I Know That God Does Not Exist

AZPaul3 writes: The reality or not of what you insist we should believe is the only issue here.

Is it?

Your god is non-existent. There is no reason to believe. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to defend against that.

Its a bit silly for me to defend or attempt to defend God. What I'm trying to do is to defend you against what you mistakenly think is your own intellect yet is really not you. Hint: Its NOT Religion.

Much love friends

Raph (not Ralph), you (and Stiles also) should check out 'oxytocin',
the 'love' hormone.

Raph (not Ralph)

Oh.

The reality or not of what you insist we should believe is the only issue here. Is it?

Yes, it kind of is. At least IMHO.

If we can come to terms on belief, a near impossible task but bear with me, then either your side wins the war (not) or all religions ... all religions ... fail.

I attack belief, religion, as irrational. Not reflective of reality, highly prone to manipulation and as such is a continuing danger to societies. To our species.

I know. It's a big job, but somebody's gotta do it.

Its a bit silly for me to defend or attempt to defend God.

Well he can't seem to do it himself. He needs warriors. Live ones. Ones that can bleed and die.

What I'm trying to do is to defend you against what you mistakenly think is your own intellect yet is really not you.

If this isn't my intellect whose is it? More importantly, can I swap it out for something considerably better? I'm thinking Feynman class. No, I don't want to be him, I just would like to have that level of intellectual ability.

If you could arrange that for me Phat, that would be great. I'd put you back on my baby-eating dinner guest list?

AZPaul3 writes: It is indeed. And with justification. You all are selling a product. You want me to buy into it. What you see as arrogance I see as due diligence in questioning the product as well as the seller.

I mean fair. There have been many trying to "sell a product," here on evc and all throughout history. In earlier years I myself have probably done the same haha (avoid my posts from 10 years ago here at all costs lol). But that's not really where im at personally. Frankly, I'm more interested in understanding your perspective more than anything else. I ascribe to be more of a listener these days. I hope that is coming across.

Yes, I am. I assume you are religious meaning you believe in something that even you cannot show is really there. I assume this something is seen, by you, as creator of the universe, all that is, seen and unseen, as the mantra goes in this forum. I assume you agree and hold to the biblical Genesis account and that your goal here is to minister to us heathens in order to save our souls from the vengeance of your imagined gods. I assume your creed includes heaven and hell as reward/punishment for levels of devotion shown. I assume you believe Da Book. You’re a religionist, the intellectual enemy of reality and reason steeped in the majik and emotion of a realm that doesn’t even exist in this universe. Am I close?

Nope! Haha. I mean for sure, the first couple statements are close. But words are important. I am religious, but just as much as you. You're just religious about different things. I don't think you actually agree with that definition for religion . Not trying to split hairs though. I do believe in a divine being creator God! More specifically, YHWH, the God of the Hebrew scriptures, and not some other philosophical construct or hypothetical god. As for the rest of what you said...nope .

The problem again lies in the fact that you are targeting a very specific hermeneutic, painting with a broad brush and rejecting it wholesale. That's cool with me, because I reject it too (probably, lol, I'd have to ask more questions to fully know). For example, do I "Hold to the Biblical Genesis account?" I guess, but probably not in the way you assume I do. As for my goal here, while I do believe God has revealed Himself to the world in order to lead us to more authentic, healthy, and more joy-filled humanity, and I would love for you to experience it, I'm not really attached to the specific "vengeance-based" system you pointed out. In fact I probably oppose that view as much as you do lol.

Ironically, and I don't think I've really done enough listening to make this claim, but at the risk of assuming myself, you strike me far more as a religionist . You're just religionist about being anti-religion. How interesting! Haha

There is only one box for you to fit in, Ralph. Believer. Religionist. The specifics of your belief system are not important. The box I put you in doesn’t care if you cross yourself from left-to-right or right-to-left or not at all. The reality or not of what you insist we should believe is the only issue here.

But I'm not insisting you believe anything. Haha. You can choose to believe what you'd like. I'm only concerned with any misrepresentation from your end. It's ok to be honest and admit I don't fit within the framework you put me in. There are plenty of believers and religionists in scientific, non-religious and anti-religious circles, just as there are plenty of evidence-based and logical thinkers in what you would call "religious" circles. To not acknowledge this would be pretty naïve imo.

Caution, I’m also a scientist (retired). I know what constitutes evidence and what doesn’t so, please, present hard physical evidence not some wayward syllogisms with faulty logic.

Perfect! So then you already know approaching this conversation with an epistemology bias towards the scientific method doesn't work

If there is something pertinent I am missing in my assumptions about your position then please correct me. I may seem arrogant but I’m also limiting the discussion to the bare essence. Where have I erred in my assessment that you believe in some kind of god and seek to convince others of its reality? What other positions need to be put forward to discuss that one questionable in your creed – belief? It is the most basic question of this discussion. This thing really is, for me, that simple. Show us your god. That’s all it takes.

I hear that of course. I'm fine to limit the discussion to the bare essence, I just feel you haven't taken into account that there are a multiplicity of ways to perceive and understand the bare essence, if that makes sense. The proof is that I do not represent the positions you have assumed I do. I agree that faith - "belief" as you say - is essentially my creed. But it is faith attached to a specific story and system, not belief in a vacuum.

Essentially what I'm trying to get across is there are many ways of understanding the ideas you have attacked and dismiss. My hopewould be that there are ways of understanding these issues you would be a lot more comfortable with.

Then why do you pray to this thing? I suspect why. You’re not going to like it. It’s called acculturation. And the only reality involved in acquiring such a thing is being born and raised in a specific society. You didn't choose your religion, Ralph. Society did.

I actually agree! I have been deeply formed by acculturation to be religious, just as you have been deeply formed by acculturation to be anti-religious. Haha. It goes both ways, friend. I'm comfortable with the unproveable faith gaps in my worldview. How do you feel about yours?

So, yeh, you are all religions and all creeds. In this discussion, you personally, Ralph, are the collective embodiment of every shaman, apologist, preacher and priest throughout all of history. You got big shoes.

I suppose so. But I do not claim to speak for them, I only claim to speak for me. So speak to me, not them

Your god is non-existent. There is no reason to believe. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to defend against that.

I hear and value your belief (faith choice) to not believe in my god . I just don't really think you've done enough diligent work to know who that God is. I don't identify with the expression of fundamentalist religion you have projected on to me. So, in rebuttal, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to seek to understand, rather than assuming you already do

Raph

Ringo writes: Thanks for singling me out. I didn't know I was such a nemesis.

Haha! I jest, in all honesty you're not, though if I recall back in the Dreamcatcher days we had quite a few bouts . Good times!

So you do believe in a supernatural being. That seems enough to start with.

Everything else involved in a specific creed is not important.

You believe.

You believe in the god of Genesis. Yet, you don't believe in the full narrative of the Genesis account. Interesting. But not now.

Perfect! So then you already know approaching this conversation with an epistemology bias towards the scientific method doesn't work.

Quite the contrary, the scientific method is known as the only method that does work, if by 'work' we mean accurately modeling the reality being examined. My bias is not negotiable. The science rules.

I'm fine to limit the discussion to the bare essence, I just feel you haven't taken into account that there are a multiplicity of ways to perceive and understand the bare essence, if that makes sense.

No, but that's why god made explanations.

What different ways are you perceiving the question?

The bare essence, to me, is the fact that you believe in a supernatural being, specifically YHWH. You believe this being is actual, real, has influence over this universe, has worked his special will on this universe, with a special interest in Earth and a tribe of violent destructive people in the Levant.

Despite my political comments is this pretty much correct?

Have we filled in the vacuum?

Essentially what I'm trying to get across is there are many ways of understanding the ideas you have attacked and dismiss.

I understand that. That's why we narrow the target, eh the subject, to the most basic concept reasonable. The only idea I wish to attack and dismiss is this concept of belief.

My hope would be that there are ways of understanding these issues you would be a lot more comfortable with.

Thank you, but I am quite comfortable with my understanding of things.

I'm comfortable with the unproveable faith gaps in my worldview. How do you feel about yours?

I hate 'em. That's why I'm a scientist. Gotta fill those holes. Problem is every time we fill a hole, new ones open up. It's a never ending cycle of endless hole filling. Endless learning. And god I do love it so, like the smell of cordite in the morning.

I just don't really think you've done enough diligent work to know who that God is.

So now you're going to tell me how special your god is over all the others.

You realize that's been beat to death, right? Hardly seems to matter. They are all pretty much the same. Other than for different hair styles, fancy dress, various numbers of arms, hands, faces, they're all pretty much the same.

But, before I ask my major question, you seem to have some issues you feel need addressing. Please do.

*Tags raph.* I'll step in the ring for a moment, Raph. Go have a Gatorade...or some Holy Water. I aim to sprinkle a ton of it on AZPauls lawn, just to keep his ego in check.

AZPaul3 writes: You believe. You believe in the god of Genesis. Yet, you don't believe in the full narrative of the Genesis account. Interesting. But not now.

Hmm. So you determine what is and is not interesting? A Deity Complex to be sure. Let me double check, however.

the scientific method is known as the only method that does work, if by 'work' we mean accurately modeling the reality being examined. My bias is not negotiable. The science rules.

The science rules nothing. You are allowed to keep your facts regarding the chemical constituency of water or gold or lead or whatever element you are examining. You are allowed to teach the laws of gravity, inertia, physics, and medicine. What you are not allowed to do is attempt to remove a mans belief. (or concept of belief) You are not allowed to write the default rules on how a human must think. Of course you will argue otherwise. You will claim that religion and belief are harmful to people. We can discuss these claims and will no doubt find many of them valid. But certainly not all. Yes, our God IS special. You know this, deep down and it burns. You would prefer to be Him yourself. To wit:

The only idea I wish to attack and dismiss is this concept of belief.

Quite a chip you have there on your shoulder. You think that its time for you and science to rule? Explain to us better what it is that you want to rule over? Most scientists are happy just to find work. Research a few things. Earn a living making better Teflon or something similar. But not you.

It's a never ending cycle of endless hole filling. Endless learning. And god I do love it so, like the smell of cordite in the morning.

We are taking your dead babies away from you. You now must eat salad with the rest of us. Keep up the humor, though. Humor can rule if it wants to.

Thank you, but I am quite comfortable with my understanding of things.

And you don't want to grant us the same right?

AZ writes: The only idea I wish to attack and dismiss is this concept of belief.

So you wish to fill every hole. With the substance that all of society MUST agree on, correct? It wont happen. Take that to the Supreme Court!

AZPaul3 writes: So now you're going to tell me how special your god is over all the others. You realize that's been beat to death, right?

Yes, but after the crucifixion He rose again. You cant kill Him and you cant bury Him in a hole. Oh wait. Yes you can. He allowed you to do so. Have a nice day, AZ.

Edited by Phat, : spelling

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So you determine what is and is not interesting?

Of course, Phat. Interest is a personal thing that develops deep in the mind.

Your interests appear to be god, salvation, and a whole lot of other quite human concerns. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong in your interests. There is no right or wrong to interest. It just knocks around inside your head.

You determine what interests you. We'll argue about whether the results of your interests are accurate, reasonable and like that.

What you are not allowed to do is attempt to remove a mans belief.

Of course I am allowed and vise versa. First, that is what the art of persuasion is all about. Second, society could not function if minds could not change.

You are not allowed to write the default rules on how a human must think.

I can try.

Superstition has ruled humanity for millennia and it's been an unmitigated disaster of blood, torture and death.

Rationality is just dawning in our species on a societal level. We are not only allowed, it is imperative that we elevate reality to the position of prime decision maker.

Superstition needs to die. Or at most relegated to childhood fantasies. I even chaffe at that.

You will claim that religion and belief are harmful to people.

And so it is.

For an isolated individual we know how religion can salve a human mind in distress. There are better ways to do that but religion is a useful vector in a lot of people. But on a societal level, inter-group interactions, superstition with it's disconnect from reality has been a bloody disaster to all humanity.

Superstition often rips away empathy and compassion leaving a collective mind susceptible to manipulation. Mob rule. Riot. Crusades.

Superstition bad, Phat. Very bad.

Yes, our God IS special. You know this, deep down and it burns. You would prefer to be Him yourself.

Of course he is, Snowflake. Just like all the others.

If I were god, we would not be having this conversation. I'd be off haunting Joel Osteen and Peter Popoff with blisters and boils.

You think that its time for you and science to rule?

Well not so much me, though I appreciate the elevated status you grace me with, but, science? Yah, it's well past time this species gave up on superstition and embraced reality in most if not all things.

Thank you, but I am quite comfortable with my understanding of things. And you don't want to grant us the same right?

What are you talking about? Of course all have the right to their thoughts. That does not mean those thoughts are realistic, logical, moral. I'm out to persuade. I'm allowed to attempt that. Just like you evangelizing.

So you wish to fill every hole. With the substance that all of society MUST agree on, correct?

Since the analogy is about filling those holes with actual real knowledge gleaned from observation, yes, I wish to fill every hole in our knowledge with a substance that cannot be realistically challenged - facts from reality.

It wont happen. Take that to the Supreme Court!

The court already knows answers always lead to more questions. And the court, as I understand it, is more involved with scrutinizing the law than science.

Science hasn't stopped, Phat. We're filling those holes as fast as we can and entire new fields of new questions keep popping up. It will never end. A glorious eternity of learning. Science. Nirvana.

Yes, but after the crucifixion He rose again.

Fairytale. If he existed in reality at all and was actually crucified then he is dead.

As for Raph, note that I got the name right, I want to challenge the basis for his belief. I don't think he will break down in existential angst. He seems strong enough.

Don't worry. I'll keep my asshole insultive tendencies to a minimum.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Ok, I'm slow. I just realized what you're doing, Phat.

You think I'm a demon out to destroy Raph's faith. You honestly believe that, don't you.

Phat, Phat, Phat. How perceptive and yet how damn dumb at the same time.

If given the opportunity, yes, I will poke and prod at his belief system. Yes, if I could convert him to BEA (baby-eating atheism) I would be ecstatic but I realistically don't hold out much hope of that.

This is for the spectator, the lurker. That's why I let him know he represents more in this talk than merely his own interests. In challenging Raph's view I will, I hope, be challenging all belief systems based on superstitious BS.

I'm not going to convert anybody, maybe. I'm not going to destroy anyone's life like your creed requires you do to people. (oooo, you're going to hell, heathen demon) I aim to challenge the thought process of superstition and expose its weaknesses and fatalities.

In doing so, I hope that in some small way the lurkers and spectators will help our society move away from the scourge of superstition.

This is an excellent example of just the BS I'm talking about. Demonize the opposition as a step to adding hate to the formula.

Your god sucks.

But then that's pretty much what you would expect a demon to say. Better burn me at the stake just to be safe.

Fortunately, all the evidence shows that the God Phat created is totally powerless and impotent, unable or afraid to even show itself.

Now the crazies that believe in Phat's creation should rightfully be feared but certainly not the picayune creation Phat markets.

So, do I have to burn?

Only if you want to.

No, no, thank you. I think I'll pass. I don't want to burn.

So, is that it? Am I done? I don't have to burn?

Or is there something I need to do to affect my do not burn status?

Yes, there is something you have to do to affect your do not burn status.

You need to love your neighbor as yourself, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, protect the helpless, educate the children, shelter the homeless.

How you do that is totally open.

You can do it individually or collectively; through direct action or through social action; as one person or as part of a society.