Is there a God?

[Huguenot]

That's not a correct interpretation of 'scientific belief' Sedgewick.

The one thing that all those theories currently have in common is that they've been tested, found to be inaccurate and consequently rejected.

This is a good definition of 'belief': "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true". Science does not hold things to be 'true', instead it says that the balance of evidence suggests that a particular hypothesis can be considered accurate until a better one is identified.

This is a good summary: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses."

Regligious belief entails gathering no evidence, measuring no phenomena and applying reason that at best is distorted. It avoids all 'testing' on the grounds that testing undermines faith.

In order to disguise the failings in this approach religion invents a supernatural mega-being to paper over the cracks. If the accuracy of this approach is challenged religions become more entrenched in their beliefs and usually embark on wars of oppression and wholesale slaughter.

[nashoi]

This was broadcast this afternoon. An entertaining debate which Hitchens wins to my mind, though if I'm being honest I could probably have said that before I heard it. It does remind you just how much like a vicar Blair can sound though.

Blair v Hitchens: Is religion a force for good in the world?

[mockney piers]

Interesting.

I don't think Hitchens edges it though, I think he wins by several lengths.

Blair is just being Blair really, disingenuous and lawyerly.

Typical example being he argues that fanaticism would exist irrespective of religion (and of course there he is correct) but unquestioningly claims altruism, charity, spirituality and even morality as the unique property of religion.

This somewhat flies in the face of his earlier facts with religious charities providing 20% of this and 25% of that but that's nitpicking; it flies in the face of commonsense and common humanity.

Anyway meh, I enjoyed Listening to Hitchens, possibly not long for this world, but I would be a happier man if I never had to listen to Blair again.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha!

"Heroin is an experience, not a conclusion you can come to through thinking. And you have to want it to experience it. Do you want it? If so, and you want it enough, and more than other things, then it will come."

Rubsley, I have no doubt it was an experience for you, you'll just have to forgive me for thinking that you couldn't be bothered to work it out on your own; God was a convenient capitulation.

Religious morals were Greek Ethics, Jesus was Aesop's fables, and the Church was the state. It's not a waste of space, it's important, but pull yourself together lad.

[Narnia]

Actually H, I agree with Rubsley's statement, albeit his use of the word God would be contentious for some. Particularly if you don't believe there is a God.

To say he couldn't be bothered to work it out on his own implies that you think you have. Yet again on this thread people, in this case you H, associate God with religion. You should get your act together lad.

God is a convenient word to describe an experience but as it means so many things to so many people it's just not a good word to use anymore to try an explain an 'experience'.

Anyway, back to work lads. Tell me if reach a conclusion.

[Hill Dweller]

Nope, there isn't a God imhoo but I think the capital has been used to mislead people into thinking there is such a being, one for their own tribe .... vs: all those little god statues belonging to others.

'God' has been a handy 'cover' for people afraid of the sin of conceit (as in mere confidence in their abilities).

'He' and heaven have been inspiration for people needing a subject to paint or sculpt or a beautiful building to erect and receive funding for, things for the less talented to admire and not resent.

'He's also been blamed for some of the things that have gone wrong and the lack of belief in 'Him' is blamed as the very reason why baddies are baddies.

I find it saddening that Tony Blair has felt the need to convert between types of Christianity, surely being Christian should be enough (if one is). He should not be afraid of claiming either the credit or the blame for all his actions (for the record, imhoo, there would be more of the former).

Naturally Christopher Hitchens won the debate, it's a shame he was more cruel and dismissive than in a similar filmed debate inside a NYC synagogue on the topic of Judaism.

.

[Hill Dweller]

This isn't the synagogue debate I meant, it's more fun :))

Some time ago so CH's illness wasn't public yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6nYjVog4nU&feature=related

.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[mockney piers]

I keep reading that god and religion are different, and yes I suppose they are.

What I don't understand is without religion, what's the point of even talking about it.

Surely religion is about trying to relate creation and existence to us (classic circular logic of course).

If we dont then were just saying 'there is a god' and perhaps speculating about their nature, but there it ends as essentially irrelevant to us because it is by definition intangible and unknowable (short of a burning bush appearing to me and saying 'I think you'll find you're wrong there piers').

So if we can't know it, and can't understand it, what are we trying to do?

Surely better to just get on and live your life.

Anything else (and yes, I fully include spirituality) is, I'm afraid, religion.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[mockney piers]

Not you specifically rubsely, the religion isn't god thing is something I've heard over and over again from many, but I'm not sure manynpeople really think about what they are saying.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[nashoi]

There is an argument that reductionism has its limits and atheists could use the g-word without leaving science behind. It maybe necessary or at least advisable, given the potential advantage finding a common language may give. Personally (I have to admit I'm about as far from being a scientist as its possible to get) it seems too much like the kind of anthropomorphism MP was discouraging a page or two back.

Stuart Kauffman, biologist and atheist, puts the case here:

1-5

2-5

3-5

4-5

5-5

[Jeremy]

rubsley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> God is an experience, not a conclusion you can come to through thinking.

Can you go into more detail about how you can experience God? What happens, exactly?

> And you have to want it to experience it.

You're saying that you have to already believe something in order to experience it? How can you be objective under these circumstances? Is it possible that your perceptions are skewed by an existing, unshakable belief?

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Jeremy]

rubsley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I imagine you'll notice when it happens for you -

> and that it would be unique in each case.

Surely if it's different for everyone, you can't possibly know that you've witnessed God!

> I wouldn't say you have to already believe in

> something specific in order to experience it, no.

How do you reconcile that with the claim that "you have to want it to experience it"? Can you want to witness something you don't believe in?

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Jeremy]

It's not my intention to pick holes, to mock, or be unpleasant... so I apologise if that's how I came across. I'm genuinely interested, actually. Personally I can't imagine an event so profound and unquestioningly godly, which could leave you in no doubt about the existence of God. So of course, I am curious. But I understand if you don't want to share your experience with us...

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

I'm not aware they have any more experience of 'god' at all.

The only things shared in common for the miracles they encounter, is that they always take place elsewhere, they are only ever witnessed by those with an interest in sustaining their existence, and that there is a law of omert? regarding the mystical laws that lead to their creation. Lots in common with Santa Claus.

I don't doubt the physical and psychological effects of meditation. They're also employed my Jonny Wilkinson and public speakers.

So far as I'm aware 'wanting' some thing to be true, doesn't make it true - so wanting there to be a deeper meaning doesn't mean there is.

I'm not trying to pick holes here. I believe religion to be a con perpetrated on the gullible and weak. I don't believe that it should be given a free reign to promote it's particular brand of snake oil without right to reply.

The question 'is there a god' does not restrict answers only to those who insist there is.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha! Excellent.

However, you haven't worked it through.

It's more like you saying that there's a place, but you're not going to tell us where it is, or what it offers, or what one does there, you have no evidence that it exists (that knowledge is only available to 'believers'), in fact we just have to 'trust you' - the only thing you assert is that it will make us indefineably 'better' to experience it.

There's a catch though:

In order to get there we have to follow you, stick to your dogma, copy your behaviour, and of course get other people to follow us on the same principle.

It's likely that your dogma entails us engaging in military action that slaughter anyone who points out the failings in our argument, and murders hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders.

When eventually we highlight to you that you don't seem to be leading us anywhere, you say it's because either we haven't tried hard enough or we don't understand. Rather than admit to your rip-off, you insist (as above) that you won't talk to us anymore because we're boring, and you'll only talk to people who 'believe'.

In short, a con.

There's nothing good that religion can give anyone that can't be obtained through philosophy, rationalism, ethics and secularism. There is a substantial amount of baggage that comes with religion that involves sacrificing your individuality to tyrants. What's to discuss?

[Huguenot]

BTW did you just compare me to a foetus?

Is that like trying to insist that your banal foggy-minded self-important claptrap is somehow the output of an elevated evolved thinker?

I make no claim that I can see all there is to know, I'm just highlighting that your grandiose assertions have no better foundation than a snake-oil salesman, Scientology or the Branch Davidian.

[rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrqwef43]

.