Should god-claims be taken seriously?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Correct, apparent. I have a lot of beliefs, which apparently works. That is all

No... you also have a realm that your "beliefs" are based upon which performs and informs in a consistent manner day after day for both you and your other human cohorts on Earth. And again - you simply MUST react to the reality you are presented with. But you DO NOT have to react to realities you are NOT presented with. Major difference there.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, but only as personal evidence. Not objective evidence as per science and not evidence of whether reality is real or not.

Fine... but isn't trying to establish what is objective one of the staple activities in any endeavor that seeks to reach success on some determined goal?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No... you also have a realm that your "beliefs" are based upon which performs and informs in a consistent manner day after day for both you and your other human cohorts on Earth. And again - you simply MUST react to the reality you are presented with. But you DO NOT have to react to realities you are NOT presented with. Major difference there.

There is no evidence for that.

Yes, the everyday world is the physical, the social and the individual and you can't use evidence on all 3. The methods are different for all 3 categories. Evidence only apply to the physical and the rest of hard/natural science,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine... but isn't trying to establish what is objective one of the staple activities in any endeavor that seeks to reach success on some determined goal?

Yes, you are close now. One, but not the only one. Because some determined goal is always personal and without evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no evidence for that.

Once again, you are misrepresenting the truth here. There IS evidence. I now have to conclude that you are purposefully lying just to muddy the waters and get your way. And your way seems to be to want to allow anyone and everyone their fancies and fantasies as claims to some form of "reality", and to get everyone else to agree to do the same. Well, I simply refuse. Any control you believe you can assert on me is something for which you have zero evidence. Boom. Eat it.

Yes, the everyday world is the physical, the social and the individual and you can't use evidence on all 3. The methods are different for all 3 categories. Evidence only apply to the physical and the rest of hard/natural science,

Okay - and are you then trying to say that people's claims of "God's" reality are all made with the person making the claim understanding that they are only making a that claim in a "social" or "individual" capacity? As in, those people all understand that their claims of "God" do not represent a claim made about "physical reality?" If that is your belief, then guess what? A great horde of evidence I have born witness to points to the contrary. And since you don't rely on evidence, you don't have any evidence of this claim yourself.

 

[PureX]

Why would exploring "why things are the way they are" necessarily involve investigating god-claims?

Why wouldn't they? Especially when so many humans have for so long attributed these questions and possibilities to the God ideal.

If anything, it seems like focusing on gods would be a distraction if that's what a person cares about. Why not start with that wider question and follow the results where they lead instead of going through an endless list of gods and asking yourself "is this god the reason why things are the way they are? How about this slightly different variant? How about this other slightly different variant?", etc., etc.

I see no reason to get caught up in the endless variations of OTHER people's god concepts. That would be distracting, I agree. So how about investigating your own. The ones that you were taught. The ones you rejected, and why you rejected them. The ones that you consider possible. The ones that you would prefer. And so on.

I can't imagine why an intelligent human wouldn't want to consider this area of human ideation, nor why they could not easily generate a number of god-concepts that they could consider viable possibilities.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, you are close now. One, but not the only one. Because some determined goal is always personal and without evidence.

Then keep it personal. Don't share that goal with me, and don't try and get me on board to adhere to the same goal. That's all I ask. I, personally, don't like it when people parade their crap around as being "the way things are." It isn't something I am going to put up with. I am going to lay the smack down as best I am able. And your little "but reality isn't necessarily real" schtick is in no way going to stop me. Not even close.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, you are misrepresenting the truth here. There IS evidence. ...
...

I can help that you don't understand that you are also a product of nature and nurture and that truth and evidence are human cognitive, personal constructs.
What you claim is not possible and have never been done. There is so such truth. Truth is as a word no different than God. It is in the mind and nowhere else.

Start here:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

There is a lot more. But that you are in effect not educated on what truth and evidence is, is your problem. Not mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then keep it personal. Don't share that goal with me, and don't try and get me on board to adhere to the same goal. That's all I ask. I, personally, don't like it when people parade their crap around as being "the way things are." It isn't something I am going to put up with. I am going to lay the smack down as best I am able. And your little "but reality isn't necessarily real" schtick is in no way going to stop me. Not even close.

How personal of you. I do it differently in practice. That is all and I am an atheist and in effect naturalist.

The things are so that we individually have personal different world view. That is it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can help that you don't understand that you are also a product of nature and nurture and that truth and evidence are human cognitive, personal constructs.
What you claim is not possible and have never been done. There is so such truth. Truth is as a word no different than God. It is in the mind and nowhere else.

Start here:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

There is a lot more. But that you are in effect not educated on what truth and evidence is, is your problem. Not mine.

I am not the one with some glaring misunderstanding of things.

I have many times admitted to you that yes, everything is subjective. But just like the idea that you can't start naming anything as "objective" without first establishing a "goal", our perception of "reality " works in this same way. The "goal" being what we individually, or collectively wish to achieve once we understand the rules within which we can act within the reality we are presented with. And so, within this reality, the "goal" of adhering to God's word has absolutely no correlative evidence to the reality we experience except a bunch of words written by a bunch of guys who many times in the same texts expose that they have little idea what the hell they are talking about, and then propagated by a bunch of people who apparently can't be arsed to think for themselves. And ALL of that I understand exists only within the subjective construct of human experience. That DOESN'T MEAN that I am going to cease reacting to this experience as best I see fit. And again - YOU CAN'T STOP ME. As far as I am concerned, all evidence points to your opinions about the invalidity of my operation being something that can be easily ignored without consequence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not the one with some glaring misunderstanding of things.

I have many times admitted to you that yes, everything is subjective. But just like the idea that you can't start naming anything as "objective" without first establishing a "goal", our perception of "reality " works in this same way.
...

You are reducing everything down to the objective. That is not possible. You are as subjective as all other human. You just treat your subjectivity as an universal, objective standard. Just as some religious people do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You are reducing everything down to the objective. That is not possible. You are as subjective as all other human. You just treat your subjectivity as an universal, objective standard. Just as some religious people do.

No, I am not, and I just explained to you that I am not. I have a reality I am presented with, and within this reality, I am presented with many things. None of them are "God." That is what I am saying. Maybe some of those other people feel that they are being presented with "God." Fine, but I don't have to care about that. I don't. I don't have to react as if their reactions to reality are completely cogent and comport with my own. I just don't. I am not going to. There is absolutely no reason. And yes, I am going to argue for the reality I experience JUST AS THEY ARE ARGUING FOR THE REALITY THEY EXPERIENCE. Seriously Mikkel! Why aren't you going after them just as hard as you ride the atheists around this site, huh? You OBVIOUSLY don't really care about whether or not people are speaking in subjective or objective terms! You're just here to side with the theists, for whatever reason. You're welcome to it... but just know I'll be around to fight you at every turn, because I simply don't like what you're doing. I find you dishonest, ridiculous, and annoying in the extreme.

And here's where we lay bare the problem you have CREATED FOR YOURSELF - YOU don't have any evidence that you can present to me that can inform me that my subjective experience and decisions I have made based on what I am presented with is at all somehow incorrect or wrong or bad. You don't! So just admit it, understand that I am still going to go for the throat (within this reality) of any theist who speaks in absolute terms about their crappy ideas of "the celestial realm." Do whatever you think is best... just know that you aren't swaying me. Not with your trying to constantly boil our shared reality down to some figurative, non-existent abstract idea.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Indeed, that makes sense. But I don't know how you'd answer those questions a priori without first considering the definition/explanation of the God being defined/considered. So whether to take the claim seriously is completely contingent on what is actually being proposed.

Exactly. Ding! You take the prize.

So the next time somebody tells you, "God exists," you merely need to ask, "what is this 'God's' nature, and how does it exist?"

Now you are absolved of any further work until they have answered in a meaningful way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

And here's where we lay bare the problem you have CREATED FOR YOURSELF - YOU don't have any evidence that you can present to me that can inform me that my subjective experience and decisions I have made based on what I am presented with is at all somehow incorrect or wrong or bad. You don't! So just admit it, understand that I am still going to go for the throat (within this reality) of any theist who speaks in absolute terms about their crappy ideas of "the celestial realm." Do whatever you think is best... just know that you aren't swaying me. Not with your

My bold as italic and bold. Correct. But that applies to all humans. I can't evidence evidence say you are right or wrong. Nor can you do that with me.
Your position that other individual worldviews are crap also applies to you. That is your standard applied to everybody including you. But you won't aspect that. So what should I accept that for anybody including you and me and everybody else.

You purpose in life is not the absolute, universal standard for anybody else. That is so for all humans including me. The joke is that you want to speak for we, but don't accept diversity for what we humans are.

So here it is: You and your worldview is crap and you are nothing. HaHaHaHaHa!!!
Now I don't mean that, but that is your standard. That is not mine. We do morality and useful differently in the end, it appears.

 

[dybmh]

Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously?

From a practical perspective, the question is asking if there is benefit to examination whether or not a God or gods exist.

I think there is potential for benefit as long as the risks can be limited.

One example of a benefit that came from examining whether or not God exists, comes from the eastern religions that examine whether or not God or gods exist through meditative practice. Many people report relief from stress, anxiety, and depression from these practices. Perhaps these benefits and techniques would have been discovered without the initial religious motivation, perhaps not. It's an example of a benefit that was derived through the process for examining whether or not a God or gods exist.

Another example that I've brought up in the past is Maxwell's demon who was theorized to violate the laws of thermodynamics. This concept was proven to be accurate, and is being used to develop highly efficient molecular computers. Perhaps these molecular computers would have been developed without Maxwell borrowing the demon concept from the religious context, perhaps not.

In both examples above, religious ideas facilitated real benefits which are disconnected from the original claim that God/gods/demons exist. It's theorhetically possible that other tangential benefits may be discovered as part of the process for determining whether or not a God or gods exist. This happens in science. Curiosity alone triggers investigtion, which results in discoveries that are not directly related to the inital motivation. It's a reason why god claims should be taken seriously.

However, this logic only holds if the benefits are greater than the liabilities. If those who make god claims also engage in hostility towards academics and the scientific process; then, the potential benefit is minimal compared to the potential for harm. In the extreme cases those who make god claims deny health-care to their children, refuse vaccinations, enforce dracronian restrictions and punishements on non-believers, etc.

Because of this, I think that god-claims should be taken seriously as long as the one making the claim does not exhibit hostility towards academics, the scientific community, and people who do not share their beliefs. Those who harbor this hostility, their god claims should be ignored and not taken seriously because the harm outweighs the potential benefit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly. Ding! You take the prize.

So the next time somebody tells you, "God exists," you merely need to ask, "what is this 'God's' nature, and how does it exist?"

Now you are absolved of any further work until they have answered in a meaningful way.

So what is existence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But why would not even consider it a "reasonable idea"?

Because there's no merit to the idea on even a surface level.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because there's no merit to the idea on even a surface level.

Your merit is subjective and without evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

Since you seem to have missed it in the OP:

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

I didn't miss it, I just don't see an important distinction there given "reality" as humans understand it is always a story we tell ourselves at the end of the day. It's map of territory. All maps are true or false granting certain non-falsifiable assumptions, and have varying uses. All of them. Including god-concepts. I don't understand why one would make some special exception for those maps of the territory. Then again, I've never understood that sort of rigid and dogmatic "One True Truth" thinking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My bold as italic and bold. Correct. But that applies to all humans. I can't evidence evidence say you are right or wrong. Nor can you do that with me.

And?

Your position that other individual worldviews are crap also applies to you.

A fact that I readily admit. Does this stop me from attempting to question other people's worldviews and even trying to get them to realize how crappy they really are for themselves? That is, does it stop me from trying to get someone to see their faith the way I see it? Absolutely not! Aren't we having fun?

That is your standard applied to everybody including you. But you won't aspect that. So what should I accept that for anybody including you and me and everybody else.

It is completely within anyone's sphere of potential activity to rebuke anyone else for anything that said person is doing. With that in mind, a theist is perfectly within their "rights" (after a fashion) to attempt to convert anyone else. However, if I don't like it, then I am also within my "rights" to tell them so! Which is exactly what I do. Now... the main difference here is that I have no substitute doctrine to offer them as to how to live their lives. I have no affirmative offering, or anything I am asserting is "truth" that they must necessarily accept. You probably mistake my giving theists EXAMPLES of items that I DO accept, as my telling them what they must accept. But the truth is, all I am attempting to do is establish between us an item which is readily accepted by both of us, so that they can have an example of something that has enough evidence going for it within our shared reality such that I am willing to accept its premises.

And yes, I request that they stop parading around ideas they can't evidence even within the (to your mind - which you seem to have already made up, even though you can't possibly know this) limited reality we experience. I am perfectly within my "rights" to request that they stop doing this, and within my "rights" to call this behavior ridiculous, and to talk in such terms to anyone and everyone who is willing to listen. But again... I am not the one offering wares that I feel others must accept. I have no wares. All I have is a request that others not brandish their wares to me unless they can demonstrate the worth of those wares. And if enough people make the same request, and those wanting to brandish said wares finally get tired, perhaps they will either stop, or finally go out and find the REAL DEAL so that they can finally convince everyone. There's something in The Bible itself, in fact, about blades sharpening one another. That's exactly what I am trying my best to do. Does everyone else need to believe that this is the best thing to be doing? No. I don't claim such. But it is what I am going to do, and continue to do... regardless what YOU have to say about it.

You purpose in life is not the absolute, universal standard for anybody else.

I never actually said that it was. But again - I can request that people stop trying to talk me into things that do not comport with my standards.

The joke is that you want to speak for we, but don't accept diversity for what we humans are.

Again here - there are certain things I feel that I can speak for "we" on - because I am only referencing them as examples of things that are experienced mutually within our shared reality. Most often it is things that we can all simply take for granted - like gravitational forces. There's really no twisting your way out of that one. At least not that has been evidenced yet! And those are the examples I am using to attempt to get people to understand what types and categories of items I am referring to when I say that a thing is "intersubjectively verifiable" (meaning verifiable between any two subjects), or that an item comports with the reality we share. I am speaking of the things that we can mostly take for granted because they are unchangeable, and have proven themselves consistent time and time again, day after day, to any or all of us. Again - this is WITHIN the shared reality. And you STILL have not answered to why anyone in their right mind should react in any extreme to anything that DOES NOT present itself in their reality. Care to take a stab at that one? Remember also that I have never presented any such thing nor argued for such a thing - which makes my stance decidedly different from the position taken by any theist who does make such assertions.

So here it is: You and your worldview is crap and you are nothing. HaHaHaHaHa!!!

Which I needn't accept. I readily accept that you might feel that way - and you're entitled to feel that way. Just as I am entitled to feel that what I am doing is the best thing I can be doing in this particular realm of activity.

Now I don't mean that, but that is your standard. That is not mine. We do morality and useful differently in the end, it appears.

You can mean it - it's not as if I am going to care about your opinion. I think we established that already.