Compelling evidence for the non-existence of God

[Taz]

faith=fantasy. For people who want to live in a dream world. Pretty simple really.

We all live in a dream world.

Ya, but it's MY dream, so what I say goes.

 

[PratchettFan]

faith=fantasy. For people who want to live in a dream world. Pretty simple really.

We all live in a dream world.

Ya, but it's MY dream, so what I say goes.

Absolutely correct. So any problems are entirely your fault.

 

[Hollie]

Justin, shut up, sit up, grow up.

And listen, wuckfit.

I am a born again in the blood believer in my Lord and Saviour. I call him "Lord", and He calls me by my first name.

My belief, however, does not meet the standards of objective evidence for critical thinking. I admit that. But that does not change what I know.

I don't need wuckfit criticism by social con or atheist standard bearers who do not understand that critical thinking cannot provide objective evidence in either case.

You all need to grow up and understand that difference between faith and critical thinking. Neither can prove or disprove the existence of God.

Have a blessed day.

Exactly. Speaking as someone who is not born again in the blood, I could not agree more. Perhaps someday we will discover the answer to this question, but until then it is a matter of faith. I think too many people fail to appreciate the importance of faith, or are simply afraid of it. It is the one thing which absolutely requires you be true to yourself.

To be "true to yourself"?

What does that mean? Is religious faith a requirement for someone to to be "true to themselves? And if so, is a believer in Shiva available to be "true to themselves" or is belief in your partisan gawds the requirement?

Faith is entirely internal. To be true to yourself simply means to accept what you believe. Not to prove it, not to get others to believe, but to just accept it. Once you have done that, there is no need to be concerned with what others believe. No need to convince them they are wrong. Whether that belief is in Jesus, Shiva, or nothing really doesn't matter. Ultimately, all of the insults, proselytizing and insistence of non-existent proofs come down to an inability to accept who you are. If you insist you don't believe in leprechauns when you actually do or you do believe in Bigfoot when you actually don't, then all you are doing is denying who you are and fighting with yourself.

"Faith", the affiliation with partisan religious doctrine, is much more a group exercise as it is internal. Religious faith is overwhelmingly a function of geographic location and familial associations so in that sense, it's entirely arbitrary.

And yes, truth is important, especially when truth contradicts religious dogma.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that multiple conceptions of various gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly. Speaking as someone who is not born again in the blood, I could not agree more. Perhaps someday we will discover the answer to this question, but until then it is a matter of faith. I think too many people fail to appreciate the importance of faith, or are simply afraid of it. It is the one thing which absolutely requires you be true to yourself.

To be "true to yourself"?

What does that mean? Is religious faith a requirement for someone to to be "true to themselves? And if so, is a believer in Shiva available to be "true to themselves" or is belief in your partisan gawds the requirement?

Faith is entirely internal. To be true to yourself simply means to accept what you believe. Not to prove it, not to get others to believe, but to just accept it. Once you have done that, there is no need to be concerned with what others believe. No need to convince them they are wrong. Whether that belief is in Jesus, Shiva, or nothing really doesn't matter. Ultimately, all of the insults, proselytizing and insistence of non-existent proofs come down to an inability to accept who you are. If you insist you don't believe in leprechauns when you actually do or you do believe in Bigfoot when you actually don't, then all you are doing is denying who you are and fighting with yourself.

"Faith", the affiliation with partisan religious doctrine, is much more a group exercise as it is internal. Religious faith is overwhelmingly a function of geographic location and familial associations so in that sense, it's entirely arbitrary.

And yes, truth is important, especially when truth contradicts religious dogma.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that multiple conceptions of various gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

And you will never see any evidence because the cheese apparently slid off your cracker years ago. I'm sorry, PratchettFan, but you are an utter moron. You have been repeating this same stupidity all over this forum. You are easily the most increadibly dense dimwit I've ever encountered in this regard. Hollie's got more sense than you . . . albeit, just barely.

The universe and the contents thereof, coupled with the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin: these things are the evidence for God's existence. In other words, the existence of the universe, our existence and the subsequent logical proofs/theological axioms of necessity regarding God's existence: that is the evidence! There is no other evidence. What other evidence would there be?

Further:

Conjecture and evidence are not synonymous.

Inference and evidence are not synonymous.​

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Spoken like a true Christian.....smh!

 

[Hollie]

To be "true to yourself"?

What does that mean? Is religious faith a requirement for someone to to be "true to themselves? And if so, is a believer in Shiva available to be "true to themselves" or is belief in your partisan gawds the requirement?

Faith is entirely internal. To be true to yourself simply means to accept what you believe. Not to prove it, not to get others to believe, but to just accept it. Once you have done that, there is no need to be concerned with what others believe. No need to convince them they are wrong. Whether that belief is in Jesus, Shiva, or nothing really doesn't matter. Ultimately, all of the insults, proselytizing and insistence of non-existent proofs come down to an inability to accept who you are. If you insist you don't believe in leprechauns when you actually do or you do believe in Bigfoot when you actually don't, then all you are doing is denying who you are and fighting with yourself.

"Faith", the affiliation with partisan religious doctrine, is much more a group exercise as it is internal. Religious faith is overwhelmingly a function of geographic location and familial associations so in that sense, it's entirely arbitrary.

And yes, truth is important, especially when truth contradicts religious dogma.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that multiple conceptions of various gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

Of course there's a shared belief. Religion is a belief system and the various sects and subdivisions of religion have differing, often contradictory, components of belief.

What I found interesting in your post was the comment: "I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact."

Honestly, I can substitute "religion" in place of "logic" in your comment above and it really defines the entirety of the religious argument. That religionists want an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science is not just a little ironic.

Lastly, your comment noting: "How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind?" is an old ploy of religionists. lack of evidence for what does not exist, lack of evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than a modification of the "you can't prove it isn't", fallacy.

Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in doctrine. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.

IMHO, FEAR: fear of the unknown, feaer of dying is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of meaning and a way to cope with despair. Your gawds are just the most recent configuration of all the gawds that mankind has created prior to yours. Have you ever studied the history and lineage of the gawds that were invented prior to yours?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Exactly. Speaking as someone who is not born again in the blood, I could not agree more. Perhaps someday we will discover the answer to this question, but until then it is a matter of faith. I think too many people fail to appreciate the importance of faith, or are simply afraid of it. It is the one thing which absolutely requires you be true to yourself.

To be "true to yourself"?

What does that mean? Is religious faith a requirement for someone to to be "true to themselves? And if so, is a believer in Shiva available to be "true to themselves" or is belief in your partisan gawds the requirement?

So you have faith god does not exist. Fine. Don't be presumptuous to think you can prove it.

Faith is not a requirement to conclude gawds do not exist.

To believe something does not exist when you cannot prove it does require faith. Logic dictates that conclusion.

Conclusions do not require faith. I don't need to prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist to conclude that the Tooth Fairy is an invention of mankind.

By your "standards", we can have faith that Zeus is just as likely to exist as your partisan gawds.

Conclusions require belief, which is faith in things not unseen, in your case.

The militant atheists are every bit as poor critical thinkers as those who believe Daniel lived in the lion's den and emerged unscathed. Your belief is not objective, thus cannot be proved, thus is faith.

So Hawlie and M. D. argue as if their faith can be proven objectively. Sorry, kids, nope.

 

[PratchettFan]

Faith is entirely internal. To be true to yourself simply means to accept what you believe. Not to prove it, not to get others to believe, but to just accept it. Once you have done that, there is no need to be concerned with what others believe. No need to convince them they are wrong. Whether that belief is in Jesus, Shiva, or nothing really doesn't matter. Ultimately, all of the insults, proselytizing and insistence of non-existent proofs come down to an inability to accept who you are. If you insist you don't believe in leprechauns when you actually do or you do believe in Bigfoot when you actually don't, then all you are doing is denying who you are and fighting with yourself.

"Faith", the affiliation with partisan religious doctrine, is much more a group exercise as it is internal. Religious faith is overwhelmingly a function of geographic location and familial associations so in that sense, it's entirely arbitrary.

And yes, truth is important, especially when truth contradicts religious dogma.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that multiple conceptions of various gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

Of course there's a shared belief. Religion is a belief system and the various sects and subdivisions of religion have differing, often contradictory, components of belief.

Then you believe in telepathy. As I said, I do not.

What I found interesting in your post was the comment: "I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact."

Honestly, I can substitute "religion" in place of "logic" in your comment above and it really defines the entirety of the religious argument. That religionists want an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science is not just a little ironic.

I do not ask for an exemption, I just don't agree you are entitled to one. The same standards apply to us both. I can provide you with absolutely no evidence to support my beliefs. So I do not attempt to use logic. Logic without evidentiary support is masturbation. What evidence can you provide to support yours?

Lastly, your comment noting: "How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind?" is an old ploy of religionists. lack of evidence for what does not exist, lack of evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than a modification of the "you can't prove it isn't", fallacy.

Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in doctrine. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.

Your conclusion is quite true in the context of the question of God. Any discussion on the existence of God is absurd, which is I why I never engage in them. A complete waste of time. However, what I am talking about is really how human beings think and, like it or not, human beings are believers. Even you. The trick is to recognize when you are doing it.

Your comment on the "old ploy of religionists" is just a cop out. IOW, an old ploy. "Trust" in the absence of evidence is just another word for belief. Don't attempt to tell me that has anything at all to do with science. Science makes a lousy religion. But I am always willing to be proven wrong. What is the available data?

IMHO, FEAR: fear of the unknown, feaer of dying is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of meaning and a way to cope with despair. Your gawds are just the most recent configuration of all the gawds that mankind has created prior to yours. Have you ever studied the history and lineage of the gawds that were invented prior to yours?

So, what you are saying is that belief is innate to human beings and even a survival trait. And you then wish to argue that the most reasonable path is to reject my innate nature and adopt behavior that is not a survival trait? This is reason?

I do not care what the history is. I do not care what others believed or believe or will believe. My belief is my own. The only being in the universe I need to justify it to is me.

BTW, I tried something new and of course it didn't work. You'll have to expand the thread. My other comments are in red.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Faith is not a requirement to conclude gawds do not exist.

Perhaps. But belief is certainly a requirement since there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

It's The Ken Doll and Barbie Doll Show!

Staring PratchettFan the Obtuse Dimwit of the Dimwits as Ken and Hollie the Whack Job as Barbie.




In tonight's show, we ask the question: given that neither one of these rank imbeciles show any signs of brain activity, do they even have a pulse?

PrachettFan the Obtuse Dimwit of the Dimwits as Ken:

There's no evidence for God's existence! The existence of the universe, my existence, your existence: it's all just one big, fat, happy dream pill! I think; therefore, I'm not!

Oh! But wait a minute! That doesn't make any sense, does it? If there's not a shred of evidence or reason whatsoever to think that God exists, why am I talking about, thinking about, wondering about God's existence or nonexistence in the first place? Why am I considering, inferring, conjecturing, supposing things about God's existence in the first place? Where did I get this notion about God's existence in the first place? How did I come to have it? That's weird.

Wow! I was just walking down the street one day and then, suddenly, for obviously no reason at all . . . you know, like, Boom! God. The idea of God just came to me. Magic! It came to me . . . out of nowhere, out of thin air, right out of the clear blue sky. Boom! I just got this idea of God. Oh, wait! I've got this idea of God . . . for which there's no evidence or reason to have! That's weird. What am I thinking . . . or saying? There are no streets or air or sky in the first place.

Dear Lord! Uh . . . that is to say . . . God have mercy! Giggle I mean . . . Gosh Darn! I don't even exist. Why am I thinking or saying anything at all? That's weird.​

Hollie the Whack Job as Barbie:

What he said! ​

In the meantime, back in the real world that does exist and in which obtuse dimwits/fools are regarded with the contempt they deserve:

Science does not prove or disprove things; it tentatively verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things. Logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). Science cannot directly address the metaphysics of ontology, let alone verify or falsify such things. Science is predicated on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another. It is absurd to assert otherwise. Scientific methodology and the respective, underlying metaphysical model of naturalism that one presupposes are not synonymous.

Theology and philosophy via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition deal with the exigencies of metaphysics, and the evidence for God's existence is self-evident. Indeed, there's an avalanche of empirical evidence supporting God's existence, and logic (according to the three laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), holds that God must be:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. and Hollie are merely the flip sides of the same coin.

Similiar to communism and libertarianism.

 

[Hollie]

M. D. and Hollie are merely the flip sides of the same coin.

Similiar to communism and libertarianism.

Typical spam because you're unable to address the topic.

 

[Hollie]

Faith is not a requirement to conclude gawds do not exist.

Perhaps. But belief is certainly a requirement since there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

It's The Ken Doll and Barbie Doll Show!

Staring PratchettFan the Obtuse Dimwit of the Dimwits as Ken and Hollie the Whack Job as Barbie.




In tonight's show, we ask the question: given that neither one of these rank imbeciles show any signs of brain activity, do they even have a pulse?

PrachettFan the Obtuse Dimwit of the Dimwits as Ken:

There's no evidence for God's existence! The existence of the universe, my existence, your existence: it's all just one big, fat, happy dream pill! I think; therefore, I'm not!

Oh! But wait a minute! That doesn't make any sense, does it? If there's not a shred of evidence or reason whatsoever to think that God exists, why am I talking about, thinking about, wondering about God's existence or nonexistence in the first place? Why am I considering, inferring, conjecturing, supposing things about God's existence in the first place? Where did I get this notion about God existence in the first place? How did I come to have it? That's weird.

Wow! I was just walking down the street one day and then, suddenly, for obviously no reason at all . . . you know, like, Boom! God. The idea of God just came to me. Magic! It came to me . . . out of nowhere, out of thin air, right out of the clear blue sky. Boom! I just got this idea of God. Oh, wait! I've got this idea of God . . . for which there's no evidence or reason to have! That's weird. What am I thinking . . . or saying? There's no streets, no air, no sky.

Dear Lord! Uh . . . that is to say . . . God have mercy! Giggle I mean . . . Gosh Darn! I don't even exist. Why am I thinking or saying anything at all? That's weird.​

Hollie the Whack Job as Barbie:

What he said! ​

In the meantime, back in the real world that does exist and in which obtuse dimwits/fools are regarded with the contempt they deserve:

Science does not prove or disprove things; it tentatively verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things. Logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). Science cannot directly address the metaphysics of ontology, let alone verify or falsify such things. Science is predicated on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another. It is absurd to assert otherwise. Scientific methodology and the respective, underlying metaphysical model of naturalism that one presupposes are not synonymous.

Theology and philosophy via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition deal with the exigencies of metaphysics, and the evidence for God's existence is self-evident. Indeed, there's an avalanche of empirical evidence supporting God's existence, and logic (according to the three laws of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), holds that God must be:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

Typical spam from the most prolific cut and paster.

 

[Hollie]

"Faith", the affiliation with partisan religious doctrine, is much more a group exercise as it is internal. Religious faith is overwhelmingly a function of geographic location and familial associations so in that sense, it's entirely arbitrary.

And yes, truth is important, especially when truth contradicts religious dogma.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that multiple conceptions of various gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

Of course there's a shared belief. Religion is a belief system and the various sects and subdivisions of religion have differing, often contradictory, components of belief.

Then you believe in telepathy. As I said, I do not.

What I found interesting in your post was the comment: "I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact."

Honestly, I can substitute "religion" in place of "logic" in your comment above and it really defines the entirety of the religious argument. That religionists want an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science is not just a little ironic.

I do not ask for an exemption, I just don't agree you are entitled to one. The same standards apply to us both. I can provide you with absolutely no evidence to support my beliefs. So I do not attempt to use logic. Logic without evidentiary support is masturbation. What evidence can you provide to support yours?

Lastly, your comment noting: "How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind?" is an old ploy of religionists. lack of evidence for what does not exist, lack of evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than a modification of the "you can't prove it isn't", fallacy.

Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in doctrine. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.

Your conclusion is quite true in the context of the question of God. Any discussion on the existence of God is absurd, which is I why I never engage in them. A complete waste of time. However, what I am talking about is really how human beings think and, like it or not, human beings are believers. Even you. The trick is to recognize when you are doing it.

Your comment on the "old ploy of religionists" is just a cop out. IOW, an old ploy. "Trust" in the absence of evidence is just another word for belief. Don't attempt to tell me that has anything at all to do with science. Science makes a lousy religion. But I am always willing to be proven wrong. What is the available data?

IMHO, FEAR: fear of the unknown, feaer of dying is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of meaning and a way to cope with despair. Your gawds are just the most recent configuration of all the gawds that mankind has created prior to yours. Have you ever studied the history and lineage of the gawds that were invented prior to yours?

So, what you are saying is that belief is innate to human beings and even a survival trait. And you then wish to argue that the most reasonable path is to reject my innate nature and adopt behavior that is not a survival trait? This is reason?

I do not care what the history is. I do not care what others believed or believe or will believe. My belief is my own. The only being in the universe I need to justify it to is me.

BTW, I tried something new and of course it didn't work. You'll have to expand the thread. My other comments are in red.

I see no indication that belief is innate to human beings. All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

And you will never see any evidence because the cheese apparently slid off your cracker years ago. I'm sorry, PratchettFan, but you are an utter moron. You have been repeating this same stupidity all over this forum. You are easily the most increadibly dense dimwit I've ever encountered in this regard. Hollie's got more sense than you . . . albeit, just barely.

The universe and the contents thereof, coupled with the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin: these things are the evidence for God's existence. In other words, the existence of the universe, our existence and the subsequent logical proofs/theological axioms of necessity regarding God's existence: that is the evidence! There is no other evidence. What other evidence would there be?

Further:

Conjecture and evidence are not synonymous.

Inference and evidence are not synonymous.​

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Spoken like a true Christian.....smh!

Spoken like a true imbecile. Oh, look, everybody. It's Ken Doll's cousin Carla the Dingbat Doll.

 

[Hollie]

I think you are looking at this with the assumption that if there were "divine intervention" you would recognize it. I have yet to see anyone present any kind of evidence at all, compelling or otherwise, to support the existence or non-existence of God. It is a matter of pure conjecture.

And you will never see any evidence because the cheese apparently slid off your cracker years ago. I'm sorry, PratchettFan, but you are an utter moron. You have been repeating this same stupidity all over this forum. You are easily the most increadibly dense dimwit I've ever encountered in this regard. Hollie's got more sense than you . . . albeit, just barely.

The universe and the contents thereof, coupled with the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the objective, universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin: these things are the evidence for God's existence. In other words, the existence of the universe, our existence and the subsequent logical proofs/theological axioms of necessity regarding God's existence: that is the evidence! There is no other evidence. What other evidence would there be?

Further:

Conjecture and evidence are not synonymous.

Inference and evidence are not synonymous.​

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Spoken like a true Christian.....smh!

Spoken like a true imbecile. Oh, look, everybody. It's Ken Doll's cousin Carla the Dingbat Doll.

You're not able to keep up with the grownups.

Scoot.... Scoot.

 

[PratchettFan]

Faith is not an affiliation with a religious doctrine. That is religion. Faith is acceptance of belief and belief is done in the individual brain. You can share an identification with a particular religion or doctrine, but no one can share their own belief. We are all unique and we do not mind meld. No two people are going to believe the exact same thing, even if they describe it the same way.

I don't believe I used the word "truth". I expect we don't share the same definition of that word. To me, truth is just that which is. For others, truth is an idea. For others, it is an excuse to impose. I do not declare my faith to have anything at all to do with truth, other than it being my faith. If you can present me with objective, valid evidence that what I believe is wrong, then I will change what I believe. However, until you can do that, I see absolutely no reason to think your belief is at all superior to mine. Because, no matter how much you may disclaim this, belief is all you are offering.

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

Of course there's a shared belief. Religion is a belief system and the various sects and subdivisions of religion have differing, often contradictory, components of belief.

Then you believe in telepathy. As I said, I do not.

What I found interesting in your post was the comment: "I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact."

Honestly, I can substitute "religion" in place of "logic" in your comment above and it really defines the entirety of the religious argument. That religionists want an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science is not just a little ironic.

I do not ask for an exemption, I just don't agree you are entitled to one. The same standards apply to us both. I can provide you with absolutely no evidence to support my beliefs. So I do not attempt to use logic. Logic without evidentiary support is masturbation. What evidence can you provide to support yours?

Lastly, your comment noting: "How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind?" is an old ploy of religionists. lack of evidence for what does not exist, lack of evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than a modification of the "you can't prove it isn't", fallacy.

Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in doctrine. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.

Your conclusion is quite true in the context of the question of God. Any discussion on the existence of God is absurd, which is I why I never engage in them. A complete waste of time. However, what I am talking about is really how human beings think and, like it or not, human beings are believers. Even you. The trick is to recognize when you are doing it.

Your comment on the "old ploy of religionists" is just a cop out. IOW, an old ploy. "Trust" in the absence of evidence is just another word for belief. Don't attempt to tell me that has anything at all to do with science. Science makes a lousy religion. But I am always willing to be proven wrong. What is the available data?

IMHO, FEAR: fear of the unknown, feaer of dying is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of meaning and a way to cope with despair. Your gawds are just the most recent configuration of all the gawds that mankind has created prior to yours. Have you ever studied the history and lineage of the gawds that were invented prior to yours?

So, what you are saying is that belief is innate to human beings and even a survival trait. And you then wish to argue that the most reasonable path is to reject my innate nature and adopt behavior that is not a survival trait? This is reason?

I do not care what the history is. I do not care what others believed or believe or will believe. My belief is my own. The only being in the universe I need to justify it to is me.

BTW, I tried something new and of course it didn't work. You'll have to expand the thread. My other comments are in red.

I see no indication that belief is innate to human beings. All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people.

You just gave a whole list of human behaviors you think result in religion. I don't think the list comprehensive, but I will certainly concede all of those things are factors. If that isn't innate, I don't know what is. We are a species of believers. It is what we do. We paint pictures, write novels, invent gadgets, and blame our late homework on the dog. We invent new realities all of the time. It is our nature. On what basis would I deny that nature? Where is the reason in that?

Now, really examine your last sentence.... "All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people." What is the difference between human beings and people? If they are the same, how can it be external?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see no indication that belief is innate to human beings. All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people.

Hollie the Whack Job as Barbie opines:

The scientific fact of the God axioms in human psychology, though they be universal due to the bioneurologically hardwired and absolute laws of human thought, are just figments of human culture! It's all an illusion. No evidence or rational proofs for God's existence exist at all. It's magic. I'm not denying God's existence. I don't even have an idea of God in my mind at all in the first place. How could I? There's no evidence or reason to have such an idea. Magic. I was just walking down the street one day . . . Boom! There it was, the idea of God's existence! Wow! Am I just go around denying the existence of things I have absolutely no idea about or understanding of. Magic. ​

 

[Hollie]

There certainly is shared belief among religious affiliations. That belief is fully a committment to the doctrines, practices and customs of the religious persuasion. I have no need for faith to make reasoned distinctions between faith and rational conclusions.

Ultimately, the laws of logic must be taken a priori because there is no other choice-- we would not be having this discussion if you didn’t already do so. This is not to be confused with taking them uncritically, which is what faith resorts to. There is a distinct difference between reason and faith; hence they are labeled differently. To use the context of faith when discussing reason is to cloud the meaning of both, and that is self-defeating.

Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking.

I suggest there’s a path we’re on and might foolishly stray from. I guess you see brain chemistry, emotions, life experiences, subconscious activities as an obstacle (or filter) to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception and quite clearly, human evolution seems to bear it out.

There is a shared identification, not a shared belief. You cannot share what is in your head, only attempt to express it. Unless you believe in telepathy, which I do not.

Logic is only of benefit when connected with objective, valid evidence. There is an entire thread on that very subject, which got incredibly boring. I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact. And this is where you run into your particular obstacle. You have no facts and no evidence. You are attempting to apply logic to a vacuum and it just doesn't work.

We also probably have different ideas on what reason is. How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind? How is the position that X does not exist more reasonable than X does exist when we can't even define what X is, let alone test it. In the absence of evidence, the most reasonable approach is to go with what feels right, because the alternative is to go with what does not feel right with exactly the same support.

Of course there's a shared belief. Religion is a belief system and the various sects and subdivisions of religion have differing, often contradictory, components of belief.

Then you believe in telepathy. As I said, I do not.

What I found interesting in your post was the comment: "I can prove anything you like with logic, so long as I don't have to actually support any statements of fact."

Honestly, I can substitute "religion" in place of "logic" in your comment above and it really defines the entirety of the religious argument. That religionists want an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science is not just a little ironic.

I do not ask for an exemption, I just don't agree you are entitled to one. The same standards apply to us both. I can provide you with absolutely no evidence to support my beliefs. So I do not attempt to use logic. Logic without evidentiary support is masturbation. What evidence can you provide to support yours?

Lastly, your comment noting: "How does one apply reason to a question for which there is no evidence of any kind?" is an old ploy of religionists. lack of evidence for what does not exist, lack of evidence for the supernatural is nothing more than a modification of the "you can't prove it isn't", fallacy.

Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes reason the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in doctrine. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.

Your conclusion is quite true in the context of the question of God. Any discussion on the existence of God is absurd, which is I why I never engage in them. A complete waste of time. However, what I am talking about is really how human beings think and, like it or not, human beings are believers. Even you. The trick is to recognize when you are doing it.

Your comment on the "old ploy of religionists" is just a cop out. IOW, an old ploy. "Trust" in the absence of evidence is just another word for belief. Don't attempt to tell me that has anything at all to do with science. Science makes a lousy religion. But I am always willing to be proven wrong. What is the available data?

IMHO, FEAR: fear of the unknown, feaer of dying is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through reason contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful. We place our trust and our hope in things which give us a sense of meaning and a way to cope with despair. Your gawds are just the most recent configuration of all the gawds that mankind has created prior to yours. Have you ever studied the history and lineage of the gawds that were invented prior to yours?

So, what you are saying is that belief is innate to human beings and even a survival trait. And you then wish to argue that the most reasonable path is to reject my innate nature and adopt behavior that is not a survival trait? This is reason?

I do not care what the history is. I do not care what others believed or believe or will believe. My belief is my own. The only being in the universe I need to justify it to is me.

BTW, I tried something new and of course it didn't work. You'll have to expand the thread. My other comments are in red.

I see no indication that belief is innate to human beings. All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people.

You just gave a whole list of human behaviors you think result in religion. I don't think the list comprehensive, but I will certainly concede all of those things are factors. If that isn't innate, I don't know what is. We are a species of believers. It is what we do. We paint pictures, write novels, invent gadgets, and blame our late homework on the dog. We invent new realities all of the time. It is our nature. On what basis would I deny that nature? Where is the reason in that?

Now, really examine your last sentence.... "All religious belief is the invention of human beings and brought externally to people." What is the difference between human beings and people? If they are the same, how can it be external?

Fear of the unknown is certainly innate in human behavior. But we must understand that as knowledge of the natural world has yielded to understanding of the natural processes that drive nature, gawds have been superseded. The various gawds who once managed fire, lightning, wind, etc., have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.

And yes, all religious belief is brought externally to people as inventions of other people. All gawds are inventions of humans, unless you know if some history whereby one or more gawds suddenly popped into existence, announced their arrival and one or more religions subsequently came to be.

 

[PratchettFan]

[
Fear of the unknown is certainly innate in human behavior. But we must understand that as knowledge of the natural world has yielded to understanding of the natural processes that drive nature, gawds have been superseded. The various gawds who once managed fire, lightning, wind, etc., have been replaced by one-stop-shopping gawds of convenience.

And yes, all religious belief is brought externally to people as inventions of other people. All gawds are inventions of humans, unless you know if some history whereby one or more gawds suddenly popped into existence, announced their arrival and one or more religions subsequently came to be.

Gods have morphed. They have not been superseded. Belief has not gone away and shows no signs of doing so. It is our nature to believe and that is not going to change.
No one can get you to believe anything. They might get you to pretend you believe, but belief only comes from within. Do we invent our gods? Of course. No argument there at all. So what?

 

[Hawkins]

The deity mentioned in the Jewish Tanach did quite a lot. But looking around the world today, I see no evidence of any divine interventions. Either God never existed, died, or went away.

Think the God of the Bible would sit back and stay silent when so many carry out the worst atrocities ever in its' name? Tanach's God never sat back. And despite all that intervention, the entire world now worships false gods and versions of God as the plethora of other religions attest. Even modern Jews are fuzzy on how to worship God as orthodoxy has become marginalized, and more pagan versions like Reform have become dominant.

It is a matter of witnessing. Human witnessing is a process where a truth is revealed to a group of humans for other humans in majority to choose to believe or not. Our daily news are an example, we don't examine the events ourselves, we put faith on the media formed by reporters to get to the truth. The reporters as a group act between a truth and the believers of such a truth. This is how a truth is conveyed among humans.

Similarly, God speaks through His dedicated witnesses (His prophets mostly) for His words and deeds to be witnessed and written down in the Bible (as our daily news paper) for other humans to choose to believe to reach the truth. And it is said that Israel as a whole was called to be His witness. That's why He chose to only show Himself up in front of the Jews as a nation.

God's "news paper" is only composed of the OT and NT. When they are done, then the process of His witnessing (through Israel especially) is thus put to an end (or much less active than in the past). He sits back and all left is for the "news paper" readers to choose to believe or not. He will continue to speak through His dedicated individual witnesses though, not may no longer in a scale like how He once calling on Israel as a nation.