Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

Cote if you had said, 'You are coming across, to me, as a bit odd??', instead of omitting the 'to me', this would have made a vast amount of difference, to me, as it would have underlined the fact this is just your opinion.

Of course I am biased towards reality. So shoot me

Here you go again. Who are you to define reality?

If you hear voices, even if your initial assumption is that God is talking to you, promise us that you will seek professional help if the voice starts telling you to get a knife from the kitchen and start slaughtering people. Other than that, enjoy, I guess.

Who on this thread has talked, personally, about hearing voices, in relation to their own religious experience? I also, said, more than once, if such a perception of experience causes harmful behaviours it should be considered dysfunctional.

OK, I've officially run out of patience. Have a good evening, capsium.

Thank you. I intend to, and I hope your evening is good to.

^ too.

You're being unfair, or disingenuous, capsium.

I wrote, as you accurately quoted, "Most (all?) abuses like that have been created & justified under religious cultures." See that (all?) in there?

It's ridiculous to tie up a page of posts with your argument that religion isn't a supernatural belief, so as to justify your rebuttal "not all superstitious beliefs are religious ones, so the abuses have not been justified solely under religious cultures."

I never said they were all justified under religious cultures. I've said that delusions are only culturally defined by cultures that promote supernatural beliefs. This happens because such cultures value the supernatural more highly than material facts, therefore they label 'deluded' any citizens whose engagement with the real world (such as having an orgasm) countermands their supernatural culture.

As shown by my use of "(all?)" I think we might find that every such culture justifies its abuses on religious grounds, but realise this might not be quite so. In a pragmatic non-supernatural world, however, it's easy to see who is deluded because there's no cultural impetus to deny material facts.

When CoteDAzur says a poster is "coming across" a bit odd, she can only mean in her opinion. So your sophistry is unrequired.

Here's a popular example of supernatural attribution:

The river's running with blood! Eek!

Possible explanations:

1. There's been some sort of massacre upstream; the river is running blood, and it'll clear in a day or two.
2. There have been massive floods upstream, in iron or manganese rich soil, and the river's actually running with red mud.
3. God's showing his displeasure.

Historically, people living in supernaturally-led cultures have leapt straight to conclusion number 3. I would gently suggest it isn't the most likely explanation. I live in a red soil area, we'd be fucked if we assumed our annual floods were really blood! Not to mention looking pretty stupid

Garlic I am not arguing religion is not a supernatural belief. I have not argued this. Show me where you think I have. In fact for the sake of clarification I stated this in my 17:29 post.

Religious belief involves believing in the supernatural however supernatural belief does not have to be religious.

In a pragmatic non-supernatural world, however, it's easy to see who is deluded because there's no cultural impetus to deny material facts.

I would not be so sure about no cultural impetus for denying material facts in a pragmatic non-supernatural world. People can still be motivated to participate in lies and corruption in order to gain money / power / recognition regardless of believing in the supernatural.

Yes, but they don't label me clinically insane for trying to expose their corruption! They could only do that if our culture framed their corruption as incorrupt, and everyone who didn't like it as mad. THAT would be a culturally defined 'delusion'. Cultures can only do this if they value the supernatural above the materially factual.

Garlic if you have spent a lot of time on the SN boards, there are a few instances of parents who have had their mental integrity scrutinised and questioned, merely for insisting their child be assessed, because they believe their child has SNs. Munchausen's by proxy? Their children subsequently received diagnoses.

Hmm. Fair point. Does social services' doctrine count as a religion?
Actually I would think there are rational motives for exploring whether a parent is deluded about their child's abilities. It isn't always done effectively, for sure. But it's still not the case that our culture says every parent who thinks their child's gifted, or has SN, is mad. For that to be the case, we'd have to have an official belief that all children are educationally identical - denying observable facts by force, thus labelling 'deluded' anyone who observes the facts.

Mr Gove appears to suffer this very delusion. And we can see he's mad!

Garlic just to clarify, when I talk of something being 'cultural', in origin, I don't necessarily include a whole society within the 'culture'.

Capsium, we seem to be very differently wired. I think we've done this to death, and we're still not finding common ground. I'm going to finish watching Corrie to give my brain a rest, then call it a night :) Sleep well.

You too.

I know this thread is wrapping up for now but just wanted to ask a quick question to the atheists before it ends. You say that you would reconsider your position if evidence for God's existence were to become available but what do you consider evidence?

I found it interesting reading your comments about personal revelations that some people claim to have had. So presumably if God were to lets say appear to you or speak to you directly then instead of seeing that as evidence you would think you had gone insane or were psychotic. My question is if a physical manifestation is not good enough what exactly would you consider evidence or proof of God's existence? By the way I have never had these sorts of experiences of voices and visions so that is not why I'm asking. I'm just curious about what sort of proof you are looking for especially if you are suspicious of direct experiences with the divine.

I once had a conversation with an atheist about scriptures and he questioned why God had not sent down revealation in English as most people would come to speak that eventually . He also thought that God should have made a holy book, which could change to be in the native language of the particular reader. Basically something miraculous. Is that what atheists here want to see - miracles? In my conversations with some atheists I have found some to be almost bitter that God hasnt made it easier for people to recognise God's existence. Do any of you share that sentiment or do you just think if God wanted you to believe then he would have made it easier for you to accept His existence.

Also found the quotes from Einstein interesting, particularly those about being humbled by nature and having 'admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'. With regards to evidence for God's existence from the Islamic perspective this is the sort of evidence that God points us towards in the Quran, rather then miracles and mystical experiences.

"Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which God sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering of winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth, are indeed Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs, etc.) for people of understanding". Holy Quran: Chapter 3, verse 190

The Arabic word for the English word 'verse' (ayat) actually means 'proofs' or 'evidence', which is why many muslims would regard the Quran as an evidence or sign of God's existence as well as acknowledging signs in the natural world. I dont really want to make this in to a discussion about why Muslims believe in God (it would be arrogant of me to attempt to represent or speak for everyone as belief is a personal decision and can really only be explained by the individual). Im more interested in hearing about what atheists would need to see or experience to believe in God.

Evidence for which the most likely explanation is the existence of God would be necessary for me.

Do you mean by this you would need to see a miracle? Just trying to understand what you mean by 'most likely' explained by God. So do you mean something that cant be explained by science?

Brains malfunction easily.

What do you mean by that? Do brain's malfunction simultaneously? Could you give me some examples of this.

Your post is lovely, peaceful, and I completely get how the amazingness of the world is evidence of god to many. It isn't to me - it's amazing enough in itself! The problem with your "what would it take?" questions is - for me - that they're all framed from the point of view that god does exist, it's just a matter of objective evidence. The existence of god(s) presupposes intelligent purpose. I see no such purpose; worse, from your pov, I see much evidence that things 'just happen'. Sure, they happen according to patterns and probabilities, but those are human tools of understanding rather than self-evident plans of a universal director.

Were there a purpose, wouldn't it have become at least a bit clear by now? Last night I watched this utterly beautiful time-lapse . Why the fuck would a universal intelligence make this happen?

What about evolution. I am the astonishing culmination of a billion years' worth of genes, which incredibly survived against staggering odds, through major extinction events, getting lucky with mutations, even luckier with the mutations they passed on to their progeny, and so on for ... a billion years of luck & hard struggle. The billion years end with me: I am childless. Does this imply I've reached the ultimate perfection of my line; the purpose of my genetic evolution is complete? Sadly, no! I'm the strand that got an unlucky mutation. Thanks for all the effort, forebears, but we fucked up here.

Any vast intelligence who planned that has to score 0/10 for efficiency So, er, not intelligent after all!

Were there evidence, it would have to be an emergent pattern which shows planned direction. There just isn't any! And there would be, by now.

..................

On a different note, wrt hearing voices, I also watched this last night. I thought it was brilliant, although a bit upsetting.

Talking of the amazingness of the world, yesterday I had the loveliest walk through a lush wood brimming with busyness. I had a real 'oh wow' moment when thinking of evolution and the journey it had taken for life to be capable of staring at itself in wonder.

:) head :)

head I share your wonder.
And it is even more wonderous knowing that there is not some old geezer behind the curtain pulling the strings.
That would debase the majesty of the Universe and life.

Interesting, isn't it? If God existed, all it would take was one decent miracle and everyone would believe in him. But the only "miracles" are either curing things that go into remission anyway, or things that weren't diagnosed properly in the first place.