Over 90% of Americans believe in God

[ruivirtual]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

^ god is an abstract concept, you can't equate it to something everybody would recognize as "impossible" like talking horses

if i ask you "what's a talking horse?" you reply "a horse that can talk," and can tell me on the spot that they probably don't exist, but if i ask you "what's god?" you're instantly gonna ask me back what definition we're going by, in what respect we view this thing and a lot of other aspects that make it too vague to define and be able to claim probably doesn't exist

:taxidriver: at "god is an abstract concept"
anyway your point would lead to "abstract" concepts are not subject to ontological analysis which is obviously incorrect.

[Pee Liker]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

of course it is - what you did was not ontological analysis, it was a poor analogy that confused falsifiability and unfalsifiability

read my latest reply to 00 don status

[Brokeback Jimmy]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

i dont know what that means

[ruivirtual]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

^^^no. because the dispute regarding god is, basically, whether a metaphysical synthetic being exists (like the talking horse). and what i said is: even if you cannot prove its existence or absence, the empiric and logic data, and its analysis, suggest it doesnt exist.

[Pee Liker]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

i'm responding to your saying that it isn't silly to call someone dumb for thinking there are talking horses, and therefore it isn't silly to call someone dumb for believing in god

the concept of god is unfalsifiable, so you can't say that empirical data suggest that it doesn't exist

unlike the concept of a talking horse which is conceivable but dismissible, you haven't got the slightest clue what god "is," you can only delimit the definition of it as "a metaphysical synthetic being" to make it easier for yourself to refute

you're also conflating believing in something and asserting that something with certainty exists

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

there are endless and often contradictory definitions for the word God. i think the guy you're replying to was using the "talking horse" as an example of something that could be true or not (not something we all know to be impossible). He also may have been saying that something being unfalsifiable is not a strong point for its existence, but a weak one; this is because there are endless random falsehoods that can be considered unfalsifiable (such as other gods, fairies, or a unicorn on mars)

as far as epistemology goes, the existence of something is determined by evidence supporting *positive claims* (an example is saying X Does or Doesn't exist). If claims are unsupported, they are just that- unsupported and should not be regarded as anything more than a simple possibility that never was first considered with evidence. It would be logical imo to assume that there is a low probability of something as ill-defined as god, with no evidence whatsoever.

sure, but all of this, saying that a concept being unfalsifiable is a "weak point" for belief in it and that a low probability that it exists because of a lack of evidence makes belief in it "stupid," is presuming that people who believe in god do so for logical reasons

most that believe in an impersonal "hard-to-define higher power" kind of god may do so because of some "feeling in the bone marrow," it's a different language if you will than rationality and science

saying somebody who believes in such a "god" is stupid, is like saying somebody who believes that fridges can keep food cool is unspiritual

although then there are the gnostic theists that use logic and science to justify their belief in a personal, omnipresent, almighty creator and moderator of the universe, and here stuff like evidence does come into play, but we're making yet another excluding presumption if we go by this "definition" to be able to say that people who believe in god are stupid

a talking horse is falsifiable tho, which is why i denoted that you can't compare it to god; with the traditional definition of "talking," that is the movement of the jaw, lips and tongue and the vibration of the vocal cords to communicate verbally, and the anatomy of the horse's mouth that prohibits human articulations and their brains that make it impossible for them to learn a human language, it is conclusive that talking horses don't exist, whereas you have nothing like this to work with whatsoever if you wanna say the same thing about "god"

I never formed my argument around saying belief in it is stupid. I'm pretty sure the talking horse example was taken by that other dude from Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon in my garage." Lets work with that rather than losing the point by getting into horse anatomy lol. I'd say my horse can talk because he has a diff anatomy than other horses to make my point but lets do invisible dragon because its more useful for a positive claim that may or may not be true. The Dragon ISSS unfalsifiable because you can't see it or touch it, can't use heat sensor to detect it because it has a protection against that. I'm sure you see what i'm doing here, this unfalsifiable dragon has only revealed itself to me (divine revelation) or wrote a book for me telling the truth..etc. There is clearly no support in this argument for the dragon existing; this was all i was saying is that unfalsifiable is not a strong point but a weak one. It would be stronger if it could be debunked because then it would suggest this God is testable.

Overall, it is true that you can't equate this dragon here to a god necessarily, although MANY people use the same argument of undetectability that I did above. However, like i said before, it All starts with the claim a god (or invisible dragon) Does exist. Not only does this claim require the burden of proof like all positive claims, but they require the burden of defining what they mean by god. It doesn't matter how many different definitions there are, it matters that they define it and provide evidence for the positive claim. If the God claim is unsupported (like the thousands i've heard), I would argue it is much more than reasonable to not believe it.

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

there are endless and often contradictory definitions for the word God. i think the guy you're replying to was using the "talking horse" as an example of something that could be true or not (not something we all know to be impossible). He also may have been saying that something being unfalsifiable is not a strong point for its existence, but a weak one; this is because there are endless random falsehoods that can be considered unfalsifiable (such as other gods, fairies, or a unicorn on mars)

as far as epistemology goes, the existence of something is determined by evidence supporting *positive claims* (an example is saying X Does or Doesn't exist). If claims are unsupported, they are just that- unsupported and should not be regarded as anything more than a simple possibility that never was first considered with evidence. It would be logical imo to assume that there is a low probability of something as ill-defined as god, with no evidence whatsoever.

sure, but all of this, saying that a concept being unfalsifiable is a "weak point" for belief in it and that a low probability that it exists because of a lack of evidence makes belief in it "stupid," is presuming that people who believe in god do so for logical reasons

most that believe in an impersonal "hard-to-define higher power" kind of god may do so because of some "feeling in the bone marrow," it's a different language if you will than rationality and science

saying somebody who believes in such a "god" is stupid, is like saying somebody who believes that fridges can keep food cool is unspiritual

although then there are the gnostic theists that use logic and science to justify their belief in a personal, omnipresent, almighty creator and moderator of the universe, and here stuff like evidence does come into play, but we're making yet another excluding presumption if we go by this "definition" to be able to say that people who believe in god are stupid

Gnostic theists using science/ logic to support their position?!? Never once heard a God argument that doesn't collapse, and there is no scientific evidence for the type of omnipotent creator definition of a god you mentioned. Did you just mean some Claim to use science/logic? If you or they claim there is evidence its probably creationist banter, esoteric transcendental arguments, or the first cause argument which collapses faster than any other. Btw I don't understand your fridge/food cool/ spiritual comparison you made above bro lol.

edit: just reread how you were saying about feeling in the bone marrow, which get's into faith...which is where i lose interest because it just means lack of reasons to believe (evidence) , counters everything taught in epistemology and is not an open-minded, truth seeking position. Not to mention the fact that faith is suspiciously convenient for religions to survive when it has no moral or practical applications whatsoever.

[Pee Liker]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

agree entirely with your first post

about gnostic theists, yeah, i should've said ATTEMPT to use logic, obviously it's a classic shortcoming

my point was that unlike many moderate believers, if you will, there are the theists that do try to justify their positions rationally, as opposed to acknowledge their faith-based convictions and be happy

that's what my comparison was about - calling a person irrational because he or she intuitively believes in the presence of a higher power, is like calling a person unspiritual because he or she looks into a microscope all day; they're not mutual exclusivities and don't really dwell in the same domains

i think it's important to grasp both "languages" to be able to have a discussion like this, because when you say "i lose interest when it gets into faith" you're leaving out a big part of what it means to "believe" in for instance a god, and the theist equivalent of that is saying "i lose interest when it gets into science" and nobody will ever come to an understanding in the field

although i don't believe in any sort of deity, i recognize the concept of "faith," because i have intuition, i have trust, i have emotional relations to things and people in many cases almost bordering on spiritual bonds nh, point blank i can understand where theists that don't (attempt to) use logic and reason to substantiate their beliefs are coming from

then again because i'm interested enough in logic and science to conclude that there isn't a reason for me to believe in a "god," i know enough to explain to theists that DO care about justifying their claims that the burden of proof are on their shoulders and that they have a shitload of work to do if they're going to go about "proving" the existence of their god

again, what i originally responded to was that it's not silly to call someone dumb for believing in god, because there isn't necessarily anything contradictory about going to work to study fossils, planets or numbers, and then coming home and thanking god for a good day

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

agree entirely with your first post

about gnostic theists, yeah, i should've said ATTEMPT to use logic, obviously it's a classic shortcoming

my point was that unlike many moderate believers, if you will, there are the theists that do try to justify their positions rationally, as opposed to acknowledge their faith-based convictions and be happy

that's what my comparison was about - calling a person irrational because he or she intuitively believes in the presence of a higher power, is like calling a person unspiritual because he or she looks into a microscope all day; they're not mutual exclusivities and don't really dwell in the same domains

i think it's important to grasp both "languages" to be able to have a discussion like this, because when you say "i lose interest when it gets into faith" you're leaving out a big part of what it means to "believe" in for instance a god, and the theist equivalent of that is saying "i lose interest when it gets into science" and nobody will ever come to an understanding in the field

although i don't believe in any sort of deity, i recognize the concept of "faith," because i have intuition, i have trust, i have emotional relations to things and people in many cases almost bordering on spiritual bonds nh, point blank i can understand where theists that don't (attempt to) use logic and reason to substantiate their beliefs are coming from

then again because i'm interested enough in logic and science to conclude that there isn't a reason for me to believe in a "god," i know enough to explain to theists that DO care about justifying their claims that the burden of proof are on their shoulders and that they have a shitload of work to do if they're going to go about "proving" the existence of their god

again, what i originally responded to was that it's not silly to call someone dumb for believing in god, because there isn't necessarily anything contradictory about going to work to study fossils, planets or numbers, and then coming home and thanking god for a good day

I agree pretty much entirely, and don't necessarily see believing in god and practicing/having an interest in science as mutually exclusive. I do however think that many individuals who do both do not consider the God hypothesis in the ways that it should be with respect to logical analysis and the scientific method. If they apply their beliefs under the same scientific scrutity for god as they do everything else, imo they would come into conflict with their beliefs or cognitive dissonance that they just won't pay attention to.

In science we start off saying we know nothing and everything could be false; as richard Feynman said if you start by assuming religion or god is false it is nearly impossible to derive God as an explanation for something. But with faith? I know its an important part of why people consider themselves theists, but I feel like it is romanticized and almost a manipulation of sorts to convince people that believing in something's existence for no logical reason is a moral virtue. This makes me see faith as indestructible in a way, but something I personally find to be profoundly unscientific and close minded. People are free to believe whatever they want im just analyzing the god hypothesis this way because existence/absence of something is a scientific matter.

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

repped for da interesting conversation nh

[Pee Liker]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

i can't see a reason to question your belief in a god that is merely the type of gut feeling that there is something emotionally deeper than an observable "truth" in the universe that we covered earlier, if that faith is separated from one's interest in other things like science

for instance, i would never go "wait, why do i inherently appreciate music? let's assume that arrangements of notes don't move me and see in what way i can justify having an interest in listening to them;" i intend to stay rigid in that respect because i like music on a "deeper" level than truth-seeking and scientific observation - pause this whole paragraph

i imagine that's many people's perspective on their belief in, say, an impersonal god

obviously if such a faith is used to keep other perspectives and outlooks isolated because science contradicts your worldview, that's a problem tho

and yeah have a rep niggy

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

well then what do you mean by question your belief?

To me, questioning my belief would be trying to evaluate if its true or not (not applicable to the music analogy here) I would know that evidence and reasoned logic are the reliable ways to determine if something is true or false, and that gut feelings are often misleading, incorrect and at best unreliable/not evidence based. ...its profoundly unscientific to rely on gut feelings, let alone when trying to evaluate if your beliefs are true or not. As I see it, many theists don't question their beliefs in the existence of god in a thorough or genuine manner. most ppl don't think there is much to learn/analyze when it comes to god

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

deep shit. im bout to heat up a stromboli, excited af

[Pee Liker]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

this is what i'm talking about tho, your saying "it's profoundly unscientific to rely on gut feelings" is like saying "it's profoundly unspiritual to rely on empirical evidence" - some things you just don't care to vindicate scientifically or rationally because the intuitive conviction suffices, or on the flip side to view spiritually because you're interested in observable and testable criteria

but save that stromboli for some lesbian ass licking porn and a george duke cd or something, you don't wanna waste it on this

[00 Don Status]

Re: Over 90% of Americans believe in God

not me, i always care to vindicate scientifically. But i agree A LOT of people don't always care to. I'm not in any way disagreeing that plenty of people don't question their beliefs