Belief in god(s) is superstition based

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject:

Stephen, I'll add your book to our http://www.booktalk.org/book-suggestions.php page soon.

Stephen Uhl · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Belief in God is superstititon

Thanks, Chris. I think others will appreciate the addition of the book also.

Enjoy,

Steve

Penelope · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject:

Chris said:-

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject:

I think we often try to argue about something using criteria or sets of values that do not apply.
If a scientist makes a new discovery we can ask him to demonstrate and give rational proof.

This should not be done with religious belief IMO. If somebody says "I believe in such and such god" I have no business to ask him for rational proof of the existence of the god or of whatever is written in a religious book (naturally, if they don't take it upon themselves to offer said proof to me by the hour I'll be greatly relieved.)
Likewise I have no interest or need to prove that none of the many gods worshipped by humans exist, I will only say that (so far!) I do not believe in any of them.

Similarly, if you think a painting is beautiful, you may talk about it in terms of feelings, or in terms of art, but nobody should say:"So, you can't apply rational thought to show that this is beautiful? You are being irrrational about this? I declare your appreciation worthless".

I'll give one more example of this confusion of genres: homeopathy. The majority of physicians (those who don't practise homeopathy) declare that homeopathy is no better than placebo and nothing can be proved because homeopaths do not want to have their medicine and treatment compared "scientifically". What they mean by that is clinical trials which have in the history of science and medicine, proved successful (to some extent) only for one thing: comparing whether one allopathy type of treatment is more efficient than another allopathy treatment (when you read about those clinical trials, it's not even that concinving). Medicine is not an exact science, yet traditional western medicine insists it knows best. Instead of trying to look for a different, creative way of evaluating homeopathy, they cling to the parameters that work for them.

(In case I sound like one of the deluded, I know a lot of people who have been treated successfully with homeopathy, but it has never worked for me. I am only using this as an example of wanted to apply criteria which don't fit).

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject:

One man's beliefs is another man's superstitions.

"superstition: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation".
M-W

Whenever a new religion wanted to replace an older one, the previous beliefs were called superstitions.

Some rituals, taught by intelligent priests to intelligent believers, may have a spiritual meaning to the group. The same gestures, copied and transmitted without understanding, may be intruments of enslavement and obscurantism.

For an unbeliever, it's difficult to make a diiference between the belief and superstition. I'd say "belief" has a neutral or positive meaning, whereas "superstition" is a derogatory term believers may use about each other's practises.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject:

John

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject:

Ophelia, this is a false analogy. Art is something subjectively interpreted. What one person finds beautiful the next may find hideous.

Whether or not a deity exists is NOT subjective. Either a deity does indeed exist or does not exist. These are mutually exclusive events. Both cannot be true at the same time. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

A painting can be thought of as beautiful by one person but disgusting by the person standing right next to them at that very moment. They both are seeing the same painting, which is an element of the physical world, but interpreting the painting differently. The painting is the objective element while the emotions, thoughts and interpretations the subjective element.

God does not exist just because people believe he or she exists. This would make no sense at all. A rational person does have business questioning any and all claims about the objective universe.

If God exists he exists as part of the physical universe. If God exists as part of the physical universe then there will be evidence for his or her existence.

If God exists as part of the metaphysical universe it is senseless to discuss because there would be no evidence to support believing in this god’s existence. The moment a believer argues that there is evidence for a god he or she is agreeing that this god is a part of the physical universe.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject:

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject:

hegel1066 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject:

I agree, too, that God just exists in our minds. Love just exists in my mind, too. But when in the presence of a lover or a friend or a family member, I can feel it encompass and embrace me.

Reminding myself that it's only a result of neural impulses should make me think less of it. But it ... doesn't, I guess.

hegel1066 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:

And Ophelia! What happened to being a non-militant atheist that was uninterested in conversations like these?

Caught in flagrante delicto!

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject:

John

hegel1066 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:

No, I believe in god. I'm not an atheist.

It's your conception that God's presence has to be objective. It's obviously not the conclusion of everyone.

Can you give me an example of an objectified emotion? Where can I see love, anger, admiration? I think they just exist subjectively. But that doesn't mean that I experience them any less.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject:

Love is a word we use to describe a range of emotions we experience at various times. Love doesn't exist as a tangible object, but more as a concept created to describe an experience.

The experience of love is an element of objective reality, but each person experiences this cluster of emotions and physiological reactions subjectively. Are you saying your God is merely a concept?

Do you pray or attempt to communicate with your god?

hegel1066 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:

I tried to say it earlier, but perhaps a bit too heavy-handedly. I think God is a concept. Particularly, a concept I try to associate and "fit" ideas into and around. In fact, love is one of the major "nets" of which my version of god is made.

No, I don't pray.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT