7th January 2008

“Religion is the dream of the human mind. But even in dreams we do not find ourselves in emptiness or in heaven, but on earth, in the realm of reality; we only see real things in the entrancing splendor of imagination and caprice, instead of in the simple daylight of reality and necessity.”

Ludwig Feuerbach1804 – 1872

9 Responses to “7th January 2008”

  1. Terence Meaden Says:

    “Put plainly, gods exist only in people’s brains. It is as simple as that.” Terence Meaden.

  2. Terence Meaden Says:

    “We may be sure that the Christian god exists in people’s minds. There is no evidence that this god or any other god exists anywhere else.” Terence Meaden.

  3. Thunder Says:

    * We may be sure that the Christian god exists in people’s minds. *

    You do NOT know that the christian God exists [only] in peoples minds.

    * There is no evidence that this god or any other god exists anywhere else. *

    You have not been everywhere that constitutes anywhere else. You believe there is no God without any evidence to verify that position. Just because you can`t see it doesn`t mean it aint there. In fact if it could be proved by the evidence you seek it would not constitute what it is defined as and would be invalidated.

  4. Terence Meaden Says:

    Regarding evidence:

    There are all sorts of people who have claimed things to exist although they have never been proven to exist.
    Consider Bertrand Russell’s argument in which he took the example of a China teapot orbiting the sun.

    “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

    The same may be claimed of the religion of the invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster [Pasta be his name] as presented by ardent Pastafarians.
    The stated existence of FSM is not falsifiable—and it is the same with gods.
    You may believe in FSM or in gods as you please, despite there being no evidence that either FSM or gods exist other than in people’s heads. That books have been written by devotees is no stronger evidence for gods than books are evidence for the reality of Harry Potter. The stories are simply in people’s heads, and the church is merely a human institution.

    The onus is on those who make preposterous claims as to the existence of something (e.g. gods). Support it with evidence if you can. Nobody else in the last few thousand years has been able to do so.

    In short, it seems that “you believe there is” a god “without any evidence to verify that position”.

  5. Thunder Says:

    * There are all sorts of people who have claimed things to exist although they have never been proven to exist. *

    Irrelevant. Can only be relevant if they were found to be false. I don`t vouch for anyone except myself that I`m being honest when I say I have experienced in my life the presence of God. I`m within my prerogative to ascert personal experience. You are within your prerogative to believe it when you see it. You are not entitled to mischaracterize your doubt as proof in refutation of my position.

    * If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion *

    An ascertion that is correct doesn`t need to be disproved.

    * if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. *

    That is a straw man argument. Noone disallows your doubt. It is your error to over credit your position which is not substantiated.

    * The onus is on those who make preposterous claims as to the existence of something (e.g. gods). *

    That contention is ignorant of the construction of christianity and presupposes a fallacy. To venture the possibility dictates the expectation of a sentience with which the onus clearly lies and is gladly accepting of the burden to establish itself (himself).

    * Support it with evidence if you can. *

    Christianity is based upon witness testimony and it will always be based upon that despite your insistence that it must conform to your UNVERSED expectations.

    * Nobody else in the last few thousand years has been able to do so. *

    And they shouldn`t be able to. The expectations of unbelievers about how proof comes and from who it should come is illogical. God is real and that is where you should be seeking the proof.

    * In short, it seems that “you believe there is” a god “without any evidence to verify that position”. *

    God has verified that position to me. I`m not without evidence you are.

  6. Terence Meaden Says:

    *God has verified that position to me.

    That is fine. You are at peace with yourself, so let it be. We do not want to lessen your own happiness. Nonetheless, the very sentence shows that it is just as I said: “Your god is simply in your head.”

    As for other statements above involving concepts of christianity, just because millions of people believe a myth, it is nevertheless still a myth.
    You say “God is real”, because he is real inside your brain, but you are unable to produce any proof that he is really anywhere else [except that he does appear to be inside other people’s heads too, seeing that there are so many other believers]. You merely assert his reality, and you assert that it is correct. Neither you nor anyone else can prove either one or the other.

    You will note that I defer to philosophy when saying that I cannot prove whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or does not exist although it has been posited that it/he exists. The millions of gods and spirits and angels that have been invented by mankind are in the same position; but you choose to pick out one of the gods (and his retinue of angels maybe) and make a special issue of it while ignoring all the others.
    It does not matter to us that lack of proper proof is of no consequence to you, but it does matter to the fully-educated deeply-rational scientist who has not been indoctrinated and blinded by artificial “faith”.

  7. Thunder Says:

    * You are at peace with yourself *

    Don`t interject.

    * We do not want to lessen your own happiness. *

    No, you want to demean and ridicule and scapegoat. Now who wouldn`t be happy with that?

    * Nonetheless, the very sentence shows that it is just as I said: “Your god is simply in your head.” *

    It is impossible that you think you can misquote me to me.

    * just because millions of people believe a myth, it is nevertheless still a myth. *

    You should self-reflect on that statment.

    * As for other statements above involving concepts of christianity *

    At no time have I said that I derive confidence in my faith because of the number of other people who believe. You got side tracked because of a response I gave pertaining to the discussion about epilepsy being causitive to the inception of differing sectarian groups. The statment I made in comparison to islam and christianity was an academic statment.

    * You say “God is real”, because he is real inside your brain *

    Another data mismatch error. You say God is imaginary so you have to make my very real experience a matter of imagination.

    * you are unable to produce any proof that he is really anywhere else *

    Stop pretending this has not been responded to.

    * You merely assert his reality, and you assert that it is correct. *

    No. I testify.

    * You will note that I defer to philosophy when saying that I cannot prove whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or does not exist although it has been posited that it/he exists. *

    Defer to philosophy? I can`t discern what you are trying to pretend. What I do know is that you are speaking hypothetically and I am not.

    * It does not matter to us that lack of proper proof is of no consequence to you *

    I`m am exceptionally on point where proper proof is concerned. It is you that asks for proof inconsistent with the construction of christianity. I`ve already addressed this.

    * It does not matter to us that lack of proper proof is of no consequence to you, but it does matter to the fully-educated deeply-rational scientist who has not been indoctrinated and blinded by artificial “faith”. *

    That is not clear. Do you mean that scientist care if I hold that proper proof is of no consequence? Or do you mean that insufficient proof is a concern of scientists?

    * the fully-educated deeply-rational scientist who has not been indoctrinated and blinded by artificial “faith”. *

    There is no such thing as a purely objective scientist.

  8. Terence Meaden Says:

    *There is no such thing as a purely objective scientist.*

    Scientists are purely objective — excepting any who are theists.
    Most theists are dogmatic and cling to their articles of faith regardless of irrationalities.

  9. Thunder Says:

    * Scientists are purely objective — excepting any who are theists. *

    You don`t know what you are talking about. The scientific method is employed as a filter to minimize the infusion of the biases of fallible people. It wouldn`t be needed if they were PURELY obejective.

    * Most theists are dogmatic and cling to their articles of faith regardless of irrationalities. *

    And you cling to your stereotypes with the same zealous dogmatism that you see as a fault in others!