God

CosmicVibration wrote: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16013 Wow, someone really doesn’t seem to like Jordan Peterson. I never read or heard anything by Mr. Peterson so I can’t comment. Richard Carrier may be right, I don’t know. It seems that everyone wants to belong to something. For spiritual evolution it may be helpful to belong to a group but it could also be detrimental, depending on the vibration of that group. Ultimately though, realization comes in isolation.

Thank you. Wrong link. I corrected in the original post to Logan, since he hadn’t himself posted. The correct link should have been:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16076




Edited by HackettFan - December 16 2019 at 20:47

Thank you. Good stuff.

Many people make God in their own image. Is God really a man? After everything is said no god's a man and then again. I have heard present day self professing Christians tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile the various versions depicted in the bible.  Let us make mankind in our image. Is god not then both man and woman? 

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2019 at 17:43

Logan wrote: HackettFan wrote: Logan wrote: I consider myself to be both an agnostic and an atheist. I'm agnostic because Gnosticism deals with knowledge (having knowledge), and I don't "know" if a God does or doesn't exist, but also an atheist because I lack belief in a god or gods. I'm not convinced that a god or gods exist. That said, there are times that I lean more towards theism than others even when I don't think it really rationally grounded. Like with the X-Files, I kind of want to believe, but some conception of a Godlike entity I would rather believe in than others (and some conceptions seem less nonsensical than others). For some the idea of God is well-defined, for others it's a really nebulous concept. Some claim it's nature, well I'll continue calling nature nature. Some say it supernatural, beyond nature somehow, or outside of space-time or at least our local universe (if getting into multiverse models). To some it's an ET and God drives a flying saucer. I've been fascinated by the Heaven's Gate Cult, and have spent much time listening to Do (Marshall Applewhite as the "vehicle" he commandeered was called) and the followers. That was tragic, especially for the families. The website still exists, please don't believe in it. http://www.heavensgate.com/ I feel a connection with the followers, and long for a strong community, just not one that throws reason to the wind and ends up committing mass suicide. Religion can provide comfort and a sense of community, but I'd prefer "religion" that doesn't require belief in a God or Gods or expect one to uncritically accept dogma. When my child went to a religious school, she was ostracised or criticised it would be better to say for questioning (at least one of them was). She did bring out the old "If God was required to create the universe who created God?" To which the teacher gave some reason, to which she said something like, "Why should we believe that, what is your evidence?" The teacher complained, but I was proud (even if that's a sin). Mind you, while I never told her what to believe, I had discussed these concepts with her before -- there was some inculcation from me.     That said, despite being reasonable sceptical, under the right circumstances I could imagine falling into a cult. "Planet Earth about to be recycled. Your only chance to evacuate is to leave with us." I guess others have seen Dawkins scale of belief, on a scale of one to ten, 1 might be, in my own words, I have complete confidence that there is a God (or gods), and 10, I have complete confidence that there is no God (or gods), right now I'd put myself at about an 8. He framed it specifically in terms of knowledge rather than confidence, at least when I read it, but such framing can present problems despite epistemology (theory of knowledge) dealing with the rationality of belief.. While there is the concept of a spectrum of theistic probability, defining probability for such a thing is problematic. God seems an unfalsifiable proposition (from a scientific standpoint at least), although I have heard at least one Christian apologist claim otherwise. Some have claimed that I cannot call myself an atheist because I lack confidence that God does not exist -- I lack absolute confidence in all things (am ultimately agnostic). Partially that's just a question of semantics. Atheim of course means without theism, but there is little theist inside me, which can cause some cognitive dissonance, and I'm comfortable calling myself a soft atheist, also known as negative atheist and weak atheist. I lack belief in deities, but I don;t claim that deities don;t exist. Some invoke the need for faith (and by faith I mean in a so-called "spiritual" sense, not faith that my wife isn't cheating on me, I don't believe she is, and find good reason not to believe it, but I wouldn't claim absolute certainty), but for me the default position is lacking belief in that which I have not been convinced of (and of course that that I am unaware of). I can imagine scenarios where I might be convinced that God exists, to be convinced does not require certainty, but whether or not I would be willing to, would or could sincerely worship It is another matter. I had wanted to make a copious response, but this time of the semester I am still grading final essays and I can only do what is possible within limited break periods. I’m largely like-minded with you, although I would assign a larger probability to the proposition that God does not exist. Here is a blog discussion by Dr. Richard Carrier concerning the use of atheist versus agnostic that I think you might find amenable [Link corrected]: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16076 Sorry, just caught this response now. I've had an issue with defining probability when it comes to God, some notions being more probable I still would say than others. Some God claims can be more readily disputed than others. Today, I would be a much harder atheist than when I posted (I associated as an agnostic when I married my Born Again Christian wife, and her friends I'd say pushed me more to self-identify as an atheist, but still not openly with them). It's a fascinating article, and I still have not yet finished reading it (been getting lost of head-aches and feel like I'm massively hungover, and will probably try going through it properly when the headaches cease)... Plenty of food for deep thought there. On a side-note, despite still finding such things interesting, I recently have been far more interested in physics than metaphysics. I took the time to listen to some debates between theologians and physicists/ scientists, and I found it pitiful how certain theologians (Christian and Moslem apologists) would try to force the logic of their "Scientific" theories that support God with eminent scientists, and not let up with old of worn canards, say using the Kalam cosmological argument). For instance in one discussion, I heard William Lane Craig (A famous Christian apologist) trying to convince a famous physicist/ cosmologist of the veracity of his "scientific" theory that supports God, and not let up or to to learn from someone who has much better scientific understanding. Such discussions can become tedious very quickly. I'd much rather listen to a physicist talking to another physicist.

Oh seriously, William Lane Craig is irksome beyond description. He regards his Kalam Cosmological arguments as so absurdly profound, insisting that the Big Bang singularity had to have a cause and that only something transcendent (God) can be that cause. In actual fact we have a myriad of confirmed black holes within which we infer singularities. The natural cause of all the stellar black holes is pretty well understood; no deity involved. There may be some debate about the etiology of super massive black holes, but physicists have plausible natural origins for them as well. I see no reason that the Big Bang singularity should be a difference in kind. The only difference is we're on the inside looking out rather than on the outside looking in.

Some God claims certainly are more readily disputed than others. CosmicVibration, for instance has a very Gnostic/mystical/free your mind concept of God that does not lend itself well to dispute. When I do have rare substantive exchanges with theists, which I normally avoid, they are often caught off guard by my lack of any prior presumptions. Just as they want to know why I'm not Christian, I want to know why they are not Gnostics, why the proposed Creator is God (he is not in Zoroastrianism, Gnostic Christianity, Manicheism and Mandaeanism), why (Canaanite mythology did not get it right and) there is not more than one God, why angels and demons are not gods, why God is not a goddess along the same lines as Slartibartfast's post and so on. I don't allow many a priori presumptions easily, hence my negative reaction to BaldJean's comments.

However, my strong denial of theism goes beyond questionable scientific and philosophical claims. I have been an avid reader of mythology from a young age. Many of what we consider easily disputed God claims are found in mythology (although, most likely so because there are no modern adherents. I'm sure the lack of a World Tree can be explained away in some mystical fashion by anyone so disposed). I tend to view Christianity as having evolved from the same sort of mythology that I, as with most other people, dismiss out of hand. The ability to dismiss religion out of hand is even part and parcel of our definition of mythology, but this is due in great part to lack of modern adherents. Today's mythology is yesterday's religion. Theists rely on any similarities with other mythologies as being exclusively coincidental. Oddly no one is ever intellectually troubled when it is suggested that two other mythologies each acknowledged as mythology and with compelling interrelated parallels share common origins.





Edited by HackettFan - December 25 2019 at 21:27