fundamentalism that cannot even rationally acknowledge another's viewpoint admist it's religious dissonance. Atheism, practically by definition has to at least acknowledge posited theistic views. While depending on your position, Harris perhaps could be making blanket statements (which upon his elaborations, I'm not so sure he is) he is at the very least acknowledging that Islamic people hold certain notions in their beliefs, which need to be addressed.

Even for a Strong Atheist to assert "There is no God" at least (s)he has to support the assertion with some type of analogy for the precedent being set or the ridiculousness in entertaining such a concept due to their notions of probability and what not. (i.e. Santa Claus, Flying teapots, etc.)

We got a brief glimpse into a level of the theistic mindset where one can simply dismiss arguments as "drivel" without any attempt at recourse. I don't follow how that is comparable to Harris in any way.

 

Also good ole religious morality should be called into question on that previous page for discerning eyes and minds.

 

It's better to be kind than right.

 

...and if you're being neither?

 

It's even better to be both (couldn't resist!)

 

If right makes you happy then there is no better or worse. If your right needs defending then your happiness suffers. Then comes the choice would you rather be happy or right.

 

Sometimes it is better for your happiness to defend your right. At least on the long term. When it doesn't need defending it can still be fun and worthwile to defend your right or simply execute it to the max

 

Do you think that violent extremists (of any variety) should just be allowed to harm innocents, women, send children to fight for them, etc. If they feel it is right and makes them 'happy' on attaining whatever radical goal they have in mind?

Or do you assert that in regards to a different focus?

 

There's a story of Buddha when his town was attacked by a marauding army did absolutely nothing as he saw that defending it would simply perpetuate the violence. Jesus taught the same.