Pretending to know

[Zzyzx]

Many people here in debate, in churches, and elsewhere CLAIM to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural 'gods'. They often gather together on Sunday (or Saturday or Wednesday or in between) to tell each other stories about 'gods'.

God believers evidently learn what they 'know' by reading ancient religion-promoting literature written by people of uncertain identity claiming to know about 'gods'. The 'enlightened' may also claim to have psychological 'experiences' with 'gods or spirits' (perhaps 'holy'). Based on that 'evidence' they pontificate about their favorite 'god or gods'.

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about aliens after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'aliens'?

Would any person of sound mind claim to know about gods after reading stories about such things, listening to lectures by proponents, and dreaming or emoting about encountering 'gods'?

[Clownboat]

You can't say there isn't a supernatural God with any more certainty than I can say there is.

It seems that we have the cart before the horse.

Why would anyone make the claim that there is a supernatural God in the fist place?
What observations are made that would justify making an unfalsifiable god concept to be an explanation?

Surely you can do better than pointing to ignorant men of old and pretending that their explanations have merit?
Nope, wait, that is the best you can do. Oh well...

Keep this in mind and notice the dates he lived.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - c. 4 BC – AD 65

[DavidLeon]

You can't say there isn't a supernatural God with any more certainty than I can say there is.

It seems that we have the cart before the horse.

So the horse is pushing the cart instead of pulling it? Seems like a bull would be more appropriate in that instance. Bull.

Why would anyone make the claim that there is a supernatural God in the fist place?

Well, uh . . . a variety of possible reasons. One being that the supernatural God told him to and another would be because he thought it sounded cool?

What observations are made that would justify making an unfalsifiable god concept to be an explanation?

To be an explanation?! Could you rephrase that?

Surely you can do better than pointing to ignorant men of old and pretending that their explanations have merit?

I don't understand. If you want to investigate the medicinal possibilities you might find yourself in the rain forest tripping balls with some ignorant men of a primitive cloth. If you want to know mankind's history you might find yourself digging in the dirt speculating on pottery shards. If you really want to go to town you can scrap together some teeth and jawbone fragments and draw pictures of brutish ape men dragging their ugly women to the campfire to fix supper and the impressionable children will be indoctrinated. Especially with dinosaurs.

All lucrative career opportunities. Like televangelism.

Nope, wait, that is the best you can do. Oh well...

Who, me?! There is only one explanation for how life got here and Richard Dawkins or even Empedocles didn't come up with that. Sorry if you missed the boat, Clown.

Keep this in mind and notice the dates he lived.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - c. 4 BC – AD 65

I agree completely. Religion is always transmogrified. I've repeated that many times here and elsewhere. I loath religion. I look for what is buried underneath religion. The stuff you atheists scratch off the surface is child's play. But even then that stuff you scratch off also happens to be the very foundation of your puerile knowledge.

You (collective) modern man of science are only the unreasonable rebellious child of the old 'ignorant' men. No one listens to the rebel without a cause except for the other rebellious children.

[1213]

...
A person pretending to know about geology after reading books and listening to lectures is no more qualified than a person claiming to know about flying an airliner after reading books and listening to lectures.

In that case, what is the point of the books, if they are useless?

[Clownboat]

It seems that we have the cart before the horse.

So the horse is pushing the cart instead of pulling it? Seems like a bull would be more appropriate in that instance. Bull.

Fails to address the point. When you cannot, distract...
Obviously, inventing things that have not been shown to reflect reality, and then insisting that they are explanations for things is illogical. Due to this, we do not submit 'fairies' as explanations. For some humans, god concepts as explanations are sufficiant. Just their god though. All those humans that chose another god, well they just have it wrong.

Cart before the horse. First you must show that god explanations are reasonable. Until then, you might as well be arguing for fairies as being a cause, but who in their right mind would do that!

Why would anyone make the claim that there is a supernatural God in the first place?

Well, uh . . . a variety of possible reasons. One being that the supernatural God told him to and another would be because he thought it sounded cool?

Neither of these are legitimate reasons to appeal to unknown concepts in an attempt to explain the unknown. Such thinking led us to Zeus causing thunder and lightning. Poor thinking leads to poor conclusions.

To be an explanation?! Could you rephrase that?

What observations would lead a human for example, to claim that Zeus causes thunder? If Zeus, was an unfalsifiable cause for thunder, would it be a logical path to arrive at the conclusion that gods cause thunder? If not, then why would any other unfalsifiable god explanation be given such credit?

Surely you can do better than pointing to ignorant men of old and pretending that their explanations have merit?

I don't understand.

That much is clear. When a human doesn't understand, they will often look to authority figures to tell them what and how to think. Consider a tribal shaman figure for one. Some religions have devoted entire websites to just this and just about every holy book tells you how to think/live.

For any human that struggles with this on their own, there is a religion for them.

If you want to investigate the medicinal possibilities you might find yourself in the rain forest tripping balls with some ignorant men of a primitive cloth.

Perhaps, but I will not be turning to religious promotional material.

If you want to know mankind's history you might find yourself digging in the dirt speculating on pottery shards.

Seems reasonable. Sure wouldn't look to religious promotional material though to be sure.

If you really want to go to town you can scrap together some teeth and jawbone fragments and draw pictures of brutish ape men dragging their ugly women to the campfire to fix supper and the impressionable children will be indoctrinated.

We should be teaching our children critical thinking, not indoctrinating them. Again, that is what religious promotional material is for and perhaps the source of your confusion.

Who, me?! There is only one explanation for how life got here and Richard Dawkins or even Empedocles didn't come up with that. Sorry if you missed the boat, clown.

Please inform the world as to how life got here and explain how you acquired said info.
Holy monkeys, it just occurred to me! We are full circle, right back to religious promotional material, right?

Keep this in mind and notice the dates he lived.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - c. 4 BC – AD 65

I agree completely.

You agree completely that wise people consider religions to be false and rulers consider it to be useful?
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I loath religion.

Don't. Many people really need it. I have family that need their beliefs. Perhaps you are one such person yourself?

I look for what is buried underneath religion. The stuff you atheists scratch off the surface is child's play.

Your words are a bit pompous for my liking. I'm also not an atheist, but you go right on pretending so you can feel like I'm some enemy of your religion that you should unite against rather than an ex-Christian who once shared your beliefs. Just pretend that a Satan got to me, that should explain in all.

But even then that stuff you scratch off also happens to be the very foundation of your puerile knowledge.

An example please to show that you speak the truth. I fear you are playing pretend or perhaps listening to words from a holy book that would suggest such a thing. I know, you could just call me a fool (only a fool says there is no god) or a swine (don't cast your pearls) and feel justified with how you obtain your beliefs about the world we live in.

[Difflugia]

You (collective) modern man of science are only the unreasonable rebellious child of the old 'ignorant' men. No one listens to the rebel without a cause except for the other rebellious children.

I find it perhaps a bit telling that you refuse to recognize any sort of intellectual integrity in your ideological opponents, yet expressly refuse to learn anything of the substance of their arguments. You also repeatedly refer to them as rebels for the sake of rebellion, while claiming for yourself the inablity to find doctrinal agreement with any Christian denomination at all.

I try not to overuse accusations of "projection," but I'm really having trouble finding an alternative explanation.

[DavidLeon]

Fails to address the point. When you cannot, distract...

Your criticizing ancient wisdom by using an outdated colloquialism.

Obviously, inventing things that have not been shown to reflect reality, and then insisting that they are explanations for things is illogical.

I'm sorry, you'll have to point out exactly where I did this for me to take it seriously. Then we can talk about it.

Due to this, we do not submit 'fairies' as explanations.

Yes we do. All the time. You can't suggest to me that the Bible is made up as explanations and then insist we don't make up things for explanations. When exactly do you suppose we stopped doing that? When we got cable television?

For some humans, god concepts as explanations are sufficiant. Just their god though. All those humans that chose another god, well they just have it wrong.

Right. So the God you think is just wrong is one more than mine.

Cart before the horse.

Two birds in the bush.

First you must show that god explanations are reasonable.

No. First I have to stop going to science forums - insulting them, criticizing their beliefs and telling them what to think. Wait a minute. I don't do that.

[DavidLeon]

I find it perhaps a bit telling that you refuse to recognize any sort of intellectual integrity in your ideological opponents, yet expressly refuse to learn anything of the substance of their arguments.

And who thanked you for this post?

How many believers have you seen me interact with or thank? How many unbelievers have thanked me for nonsecular posts? I think what your problem is is that I'm criticizing what you believe. Your protest is hypocritical.

You also repeatedly refer to them as rebels for the sake of rebellion, while claiming for yourself the inablity to find doctrinal agreement with any Christian denomination at all.

I don't think I've referred to anyone as rebels prior to this. I could be wrong, but I don't think I have. As for Christian denominations you got that right. At least in part. I'm not going to adhere to some portion of anyone's doctrine I don't agree with, nor am I going to dismiss anyone's doctrine because I don't agree with other doctrines they may have. I don't group think. I don't pigeonhole myself.

I try not to overuse accusations of "projection," but I'm really having trouble finding an alternative explanation.

Do what you think is right. And fair.

[Clownboat]

Your criticizing ancient wisdom by using an outdated colloquialism.

I'm criticizing your thinking actually. Try to see it this way:
I don't know the answer to something, so I'm going to invent something else that is unknown to explain it without having a way to test for it or falsify it. This is not a way to arrive at accurate explanations for the world we live in.

To posit the gods for answers to the unknown has been standard practice for humans for as long we we can tell. This is our best guess as to why virtually all civilizations throughout all known time have had god concepts to explain the unknown. Ever stop to think why there are so many god concepts. Can you present a better explanation?

Obviously, inventing things that have not been shown to reflect reality, and then insisting that they are explanations for things is illogical.

I'm sorry, you'll have to point out exactly where I did this for me to take it seriously. Then we can talk about it.

Positing a god as an explanation is to invent a thing that has not been shown to reflect reality. If you can show that any god is more than human imagination, then at least we would have a start.

Due to this, we do not submit 'fairies' as explanations.

Yes we do.

What specifically to you credit to fairies?

Right. So the God you think is just wrong is one more than mine.

I don't find gods to be wrong, I find them as explanations to be wanting. Why are the gods such a good explanation in your opinion and how can we know which ones we should consider?

You can believe that the gods created the universe or humans or what have you. Your beliefs matter not.
What you cannot do, is show that your god is any different from the rest of the gods that cannot be shown to be anything more than human imagination.

That you feel your beliefs deserve consideration is your problem and your problem is what started this:
"You can't say there isn't a supernatural God with any more certainty than I can say there is."

Until the gods are suggested to be real, it is illogical to submit them as explanations for the unknown, just like it would be illogical to submit that fairies are what cause a cars engine to run or fairies cause thunder. Ignorant humans of course wouldn't know better, thus gods entered the equation. Again, you are free to believe as you like, but don't pretend this problem with how you arrive at a belief is anothers.

[Difflugia]

I find it perhaps a bit telling that you refuse to recognize any sort of intellectual integrity in your ideological opponents, yet expressly refuse to learn anything of the substance of their arguments.

And who thanked you for this post?

How many believers have you seen me interact with or thank? How many unbelievers have thanked me for nonsecular posts?

You're right; what I said was hyperbole and I shouldn't have implied that you never do so.

I think what your problem is is that I'm criticizing what you believe. Your protest is hypocritical.

My problem is not that you criticize what I believe, but that you instead would impugn why I believe it. The stickler is that this seems to be your fallback tactic specifically when the argument begins to move in a scientific direction, apparently (as you claim so) because you find scientific topics too uninteresting to pursue. The hypocrisy is in claiming that science itself is some sort of dodge when (and perhaps because; that projection thing again) you don't understand it yourself.

I don't think I've referred to anyone as rebels prior to this. I could be wrong, but I don't think I have.

At least one other time recently enough that I remember:

Ahhh, the implications. Looking for the Science Utopia. The more one sided your perspective is the more predictable the outcome. History repeats itself. Our little rebellious atheists are growing up. All full of vinegar. Not a clue. As they get older their thinking will become a replica of the old guard.

[DavidLeon]

My problem is not that you criticize what I believe, but that you instead would impugn why I believe it. The stickler is that this seems to be your fallback tactic specifically when the argument begins to move in a scientific direction, apparently (as you claim so) because you find scientific topics too uninteresting to pursue. The hypocrisy is in claiming that science itself is some sort of dodge when (and perhaps because; that projection thing again) you don't understand it yourself.

I've a long history of dealing with scientific atheism. I was once banned from an atheist forum because I agreed to read one of Richard Dawkins books. I read the first 3 parts (a prologue or introduction and the first 2 chapters) and was surprised how much I agreed with it. Posted my positive view of what I had read and was banned by the administrator, who was the one who suggested I do so in the first place. He called it spam. He said he wanted me to finish the entire book before posting my response, though he never mentioned that to me beforehand. Many of his regulars, atheists, vehemently protested and some came to my forum and were regular posters for a while.

Another time I went to an atheist forum and some atheist idiot there had spammed the forum with several posts with all uppercase subject headings announcing I was a homophobic Christian. When I informed him I was homosexual he then did the same thing only changing the subject headings to homophobic remarks about me.

On religiousforums.com an old atheist there challenged me to learn science and I'm doing well, as I was asked, and then he starts harping on God so I quit. He said I was afraid or something and I said well, I'll give it another go but only if you say you can do it without ever mentioning God. He agreed, but soon enough he starts harping on God. He didn't want to teach me science he just wanted me to turn on God.

I have 20+ years of those kinds of stories. Many far worse than those. though I have encountered a few atheists I like, to be perfectly honest I don't like atheists in general. I really don't. Not because of their disbelief, I get that. But because they're worse than the self righteous, judgmental religious hypocrites that inspired me to begin studying the Bible in the first place. I would be more specific but that would be a violation of the rules. Much more specific.

Now I can get how some of them feel the same way about my side as I do theirs but you won't see me whining when turnabout becomes fair play. You won't catch me reporting petty rule violations because I don't like what you are saying.

I can play nicer but I'll just end up ignoring most of the pointless jabs and insults then they'll start complaining that I don't respond to them. I can do that, though. I can try.

I don't think I've referred to anyone as rebels prior to this. I could be wrong, but I don't think I have.

At least one other time recently enough that I remember:

Ahhh, the implications. Looking for the Science Utopia. The more one sided your perspective is the more predictable the outcome. History repeats itself. Our little rebellious atheists are growing up. All full of vinegar. Not a clue. As they get older their thinking will become a replica of the old guard.

Ah, yes, I do remember that now.