This asymmetry is significant; advancing education is detrimental to religious belief. This suggest another part of the explanation for religious belief—scientific illiteracy. If we combine reasonable explanations of the origin of religious beliefs and the small amount of belief among the intelligentsia with the problematic nature of beliefs in gods, souls, afterlives or supernatural phenomena generally, we can conclude that supernatural religious beliefs are probably false.
And we should remember that the burden of proof is not on the disbeliever to demonstrate there are no gods, but on believers to demonstrate that there are. In response to the difficulties with providing reasons to believe in things unseen, combined with the various explanations of belief, you might turn to faith.
First, if you defend such beliefs by claiming that you have a right to your opinion, however unsupported by evidence it might be, you are referring to a political or legal right, not an epistemic one. You may have a legal right to say whatever you want, but you have epistemic justification only if there are good reasons and evidence to support your claim.
Fideism allows no reason to favor your preferred beliefs or superstitions over others. If I must accept your beliefs without evidence, then you must accept mine, no matter what absurdity I believe in.
But is belief without reason and evidence worthy of rational beings? I agree with W. Because your beliefs affect other people, and your false beliefs may harm them. Unamuno searched for answers to existential questions, counseling us to abandon rationalism and embrace faith.
You might comfort yourself by believing that little green dogs in the sky care for you but this is just nonsense, as are any answers attached to such nonsense.
If religious beliefs are just vulgar superstitions, then we are basing our lives on delusions. And who would want to do that? Why is all this important? Because human beings need their childhood to end; they need to face life with all its bleakness and beauty, its lust and its love, its war and its peace. They need to make the world better.
No one else will. John G. You can follow him on Twitter hume Why would some of these same authors allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than recant their message? These clues provide healing from spiritual insanity for anyone who is open-minded. Are you open-minded or close-minded about Christ? Who would ever make up a story that a God of love sent His only Son to suffer torture at the hands of men?
How loving is that unless God really did love the world so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins just as the Bible states? Why out of thousands of religions in the world does only one religion offer forgiveness of sins as a free gift?
Why does this one religion just so happen to be the only religion that has each of these 40 authors over years describing the same reality? How did they all get their writings to fit together so well and with so much consistency? Were each one of these authors insane, except for their remarkable ability to agree with one another about heaven and hell and the Messiah? If they were not insane, then why would all the authors over many centuries contribute to such a conspiracy of deceit about a mythical God and a far-fetched narrative of redemption?
Do you have enough faith and enough evidence to truly believe that it has all just been a worldwide hoax? Are you sane enough to see how it takes more faith based on less evidence to reject Christ than it takes to accept Him as your Lord and Savior? How insane is it for you to live 80 years upon this earth for yourself just hoping that the Bible is wrong about Jesus and about heaven and hell? How crazy is it for you to risk spending one year in agony, yet alone forever and ever in unimaginable torment?
Who would ever lie and make up such a place? If you don't believe in absolutes, then you are not really positive that Christianity is wrong, are you? Please read this next sentence slowly and carefully: Are you really willing to risk spending billions upon billions of years in hell rather than repent of your sin and accept a free gift from a loving God who has given us a written revelation of eternity?
What if you really were insane on this issue? You wouldn't know that you were insane, would you? Are you willing to admit that it is possible that you are insane about Christianity and about your need for salvation? How can you be absolutely sure that Christianity is wrong and that you are right? Not the 40 authors over years, but you! What makes you the right one? There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.?
Proverbs To quote a well-known motivational speaker from the ? Stop the Insanity? Do you realize why God has allowed you to read this article right now at this very moment in your life?
If you are unwilling to be healed of your spiritual insanity, then you won? That rejection of God's good news for you would provide you with proof of the insanity of unbelief. Are you too insane to recognize your own insanity, or is there a glimmer of spiritual sanity in your soul today?
Tuesday, November 17, -- PM. Being smart doesn't mean you're honest. It might even mean you're a clever and intelligent liar. While it's possible for smart people who have integrity problems to pretend a belief in god, even smartly--any modern educated human being who truthfully and without evasion asks probing questions about the existence of god will come up with a negative. But that's been the case for near a years now. Sunday, December 20, -- PM. God is nothing but a fragment created by the human mind so that they can live their lives believing they are safe.
Tuesday, December 29, -- PM. The God in whom I believe has created an infinite universe which is growing at an infinite speed. The God in whom I believe has an unlimited control over us, he doesn't need us. The God in whom I believe has created an automated instant punishment system that he doesn't need an end day. The God in whom I believe lets the death being a transfer to another life, better or worse depending on our yields.
The God in whom I believe is the center of the universe, he has created himself from nothing and created the universe instantly without suffering. This is the God in whom I believe! The God in Whom I believe doesn't need us to fight for him. The God in Whom I believe doesn't let us fight each other for him. The God in Whom I believe doesn't need us to believe in him. The God in Whom I believe knows us because he created us, he doesn't need to test us! The God in Whom I believe doesn't need to limit our liberty as we do not offense others.
The God in Whom I believe has created an automated instant rewarding system and an automated instant punishment system that he doesn't need to do it himself at a verdict day.
The God in Whom I believe is equitable, So if our actual circumstances are different it is because our anterior life yields were different. We deserve our actual life! The God in Whom I believe is clement. He can't put us in the hell forever for any reason. He just doesn't mind if we believe in him or not because he has all the control over us. Tuesday, January 5, -- PM. There should not even be an argument for this crap.
There is no God, there is no Devil, no one or thing has a soul. Anyone who believes in any of these things is most certainly delusional. I cannot believe that this BS has gone on for so long, has shaped the world we live in, the laws we abide to, the wars we fight All religions are retarded. I respect people's right to pursue happiness, and if that is religion, then so be it. But in no shape or form do I have to respect their choice.
You do not even have to be smart or articulate to argue the case of the non-existence of religion. It just is not so. I strongly recommend any person with a sliver of self respect to stop believing in religion, souls, magic, energies, ghosts, or anything of the kind because they do not exist and I will not listen to anyone's argument that they do, because anyone who wants to argue that these things are real is a moron with mental problems and I would rather enjoy sushi, wine, or sex.
God can suck my phallic rod, well actually no, he can't, because he does not exist. I will sell you my soul for the price of for free, but you won't get anything, because it does not exist. Maybe I will see you in hell, but most certainly won't, because it will not exist. Ok, well I am done here. I'm going to go to the homeless guy on the corner and buy him a forty, because I know that it will make me feel good inside, and he will get drunk and forget his life sucks for a minute.
Friday, March 12, -- PM. To that guy that claims to have a 4. You may be have a certain strong suit If you believe in god however, rational thinking is not one of your strong points.
Sunday, April 18, -- PM. Monday, March 15, -- PM. I love Jesus. GOD is real, if u dont believe me then u can argue that out with him on judgement day, a non-believer has to admit at some point in his life he has felt a gnawing sensation in his heart but didnt know what it was, im right u know it! If u ask for the holy spirit u will get it, he will guide u, and no im not taking any medications, as a nurse i know that alters ur mind.
I'll be praying for u. Jesus loves u. Jesus loves u!! Wake up from ur sleep all u nations! Saturday, April 3, -- PM. It is easiest to decide who is "correct" by simply picking out the arguments that are presented coherently. They mostly seem to suggest a lack of a singular God. The Bible has every answer because it is completely contradictory.
There is an advert on TV here for a religious show, and the guy on the screen says "Come join me in God's unconditional love" then I say mmm Pillar of Salt? Why are the religions fighting one another? Don't all religions preach peace? What contradictory Bible verse would be a good rebuttal? Wednesday, April 7, -- PM. I do not 'believe' in either god or man, because since BCE man claimed himself to be god and demanded to be called Lord. Patriarchy and slavery blossomed into full feudalism.
Friday, September 10, -- PM. Wow - it's amazing what you can find on the Internet. As I study for our small group session this week, on making a case for God's existence, I am wondering at the depth of emotion across the spectrum of belief presented here.
I can't force you to believe in God and I can't convince you to believe in God. Only you can make that decision. Jesus died on the cross and defeated a mortal death so that each of us could have a personal relationship with Him. All I can do is share that with you and whether you choose to accept Him or not is your decision. Would the atheists be happy if God forced himself on us? If we were all little white-robed wearing proselytes with no free will?
Who knows. Secularists want me to take responsibility for my own life, yet, when I do that and make the most important decision anyone can make, they mock. Blaise Pascal had a personal experience that revealed to him the existence of God. Then he chose to present the case for belief in a mathematical, reasoned way. And people still mocked him.
I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager is the best foundation on which to believe in God - far from it. But for those that are seeking meaning in this life, it is one of countless arguments for at least considering the truth of God's existence. The Bible, from beginning to end, is the story of God's effort to redeem mankind. Over and over, time after time, man turned away from God to his detriment.
Over and over, time after time, God gave mankind another chance. Finally, as was His plan all along, God said, "Here's what I'll do - I will make the ultimate sacrifice and blot out all the terrible things mankind has done. All anyone has to do is believe in Me, accept that what I have done will re-establish the bond I had with mankind in the very beginning, and those who choose to receive My gift will be with Me for eternity, in peace.
You didn't like that but if you were honest with yourself you admitted that you had messed up and deserved to be punished. Hell wasn't created for us but as we continued to disobey God over the centuries, it was clear that of the two places available to spend eternity, it was the most suitable for the disobedient.
But you say, "That's not fair! When you were a kid your parents told you, "If you do this then here's what will happen. He gives us the free will to do so and the full knowledge of the consequences. I'd say that's pretty darn fair. If we had no idea - if we went through our entire lives without the Bible or church or any knowledge of God and His eternal plan - and we ended up in Hell because we had stolen a pack of gum when we were 14, then that would be unfair.
But He has revealed His plan to us; He's given us the rule book; He's told us everything we need to know in order to believe in Him and re-establish our relationship with Him. He's given us the road map to Heaven.
And He has given us free will to choose how we will live our lives. To paraphrase Rod Serling, "There's a signpost up ahead, and on it are two destinations. Sunday, September 12, -- PM.
Well, Mike, if the discussion wasn't already dead, that should pretty well finish it. What can anyone say to that iron-clad argument but "amen"? Saturday, September 25, -- PM. I belive there is a god. Friday, October 19, -- AM. I advise to those in doubt to continue to research the Christian beliefs. Consider context, history and science when addressing the scripture. Remember that you can't get a simple answer to a question that isnt simple. You can't warp Christian belief into your own premature idea then attack that form of "Christian" belief.
There is plenty of evidence to, at the very least, arouse suspicion. I too am curious if it is all true. Which has lead me to much study and its odd how different religions such as Catholicism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam actually were compared to my current view of them at the time.
I am not saying you need to study every religion. I am saying if you choose to attack one then I suggest knowing it. However, I dont advise attacking a religion. I would suggest debating and duscussing it with respect. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Kenneth Taylor. See you soon. Believing in God. Related Shows William James Nov 09, Worship May 10, Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for something. Believing in God Oct 29, Some have argued that there aren't any good arguments for believing in God.
Faith, Reason, and Science Oct 14, Does faith obscure reason? Mar 23, Has science replaced religion? Intelligent Design Jan 17, Is there any reason to think the cause or causes of order in the universe bear an even remote analogy to human intelligence?
Dec 15, In most Western democracies, religions are exempt from certain rules and regulations that most other organizations have to follow. Blog Archive October Persons, Community, and the Akan. Why Is Math So Useful? On Awesomeness. Is Facebook Morally Responsible? Microaggressions and Intention. The Slow Miracles of Thought. Literary Minds. Summer Dylan Reading. Unnecessary Necessities.
The Philosophy of the Vienna Circle. Cracking Down on Disinformation. What Montaigne Knew. Is Meritocracy Possible? A Solution. What Makes A Man? Replacing Freud. What Tech Says. The Mathematics of Democracy. When Do False Beliefs Exculpate? Gaining Knowledge without Learning.
December The Year in Poetry. Finding Minds in a Material World. Should the Arts Be for All? Whose Fault Is It Anyway? Why We Argue About Fiction.
Why Games Matter. Reasons to Hate. Abortion and Humanity. Skepticism and Trust in Science. Philosophy for the Apocalypse. Who Gets to be a Citizen? Does Meritocracy Have Merit? Discriminating Streets. Abortion and Dehumanization. On Jerks and Ethicists. A Cat's Life. The Value of Metaphor in a Pandemic. Benjamin and Modern Enchantment.
The Ethics of Pet Keeping. Celebrating Our th Episode. Covid and the Veil of Ignorance. Your Racist Mental Habits. Demonizing Black Men. Listener Covidundrums. Puzzle 3: Kant on Lying to Robots. Can Philosophy Help in a Crisis? Narrative Burnout. A Pandemic of Dreams. More Money Matters. FrancisOnFilm: Crip Camp. Money Matters. Proust and Social Distance. Puzzle 2: What is an Identity? Philosophy and the Superhero. Trying to Let Go of the Past.
Thinking and Mental Action. Puzzle 1: Are Beliefs Voluntary? Viral Xenophobia. Sorry, Critics: Parasite is a Good Movie. Anti-Sacred Spaces. Is the Self Real? FrancisOnFilm: Dionysus for Docs. Rough Humor. Comedy on the Edges. What the Future Holds. How Much Thought Is Inactive? A Tribute to Ken Taylor. Nonhuman Persons, Nonhuman Rights.
Francis-on-Film: Parasite. Sanctuary Cities. Part II. Hobbes and the Absolute State. Real Horror. Machine Consciousness. FrancisOnFilm: Downton Abbey. Should We Trust Polls? The Appeal of Authoritarianism. Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection. Self Knowledge on Trial. The Doomsday Doctrine. A Simple Test for Fake News.
Postmodernism: The Decline of Truth. The association was also stronger for religious beliefs, rather than religious behavior, according to the meta-analysis, published in in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review. But why does this association exist? Dutton set out to find answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.
For instance, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don't realize it. This so-called "bias blind spot" happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. How much does the ball cost? If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they're less rational in some respects, Dutton said. So why is intelligence associated with atheism?
The answer, he and his colleague suggest, is that religion is an instinct, and it takes intelligence to overcome an instinct, Dutton said.
I can easily dismiss the idea of a guy with a long white beard wearing a toga and sandals as in Zeus or Jehovah. I have also met many believers who also reject that image. Anything outside of that iconic image and I am at a loss to accept or reject any other god concepts. I have had experience in understanding the different thinking styles of the theist versus atheist.
As a kid when I was a boy scout, I remember laying out under the stars and being in awe at the vastness of the universe and the question of why do I exist in all of this vastness. Next to me was a kid who was religious.
He was also in awe of the experience. I am not in the religious camp because it would require me to jump to an assumption with nothing to back it up. It could also be C or D or E, ad infinitum. What I do know is that is the way I think. Are you just gonna throw your money away? Your point makes no fucking sense. Why do you feel the need to bring race a non scientific classification system into the discussion?
It will unnecessarily politicize any conclusions such a study may arrive at. I think that you should examine your own critical thinking skills more thoroughly. Critical thinking dictates that if we happen to theorize about race, then we use experiments to investigate the validity of our theories.
My critical thinking is unbiased by PC political preferences, just facts are my concern. You decide on your conclusions, or rather dismiss them entirely, prior to even considering if race is a valuable area of research. Racial data is free of political meaning, it is only when bigots take that data and twist it to their hateful ends, that it becomes weaponized. Please do not conflate an objective desire for pure research, with lack of critical thinking, just because in your mind, race data, must by definition, be destined for racist purposes.
Evidence indicates that the more intelligent you are, the more biased you are in favor of a wrong answer if the right answer offends beliefs you are emotionally committed to. There really is no better way to create atheists than to tell people to read the bible.
It is chock-full of extraordinary claims and baseless assertions that a rational mind will feel compelled to reject. Then the rest of the bible is a very good psychology book showing people especially your personality types dismissive and egotistical behaviror down to a Tee.. So techincally the bible could be a metaphor for science. I even see some videos with quran having scientific metaphor init. Yeah science is late to the game but it puts a clearer picture on thing.
Numeric systems are over 40, years old, and the oldest evidence we have demonstrates an ability to count — and conceptualize — past Numerical systems with base 10 and 60 had been in use for thousands of years before the Bible was written….
Genesis is not similar to evolution plants did not appear before the sun, marine life did not appear after plant life, water absolutely did not appear before light. For starters. Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent people. They win hands down in IQ tests against any other group of people.
The eargument is seriously flawed that atheists are more intelligent. On another note a Catholic Priest who attended Cambridge was the first person to propose the Big Bang which is now generaly accepted, it is also the position held by the Catholic Church. Believing something with no proof is not possible, your very own brain and human mind will NEVER allow you to believe anything without the proof! How could I know what your own mind is saying to you? And that applies to every human being apart from those with mental issues.
Oh yes, why have you all been lying? Religion Itself is responsible for more murder, more torture, more inhumane, heinous atrocities than can ever be seen as acceptable.
Seems it is. So tell me, how many need to die before religion becomes unacceptable? Mankind has fought many wars, killed many millions of people in the name of religion. There have been more human lives lost to religious beliefs and causes than can ever be seen as acceptable in the eyes of any sane man, whatever they believe.
Believing In one religion creates animosity from another religion. Religion bickers and argues with Itself, that process creates hate from one religion toward the other, that hate becomes the war, that war becomes brutal unnecessary human death in the millions. It always has since it began, and what is it? What is religion? I believe both in God and in Communism. And having to explain this, is only because this is what religion uses to portray the atheist. Ridiculous, and really does show the religious mindset and how ther trickery with deception works.
Atheists, are no more or less capable of evil than anyone else, but it seems that murder, particularly mass murder and war, is a sin of commission. Many fight for patriotism, for country, tribe or race. Atheism, simply lack of belief in a God, has not yet proved compelling enough to motivate murder. It will come one day, when the people will have had enough of the killing, the Wars, the brutality and the excuses.
And do you know what else? The undeniable truth really is, we have no evidence of a single thing the religious claim, Not one thing at all can be proven or ever has been proven. Common sense dictates to us that religion is not real, and therefore should be banned around the world.
How could any good decent logical thinking person possibly disagree with that?? By its very nature then, belief or faith in the supernatural is the antithesis of science and the scientific method.
The facts speak for themselves. If you believe in the alternative supernatural realities presented by any one of the 10, recognised religions practised on the planet today, then you are effectively not operating in the scientific reality of The biggest threat the world faces today is not climate change or unsustainable living or global warfare. It is the god delusion. The god delusion divorces us from reality, divides us, allowing us the luxury of procrastination that prevents us from acting responsibly in a timely manner as one species.
Finding atheism being allowed to disbelieve was the most liberating event of my life. That is what real christianity, as proposed by its founder is about, not prancing about performing sanctimonious rituals in the hope you might get into the afterlife.
But why is it even considered good to help the poor? The strong survive, and the weak are taken out of the gene pool. Not only that, but the world would be decidedly more boring if everyone became atheist. I see all the problems you mention within organised religion. Do the means justify the ends? I would argue no, as the problem of religion only spreads. Setting that point aside, do religious people volunteer their time or money more than atheists?
Second, whose contributions to society are greater, believers or atheists? Considering the science and technology community are highly-predisposed to atheism and that as this study shows, they tend to be more intelligent, and as other studies have shown, they tend to care more for civil rights, I would argue that whatever modest, minor good works the religious contribute, atheists have contributed far more.
His assertion is not irrational, on the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If being Christian or Muslim or Hindu, is about being morally virtuous, then do virtuous things that benefit the whole earth.
Do not, waste your life in prayer, the effectiveness of which is disproven every year, but do something real. If every religious person who goes to a Church or Mosque, went out and picked up litter for just 1 day per week, the Muslim and Christian areas of cities, would be pristine havens, amazingly clean and well kept places.
If anything would tempt me to become religious, it is that areas in which these people live, are evidentially better and more pleasant in which to live. That makes perfect sense to me.
Preach good, do good. A real atheist would understand how natural selection works. I doubt that you were really an atheist, except in the weakest sense.
As usual, poor grasp of what they are countering. In this case, he argues the strong survive. In this case, social groups are made the strongest, or best adapted to the particular demands of their environment.
Hence, he is right, the social cooperation is what makes the social group strong. In chimps, cooperating to surround, corral and then kill small monkeys is an example of superior behaviour, which provides food, survival and subsequent transmission of successful DNA.
Evolutionary pressure is multi-variate. You might increase your chances of survival as an individual, in the short-term, by cooperation. Hence, only the strong survive, in action.
I have a theory that this is how homosexuality might have continued, if, it is significantly genetic, as suspected. I theorise that the principle of proximity often leads to gay men forming sexual relationships with heterosexual women.
Spending time together often overrides other tendencies. Hence they get to pass their genes on, but without needing to be, or fight, the Alpha male pack leader. Homosexuality, might be a clever natural side step of physical superiority. Maybe reducing the number of alpha male fights, in conjunction with female guardianship and possibly acting to culturally define masculinity something to compare against and what a women should prioritise in her mates for the best chance of a successful breeding cycle.
Interesting stuff. Is it possible that a bunch of agnostics or atheists are just, ya know, not real Scotsmen, so to speak, and thus are the ones engaging in hypocrisy?
The terrible fact of the 20th century is that the greatest mass killer of all time is the modern atheist state. Mao and Stalin killed more people than all religious wars combined. I urge you to form opinions that are informed by facts. There is also no such thing as language outside of the human brain either, but it is very real and important. Then we have the Crusades…oh were sticking with the 20th century? Do you want to discuss the incessant war over Isreal, the planes flown into the twin towers, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by fundamental muslims over the years or do you want me to stick with just christianity?
Stalin and Mao and all the others, were ego infected mentally ill people. They had paranoic delusions and absolute power to implement their sociopathic urges. You blame a movement or philosophy, when it specifically dictates something.
Such as the prohibition of Homosexuality or disparate rights between the sexes, as with some Abrahamic religions. The no true Scotsman fallacy applies to religious extremists, because people say, if they did this horrible thing, then they were not true Muslim or Christians. That is wrong because they gained clear and traceable instruction from scripture.
Where is the instruction to kill for atheists? Your argument is entirely wrong. Are we allowed to believe in God at the same time that we volunteer at a homeless shelter as we all know, religious people NEVER do stuff like that , or do you forbid combinng belief with action? Todd you say you are smart but it is crystal clear you fall on stereotype for your so called facts… religionous people host homeless shelter soup kitchens, parenthood help for singe mothers, community services.
I loved this! Technological advancement would be expedited tenfold if the world worked as one. Religion is getting in the way of that! I think a lot more disturbing is the trend with many, where there is such an obsession and dependence on social media that it has basically become a replacement for religion, many turn to it for all their answers needs and comforts as they would a church, and cant leave their devices for more than 10 minutes, yes I am an atheist but I believe this trend has just as much if not more impact on overall IQ levels.
A fundamental principle required for deciding the truth is to establish the kind of evidence which is required. Unfortunately the existence of God cannot be known through science. Ironically, while causality is at the heart of science, it rebuffs the claim originating with the Greeks that there must be a first cause which contains the potential for all that exists.
That logical argument has never been shown to be false. Which is more intelligent; to accept that there must be a first cause or to refuse the logic of the argument?
This platform is not to debate the existence of god. Even if it was, it is impossible to argue with the self-deluded. Because these beliefs are not reinforced socially, they are held to be incorrect by the majority, the beliefs being unique to the individual. A dose of anti- psychotic meds and the beliefs and psychotic symptoms go away. A belief system does not have to involve a god at all. There are plenty abounding in psychology for instance! Have you ever tried to argue with a person suffering anorexia that their belief about the normality of their body shape, size and food intake is not correct or argue that an individual is not a reincarnation of a famous pop star who committed suicide and who is doomed to repeat that act in fulfilment of their self- fulfilling prophesy?
Well, religious belief is constructed and maintained in an identical way to any other belief. I really hoped that being right, would be enough to convince someone of the vegan position years ago, but I soon learned that people choose or are given their position and only then do they shoe horn the evidence to fit their position. Maybe psychology, as the amphitheatre of thinking, should set out instead to formalise a rigid set of objective rules for binary argument.
You made an emperically testable assertion. If belief in God is a delusion akin to psychosis, then taking antipsychotics should markedly decrease or even eliiminate belief in God. Does this happen? Maybe you should test it. All physical things which impinge on our senses must be physical, rule No1 of causation. The same rule that necessitates a dismissal of free will and in fact consciousness itself, as nothing but user illusion. First cause is a supposition, not based on any real evidence. Causality is eternal and infinite, it must be so, as all things have antecedents and are composed of reducible parts.
You now have to consider what potential infinite causality has to have in order to produce what we experience. You may have a little problem to overcome, however. You have dismissed freewill. From which it follows that your conclusions can have no truth value since you are claiming that they are inevitably a result of a chain of causalities which you cannot analyse.
And, by the way, you have abandoned the concept of morality because you hold that we have no free choice to choose the good rather than the bad. You are, so to speak, hoist with your own petard. Fortunately for you, your grasp of causality is weak at best. You fall at the first fence, assuming that concsciousness is a thing at all. Evolution just required that the human animal produce a set of outputs, as if consciousness were a thing.
These outputs include reflexive descriptions of the human model of self, reacting to and describing their own outputs. There is no-one doing the experiencing, just outputs, or thoughts, that simulate that fictional self. To say that free will could ever be a thing, you have to say, something exists that is not caused. Nothing does exist of that nature, other wise it would not be physical and hence not knowable by human or machine senses.
Non-Sequitur chap, sorry. You have zero evidence for a god and even less reason to make huge leaps in inference, as you do. Morality and such matters are easy enough to live by, due to the practical demands of life. Dear Nick, thank you for your splendid answer. I see where you are coming from. It would be great to debate this face to face but I doubt if anything would be solved. Of course none of my questions were answered.
0コメント