Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,747 Year: 4,004/9,624 Month: 875/974 Week: 202/286 Day: 9/109 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 153 of 219 (467850)
05-24-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
05-24-2008 9:18 PM


The Evolution of Delusion
Why would such a vast number of people participate in such a huge delusion? It seems incredible the human race can be so gullable.
Hi pelican,
The simple answer is that the human race grew up in a world full of frightening and inexplicable phenomena. They weren't able to get to the true explanations. They knew nothing abut meteorology, so, when they heard thunder, they ascribed it to the thunder god. Imagining that thunder was the anger of an intelligent agent seemed simple and believable to them. Humans are apt to anthropomorphise natural phenomena, especially puzzling ones, so this was an appealing idea, which allowed them to feel that they understood the world around them.
Later, as these superstitions developed, they became enmeshed with traditions and stories and were handed down the generations. They became more sophisticated and complex and gradual evolved from primitive animism to polytheism, to monotheism.
Of course, today we have a wealth of real explanations for natural phenomena, so it is tempting to conclude that the next steps in this process are agnosticism and, ultimately, atheism.
The probability of God's existence cannot be decided by an appeal to popularity. It doesn't matter how many people believe in an idea, it can still be wrong. In actual fact, there are many different varieties of theist around and they mostly disagree with each other, so an appeal to popularity is especially useless in this case.
Wiki writes:
When it came to power in 1933 the Nazi Party had over 2 million members. Once in power, it attracted many more members and by the time of its dissolution it had 8.5 million members.
No-one ever says "Well, 8.5 million Nazis can't be wrong, can they?". People don't say this for a reason. They can be wrong and they were wrong. The popularity of an idea is no guide to its veracity.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 05-24-2008 9:18 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by pelican, posted 05-25-2008 2:00 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 157 of 219 (467902)
05-25-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by pelican
05-25-2008 2:00 AM


Re: The Evolution of Delusion
No, none whatsoever.
Moreover, given events like 9/11, I would say that there are compelling reasons not to believe.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by pelican, posted 05-25-2008 2:00 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 05-26-2008 8:14 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 160 of 219 (469264)
06-04-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
05-26-2008 8:14 AM


Re: The Evolution of Delusion
I don't quite get your point here magda. Are you saying that events such as 9/11 prove there is no god or make it hard to believe there is one? What if the real god was punishing us?
Firstly, sorry for the delay in relying, this one snuck under my radar...
I wasn't arguing that 9/11 disproves God , but I do think that such events make the dogmas of the various religions that claim to represent him a little hard to swallow.
My opinion is that 9/11 was a clear example of the terrible consequences of extreme and uncompromising dogmatic belief. Whilst it was not the only factor, religion was at the heart of the motivations behind the bombings, as well as many other recent terrorist atrocities. It must take some of the blame. I think that religion is responsible for encouraging the unquestioning and uncompromising mind-set that, in extreme cases, produces people willing to kill.
It is pretty hard to imagine that such organisations have any connection with a genuine benevolent god. This leaves their claims about God in doubt and since those claims form the basis of our understanding of what God or gods might be, it leaves us with no firm basis on which to believe.
What if the real god was punishing us?
Then he is not benevolent, so why worship him?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 05-26-2008 8:14 AM pelican has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 180 of 219 (483963)
09-25-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
09-25-2008 5:44 AM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
It is not possible to present a "theistic example" for the simple reason that a person with no experience of God wouldn't/couldn't get it.
Well congratulations, you've just talked yourself out of the evidence game entirely. Evidence for God that can only be perceived by those who already believe in him is valueless in any discussion other than ones that you might have inside your head.
When people talk about evidence for God, they mean something that can be brought to the table for discussion. What you have done is equivalent to saying "I have the evidence here in this box, but I'm not going to show it to you.".
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 09-25-2008 5:44 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024