If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

This reality sandwich idea is not new at all however having come before in the form of the process of creation proceeding impulse or thought, articulation or word, and what appears or the deed.

 

Hmmm. You're presenting a second hand summary of a study by some graduate student as the basis for concluding that religion is detrimental in that it promotes illogical thinking. That doesn't sound too logical to me. Not long ago, we had to deal with a report of a study linking religion to brain atrophy. When I read the study, it did nothing of the kind, and in fact found more atrophy among atheists. So please give us the details. How was religion operationalized? How were the subjects selected? Did the sample include adherents to a variety of religions? How was it conducted? etc. I tried to find the study by clicking your link, but was unable to. I did track it down, but got only the abstract, which provided no information about the methodolgy. The abstract was a bit less sweeping than your generalization: "Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions".

 

Just a study I thought I would share:

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstract

 

I can go for my sister who studied social psychology now. Excuse me for trolling.

 

I enjoy your company you fisher for mankind-ness.

 

thedope:

We are our thoughts. It's the only way we've ever been able to share them. You are confused by abstractions. Do you have something against everything being physical?

You are in denial that everything is physical. I don't believe in god, and your belief is not my immediate concern. Why don't you want your god to be a person?

You're the one who doesn't want god to be a person.

I have no argument for non-physicality, liar. Your argument for abstraction isn't one, as it lies in the misapprehension that abstraction isn't "succinctly" physical. As I've said, the abstract is so succinctly physical, it eludes you.

Your ascribing authority to god in place of your own.

 

:sunny::2thumbsup::sunny:

 

thedope:

Nonsense. What a boring bedtime story. All knowledge is the state of knowing, and is perceived.
Everything is its appearance.

LOL! I always crack up when you say this, you industrious designer of lies! Human nature is taste and tasting, but nature itself is no arrangement.

 

i have to say ;contradiction of what? our own assumptions? how does that cause anything other then the validity of our assumptions to not exist?

one or more gods are perfectly capable of existing, or not existing, as IT OR THEY see fit, without in any way having anything to do with anything anyone imagines, believes, thinks, or whatever other world you want to call it, they "know" about it.

there ARE contradictions in belief, and they do annul the validity of the belief(s) they are in. but there is no way this touches ANYTHING other then THOSE BELIEFS THEMSELVES. NOT whatever god or gods, there might happen to be.

 

Not at all. I am not confused by abstractions nor the natural state of the mind. You are not waffles although waffles can represent your estate in the moment. I know we can be deceived by appearances and not recognize ourselves or ourselves in each other.

God is impersonated all the time. Why do you want god to be? Your beliefs equally are none of my immediate or even long term concern. The thoughts we share are my concern immediately and indefinitely being eminently responsible for our experience.

God as per the definition I put forward is essential to all our efforts. I want to know why you want it to be someone in particular? Any body will do to prove the case.

You are projecting. It is the nature of physical that makes my case for abstraction, succinct meaning compressed into a small area or scope. We share our thoughts and the symbols for them over significant distances and actually have to make an effort to conceal them. All we see is reflected light.

Who's god yours? It's not mine. God is that which we invoke not someone else's assignment.

What a ponderous head. I used to have more respect for the efficacy of your word smitery but that was before your dissembling self respect with your formula of self denial, god exists but not for me. Oh and the name you project onto your pet-tiness, liar.

 

I already explained it to you a few pages back, I'm not going to repost, it at the moment cause I'm on a phone. A general summary is contradictions in absolute attributes of God disprove that God.

Your argument is strange, it feels like you are attempting to defend a theistic position yet not crediting that a theist (or anyone) can know anything about God(s).

 

I agree with you there, with one qualification: some religions. I get together every week with three different groups of Christians, and I can't think of a doctrine or belief we haven't questioned.

 

Whooooooeeeee! Meta-analysis. That's pretty fancy stuff for us religious okies to get our heads around. Sixty-three studies--ain't that sumthin'. One problem with meta-analysis, no matter how many studies are included: its validity depends on the quality of the individual studies--a factor that's blurred when they're boiled down into average results. For example, in all those sixty-three studies, how many Sikhs, Parsees, Quakers, Episcopalians, Buddhists, etc., were included? How were the samples obtained? Were they randomly selected? Captive student audiences? Self-selected volunteers? Was the scope national, international, local?

There is also the problem of how the dependent and independent variables were defined. We know that. Intelligence, the dependent variable, is defined in terms of left-brained problem solving and analytical skills so valued by colleges and universities. Studies using this measure find racial minorities wanting. But in recent years, the utility of this narrow concept has been challenged, leading to other measures of intelligence to include creativity and emotional intelligence--i.e., intuition. Which faculty is more valuable in getting at truth? I'd say a combination of both, but it's a guess. Scientists, such as the behavioral scientists who designed the study, would probably say the former. Scientists are trained to test hypotheses for Type 1 errors, eliminating false positives, and analytical intelligence is best for that, but perhaps less helpful in eliminating Type 2 errors--rejecting true propositions because they don't meet narrow standards of "verifiability."

The independent variable is religiosity, defined again narrowly in terms of belief in supernatural beings and participation in religious rituals. Jehovah's witnesses and snake handlers are lumped together with Presbyterians and Methodists, and the results are an average of whatever mix happened to be represented in the various samples.

One thing the investigators do warn us against, to their credit, is the ecological fallacy. As Silberman explains: "knowing that a person is religious would not lead me to bet my money on whether or not the person is intelligent." Something to keep in mind.

Since atheists are supposed to have superior analytical ability, why haven't you raised these questions?

 

No. I think human nature is much broader than religion, and analytically distinct from it.

 

Because I am not fishing and seeking fallacious apologists arguments to support my denial of the truth.

 

Seems to me you've been doing just that with your frequent posts of fallacious material posted on the Christian site. Remember the letter of Barnabas and the Genesis of Modern Psychological Warfare. Atheist apologetics at its shabbiest! If an argument is fallacious, you should be able to spot the fallacy and refute it. The fact that you persistently fail to do that, suggests to me that you are unable to do it. Instead, you mindlessly download propaganda from the web, in hopes that it will score, or you simply repeat the incantation that religion does more harm than good and must be abolished.

 

thedope:

Your misdirection is not missed, your eminence. You don't want god to be a person then because you think no-one can be god?

No, your definition of god is essential only to itself. Were anyone proof of god, everyone would be, but god only exists as gods, and we are not gods. I only want everyone to be themselves, which is why I don't believe in god. But those who do believe I want to give life to their god, and not the handy, convenient, comfortable lie of ubiquity. Ignorance isn't bliss.

Your saying the abstract is not succinctly physical is a lie you cannot conceal as truth.

It's 'whose', though it doesn't matter, since the last time I told you you told me it wasn't. lol Use that dictionary of yours for something useful! You said god is an authority we invoke. You must be able to speak for yourself before you can learn to speak for everyone. You can be falsely modest with me if you like, pretending not to invoke your own authority. Command yourself by all means! lol

If you are my pet, I have fed you too much judging by this bout of indigestion! Yes, you're a liar, and a block-head. It is right that you have lost respect for me in the truth that god exists for you and not I. We have grown up differently in language, but that only has bearing on the terms you want to find agreement with. That I deny myself your lies appears to pain you! Jealous creature! A horrible return for being born free! I release you now thedope! Run, be wild again! Hunt, and do your business where you will! :-D

 

Three quarters of a century ago a little man of limited intellect made amazing political headway by selling a simple idea--that most of the problems of Germany and the world were the fault of a single people, the Jude, and if they could only be eliminated, the world would be a much better place. No need to distinguish among different kinds of Jews--they were all the same. Raus Jude! We know the tragic results of that line of thinking.

Disturbingly, a similar pattern of thinking seems to be making headway. We hear it a lot on this forum. Religion is the source of most, if not all, of the world's evils, wars, violence and suffering, and if it could only be eliminated, the world would be a better place. It does no good to try to distinguish some forms of religion from others: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, UCC, Episcopalians, Methodists, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists--they're all the same. Just because many of those on the list seem to have caused no violence, and others have been tame since the seventeenth century makes no difference because look at those Muslims. The Quakers must take responsibility for them. And apart from that, "studies" show they cause brain atrophy and lower intelligence--regardless of whether or not any of their members were included in the sample.

Does any of this sound familiar? Is it ringing any bells? Would we recognize it better if we substituted the word "Jews" for religious? This is hate speech.
History shows that it, more than any particular group of people, causes violence, injustice, and wars. We've heard a lot of it lately. Maybe we should stop, or at least make some distinctions.

 

No It's because god is what god is and that is that which we invoke.

We are essentially devoted to those things we cite or appeal to as true or good and this is how god appears or the phenomena of god, god being phenomenological. That which we invoke is essential to our own creation. We love to be right, this is the love of god. Yes I know you say this is love of rightness or love simply and it has been said over and over that god is love. I say love is what you are and you say body is what you are and in so doing you claim the body your god in your invocation. This is by the meaning of the word god not by your choice to believe in any god at all. As long as you think god a person, place, thing, or something apart from you you haven't understood the meaning I put forward. You invoke good and this compulsion to invoke our own good is the will of god. Words are symbols for conditions. Conditions are evoked. In the beginning was my word and my word is with good and my word is good and become flesh. We name the animals.

If you believe we are not together children of creation then you have not seen yourself nor them and the proof is in your wanting. Everyone is their self though this may be doubted or unrecognized and this is no reason to be against the meaning I have proposed. Believing in god is neither here nor there and is always a contest or gamble in how you are, but recognizing god in men, not a man but human kind orients our devotion in an assuredly mutually beneficial way. Created to create the good,
evidence of the will of god. Our will and the will of god are the same will. We come together or we come apart. Will is evidence of the power to create. We do not create ourselves, but create as we are created for and with each other.

I have never suggested belief in god was a good idea but I have suggested, know thyself. Belief doesn't contend with the truth, only other beliefs and truth does not need belief to be what it is although we can recognize it in shared being. You should see the look on your face but you can't without help.

If you claim a lie for yourself, what measure of truth do you offer? You are disrespectful of truth and if the light in you be darkness then how great the darkness.

Thank you I have, now learning a rule that possessive pronouns do not use apostrophes. This rule of the language we share will serve me more steadily your individual contribution could. Sorry what you suggested hasn't stuck but I lean more to reason than dogmatic approaches and besides you speak from both the head and ass end of yourself so hard to tell with you sometimes shit from shineola or pretense from spontaneous generosity, your telling me before didn't prove to be that useful save for you to claim some kind of victory over mind.

No, the.

I am not your pet and I did not suggest I was so you keep right on with your vain howling for all it supports me in a weird way but I don't find it tempting to invite you over to piss on my rug.