Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

[/quote

Actually no. It's the distinction between metaphysics and physics.


Why would the empirical standard for studying individual natural phenomena apply to metaphysics? How do you put the unitary structure of the Universe into a test tube? Like I said, makes no sense.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy not anything real or solid. But empirical science can study metaphysics and its claims and confirm or deny them.

You're left with the conclusion you had already drawn when you started this thread.

So far yes.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

I'd say they are all singing the same song.... Just not in the same key.

Yup a discordant cacophony!!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've been thinking about this thread, wondering how to explain to a believer why what they experience as a no brainer, that is the existence of God, makes no sense to a non believer. All I can say is that I just believe in one less God than they do, and if they would think about how they came to reject all the other Gods maybe they can see how I came to dismiss theirs. I keep hearing that atheism is a religion. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby, I suppose.

I'll try to write more about this later.

Chris

 

[17th Angel]

Yup a discordant cacophony!!

Your singing along too

 

[Tao_Equus]

I've been thinking about this thread, wondering how to explain to a believer why what they experience as a no brainer, that is the existence of God, makes no sense to a non believer. All I can say is that I just believe in one less God than they do, and if they would think about how they came to reject all the other Gods maybe they can see how I came to dismiss theirs. I keep hearing that atheism is a religion. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby, I suppose.

I'll try to write more about this later.

Chris

You did it again!! You always manage to saunter in whistling some tune or another and say more in a couple of lines than I manage in dozens of posts.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Your singing along too

lol, most of the time it seems more like I'm screaming trying to make myself heard above the din.

 

[wil]

I've been thinking about this thread, wondering how to explain to a believer why what they experience as a no brainer, that is the existence of God, makes no sense to a non believer. All I can say is that I just believe in one less God than they do, and if they would think about how they came to reject all the other Gods maybe they can see how I came to dismiss theirs. I keep hearing that atheism is a religion. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby, I suppose.

I'll try to write more about this later.

Chris

Namaste Chris,

I think that is great, One less god. One less bell to answer.

I think I agree. It all depends on your definition of G!d. I don't dismiss the monotheistic Hindu view though either.

 

[17th Angel]

Alex,

First of all astronomers and physicists postulated the theory that it should be possible to detect orbiting bodies around a star by the gravitational wobble that body would cause. Then the astronomers using this theory began the search. Low and behold they found such wobbling stars. They then used spectrography to analyse the light from the star and found that when a planet passed between the star and the observer the could read the signature change that confirmed a planet was indeed there. So theory and observation went hand in hand before anyone accepted this as proof. Not at all like faith.

Tao

Sorry kinda missed this one :\ Ok I'll put it another way, dust disks, they are a reaction that comes from a thing called a black hole, black holes have intense/insane power... They are not visible, but their effects can clearly be seen.. And they are believed in by many... You wouldn't say that is a fair statement to describe how people of a faith feel?

 

[Thomas]

I've been thinking about this thread, wondering how to explain to a believer why what they experience as a no brainer, that is the existence of God, makes no sense to a non believer.

As a believer, that's not the issue. Is that the issue for non-believers? That seems very narrow-minded. I think if a non-believer was being honest, in the face of all the evidence, he or she would say 'I can see how it makes sense for you, but it's not for me'.

I don't mind whether people choose to believe or not believe. What I do question is the rather facile assumption by non-believers that somehow believers are devoid of, or fail to utilise, their intellectual or reasoning faculty, and that it is their duty to continually challenge them on that basis.

All I can say is that I just believe in one less God than they do, and if they would think about how they came to reject all the other Gods maybe they can see how I came to dismiss theirs.

Sorry Chris, but that doesn't work.

That's akin to saying if people understood why I dismiss one scientific thesis, they'd understand why I think all science is bunkum. Or I listened to one band, didn't like it, and that's why all music's rubbish.

I keep hearing that atheism is a religion. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby, I suppose.

I know! I wonder why some people put so much time and effort and energy into something that they insist is a waste of time and effort and energy?

It seems such a waste to me ...

Thomas

 

[Faithfulservant]

we were created to worship God... if we arent worshipping God we are worshipping something or someone else... (my belief)

I think with athiesm ... that they are worshipping themselves.

 

[wil]

we were created to worship God... if we arent worshipping God we are worshipping something or someone else... (my belief)

I think with athiesm ... that they are worshipping themselves.

or science, thankfully that never changes!

 

[Tao_Equus]

we were created to worship God... if we arent worshipping God we are worshipping something or someone else... (my belief)

I think with athiesm ... that they are worshipping themselves.

Easy enough to turn that on its head.

We were created by the biological imperative of our parents to breed. We grow, breed ourselves and die. Like any other living organism.

People who use theology do so as a crutch because they lack confidence in themselves, they are too afraid to take responsibility for their own lives.

An atheistic view, not always true but certainly true in some cases.

Tao

 

[Paladin]

we were created to worship God... if we arent worshipping God we are worshipping something or someone else... (my belief)

I think with athiesm ... that they are worshipping themselves.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with this statement but let's just focus on one: If a person honestly cannot find it within themselves to believe what you believe they are self-centered narcissists?

 

[DrFree]

Hi, all,

We force our young kids to believe in Santa by our lies and by a multiplicity of cultural reinforcements. Is not belief in God exactly the same thing?

There are important differences, especially between Santa and the Jesus/God that has emerged through two millennia of Christianity:

• God requires us to believe in Him.
  Santa does not.
• God's existence is important to His believers.
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real.
• God requires us to do what He says.
  Santa's love is unconditional.
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't.
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation.
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.

However you worship as an adult, the message of Santa is right for children.

Namiste,
Dr Free

 

[wil]

• God requires us to believe in Him.
  Santa does not.
• God's existence is important to His believers.
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real.
• God requires us to do what He says.
  Santa's love is unconditional.
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't.
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation.
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.

Namaste Dr. Free,

Viva la differance! I think G!d enjoys love and respect, but I see G!d as providing unconditional love, and not being with so low self esteem to have any need to require us to believe or love. In some respects it seems you have the two switched.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Dr Free, always nice to see such a rare visitor to a thread I'm busy on.

• God requires us to believe in Him.
  Santa does not.
• God's existence is important to His believers.
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real.
• God requires us to do what He says.
  Santa's love is unconditional.
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't.
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation.
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.

• God requires us to believe in Him. So say some religions. Not all even have deity. 'He' has certainly never told me this requirement.
  Santa does not. Young children would comprehend such a requirement? The cultural complicity in the lie leaves no need to require it.
  
• God's existence is important to His believers. This is not universal to all people so how can it be deemed a truth? If God wants me to believe then why wont he tell me. Why did he only give this message to patently corrupt churches?
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real. Counter intuitive. Something that does not exist cannot be real.
  
• God requires us to do what He says. So say some written works of Man and the edicts of murderous and corrupt religious leaders of history.
  Santa's love is unconditional. How can it be, he does not exist.
  
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't. So if I go out and see a good looking woman I can beat her into loving me?
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation. Children are told if they are not 'good' Santa will not visit them.
  
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty. No, a child taught this is taught an incredulous story of virgin birth, the slaughter of innocents and that it is good to give things to the church. If that is duty I want no part of it.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give. Or a consumerist lie and that Coca Cola must be good.

Aside from the flip sides I present being on the strong side to illustrate a point I would still say that overall your presentation is fundamentally flawed as it fails to actually appreciate the lie in the Santa myth. I do not know if you have read right through the thread before posting but a point I already made is that the Santa myth is actually a part of the conditioning to believe the unbelievable. I know that you are too deeply committed to your beliefs to agree with me but to me all the lies that are in the Santa myth are found in the God myth. Anything that is so flawed I cannot take as truth.

Tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

[/quote Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy not anything real or solid. But empirical science can study metaphysics and its claims and confirm or deny them.

I disagree. I'll explain in reference to your concern about G-d, which of course is a metaphysical concept.

If you're familiar with philosophy of science, you know that a testable hypothesis concerning the existence of G-d should allow for the possibility of the hypothesis to be disconfirmed. In fact, as Karl Popper has rightly observed, a suitable test of a hypothesis of interest is an attempt to establish something different from what you expect to find. That is, the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be empirically falsified. Properly designed studies are in fact structured in such a way that you rule out an alternate prediction or explanation. They're usually testing the Null Hypothesis. Another way to go at it is to test predictions that are based competing theories. In other words, pitting two different theories against each other.

For your purposes, in order to prove all the silly, deluded believers of the world wrong, you'd need a way to disconfirm the existence of G-d. Empirical studies involving hypothesis tests use controlled conditions, so that you can rule out causal mechanisms other than the ones you're studying. So, Tao, how would you design a replicable experiment where you run the analysis - first with, and then without - G-d in order to show that G-d's presence in the Universe has no effect on the Universe? This would be a decent start anyway if you're taking an empirical/scientific approach because a typical G-d concept will usually include something about G-d being the Creator.

Obviously, the kind of study you'd need to do is not an option. So here we are again: there is no way for you to disconfirm the existence of G-d. The issue is not amenable to hypothesis testing which is central to the scientific method. Hence, an empirical/scientific approach makes no sense. No workie.

The position you've adopted is not experimentally testable, which means that it is essentially meaningless within the real of knowing that you are dealing with. There is nowhere to go with it in that realm.

 

[seattlegal]

I really find it interesting how Tao Te Ching 1 fits in so well here. It cannot be tao'ed (scientifically investigated in the conventional sense.)

The principle remains whether it is named or not. Naming it cannot possibly fully describe it. Denying it a name does not nullify it.

The more we desire for it to be named or unnamed, the further away from it we become. The entrenchment on both sides we see here, and the fruit of that entrenchment...the outer fringes. (I find it interesting how we describe 'cracked individuals' as being on the 'fringe'... )

1
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.

Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.​

 

[17th Angel]

A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.
However you worship as an adult, the message of Santa is right for children.

Namiste,
Dr Free

Even the poor children with the lack of materialistic items?

I personally find the idea of a santa nice, but when it is put into practice in this world it looses its main message and takes on a whole new role.

 

[Tao_Equus]

The position you've adopted is not experimentally testable, which means that it is essentially meaningless within the real of knowing that you are dealing with. There is nowhere to go with it in that realm.

Ok I concede. "I admit I cannot disprove God". Happy?
But then again I have never claimed I could. What I have consistently claimed is that the religions are man made structures and that can be empirically tested. Since the religions claim to come from God, claim divine source, proving (beyond reasonable doubt) that they are the work of man and had purpose in their creation other than that generally accepted means we can make a qualitative judgement of the value of 'religious' belief. Since the central pillar of the religion in question is belief in God, to establish the religion to be fake may not destroy that metaphysical idea but it most certainly removes it as a credible proposition.

If you look at my contentions on religion throughout my history here at CR they present science based evidence but I do not present a scientific theory. What I do is much more closely related to the presentation of evidence at a trial. And I am presenting this evidence to just about the most partisan jury I could be faced with. And the best I can say is that since I am so outnumbered here, globally and historically, and I have stated unequivocally that I cannot disprove God, I challenge you to prove that he does. I will make it simpler than that. Just show one piece of evidence that can without doubt be shown to prove divine interference.

So to take it back to Popper I state what I present is verisimilitude, that which is most like the truth, not a scientific theory cast in stone and given its own place in the high street replete with bell and choir boys.

Tao