RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:31:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aviinterra
For someone so secure in their atheism, you take a lot of interest in God, the Divine, faith and religion- often such interest can be seen as a sign of insecurity.

Possibly mc is looking for the Divine, or more specifically for the Creator as an incarnation of part of the Divine. If so, he is going about it in the wrong way, looking for his securities of objective evidence. It is better to start by going back to one's childhood. Ever sat on the lap of Sinterklaas or Santa Claus? Ever celebrate the death of the old year and the birth of the new year? Ever walked in a forest and been aware of the cycle of life and death and rebirth? Ever worshipped the sun? Ever seen the Green Man?
 
Worshipping the local bar owner is a start. But if a search for the Creator ends there, he will not be found.




farglebargle -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:35:35 AM)

quote:

I was referring to the survivors.


Oh. What's the percentage of Athiest Survivors of Athiest Deceacedants who chose to forgo a funeral vs. those who choose to have one?

And thinking of that question, I wonder WHY the concept of funeral rights is necessarily tied to any religious components.

Maybe the point of funeral rights, in general, is that animals leave or consume their dead. WE ARE NOT ANIMALS.

I dunno. All I ask, though, is when I'm gone, raise a glass in my memory sometime, ok?

Animals don't do that either.

I don't know. Does this touch on my reference to http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran Scott Atran's comments about science an religion in another thread?







LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:36:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Precisely.

Life is irrelevent to the dead but the life of the dead lives on in the imagination of family and friends.


But, but, but..... where is the evidence that the life continues? Where is the evidence for this thing you call imagination?

These are illogical captain.

E




farglebargle -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:37:41 AM)

quote:


To believe in something for which there is no evidence is a sign of not thinking



Ok, this DOES hook into Scott Atran ... Once again, the URL http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#atran

"Science can sometimes deeply inform politics or ethics; however, I do not think that science can justify either. Consider:

(1) The Basic Irrationality of Human Life and Society."




aviinterra -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:39:03 AM)

quote:

To believe in something for which there is no evidence is a sign of not thinking and to quote Seneca 'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.


Historical uses of religion are not a way to determine whether or not God exists.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."  Albert Einstein






meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 7:42:32 AM)

Albert Einstein if you read him correctly, uses 'god'  and 'superior spirit' etc. as a metaphor to describe the physical universe.

ie. God does not play dice. = the natural laws of the universe do not play tricks.

Edit : corrected quote.

If you want to play with Einstein quotes.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.




aviinterra -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 8:12:06 AM)

And could not the whole be God- and hence the universe that Einstein was refering to indeed as he said it- a "superior spirit"?

quote:

  I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.



You seem to be relating God as passed down in our culture- generally a vision of the Hebrew God. I think Rule had it right when he pointed out we should be using the word Divine instead- using the word God forces our minds to take into account certain cultural and religious influences that had come into our lives. A God in our own image is actually quite a new idea, and the same can be said of immortality. I think you are fighting more against religion than against the existance of God.




meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 8:20:24 AM)

The following definitions are from dictionary.com. I see little difference. It is all a little woolly to me as to what divine actually means and no more clear than a vague notion of god. People experience the separation of mind and body and that appears to be why people believe in a 'god' or the 'divine' but we understand why dualism exists and it appears to be purely functional. 




1.
of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.



2.
addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.



3.
proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.



4.
godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.



5.
heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.



6.
Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.



7.
being a god; being God: a divine person.



8.
of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine.



9.
Obsolete. of or pertaining to divinity or theology. –noun



10.
a theologian; scholar in religion.



11.
a priest or member of the clergy.



12.
the Divine,



a.
God.



b.
(sometimes lowercase[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]) the spiritual aspect of humans; the group of attributes and qualities of humankind regarded as godly or godlike. –verb (used with object)



13.
to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.



14.
to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.



15.
to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.



16.
Archaic. to portend. –verb (used without object)



17.
to use or practice divination; prophesy.



18.
to have perception by intuition or insight; conjecture.




QuietlySeeking -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 8:42:26 AM)

Funny thing is....according to Scientific Method, you can *never* prove that something is true, only that it is false. 
Could someone please provide me the evidence that God is false, does not exist in a manner that every human being can replicate (because if evidence is not replicatable, it is not evidence).

mc?  Care to take that "proof" on?




meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 8:53:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

Funny thing is....according to Scientific Method, you can *never* prove that something is true, only that it is false. 
Could someone please provide me the evidence that God is false, does not exist in a manner that every human being can replicate (because if evidence is not replicatable, it is not evidence).

mc?  Care to take that "proof" on?


You can't prove something doesn't exist.
 
If someone produced god out of their pocket and said this is god, told me the attributes that make this god a god, that would be another matter. But even if I proved that this god didn't have the attributes that this god was supposed to possess, those people who believe in god would simply say, god refuses to be tested.

What gets me is that people who believe in god can't produce a single piece of objective evidence. They appear to believe because they believe and for no other reason.




MistressNoName -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 8:55:41 AM)

I'm actually just curious as to why this topic keeps coming up. Is it really neacessary to try to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of "God?" I don't understand. If some people believe and others do not, isn't that okay? I mean, if "God" accepts this, why can't we?





Lorelei115 -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 9:18:19 AM)

quote:

Oh. What's the percentage of Athiest Survivors of Athiest Deceacedants who chose to forgo a funeral vs. those who choose to have one?

And thinking of that question, I wonder WHY the concept of funeral rights is necessarily tied to any religious components.

Maybe the point of funeral rights, in general, is that animals leave or consume their dead. WE ARE NOT ANIMALS.

I dunno. All I ask, though, is when I'm gone, raise a glass in my memory sometime, ok?

Animals don't do that either.



Oh, so you mean people do that just for the comfort of it? Despite the fact that it flies in the face of logic and hard science?

Fancy that. [:D]




Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:02:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressNoName
I'm actually just curious as to why this topic keeps coming up.

Some people have intense and extensive existential problems, I guess.

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
But even if I proved that this god didn't have the attributes that this god was supposed to possess, those people who believe in god would simply say, god refuses to be tested.

You still insist on using the inaccurate and ill-defined word god. You do not even define it yourself, but will accept the definitions of others. Please stop telling me the fairy tales about how objective and scientific you are, for you are not. There are plenty of incarnations of the gods out here, but as long as you stop at worshipping you local bar owner, you will not find them, let alone test them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
What gets me is that people who believe in god can't produce a single piece of objective evidence.

The myopic and perhaps blind Thomas the unbeliever refused to believe in the resurrection of Jesus until he put his dirty fingers into his wounds. Then he had his objective evidence and then he believed. Whether or not you are as much of an unbeliever as Thomas, if he could believe, so can you, mc.
 
Stop looking for objective evidence and instead go sit on the lap of Santa Claus. It is subjective evidence that convinces a believer.




meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:31:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Stop looking for objective evidence and instead go sit on the lap of Santa Claus. It is subjective evidence that convinces a believer.


Oh Right! God is Santa Claus!!!!!

*MC walks away shaking his and thinking, why didn't they say that in the first place* 




Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:47:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking
Care to take that "proof" on?


No, actually the funny thing is how you managed to jump into the middle of a discussion with just about the most simultaneously facile and ignorant point. If you understood anything about scientific theories you wouldn't even pose this question. Furthermore, this has been asked and answered ad nauseam.

Where's is your proof? Right - you got zip, zilch, zero, null, nada...

I could make my god of the gaps "Frosty the Snowman" but it doesn't make it so nor does the act of my believing it make it somehow less irrational. It is utterly irrational because the belief is founded upon literally nothing.




NeedToUseYou -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:48:03 AM)

Things that are illogical and irrational that must be abolished!!!

We must only believe in the provable.

Art is a illogical, irrational waste. Anyone that believe otherwise is wrong, no one can prove their is any value in any art, or it means anything. It's just irrational emotional garbage. (Same as most are saying about God).

Entertainment is a illogical irrational waste of time. No provable benefit can be shown.

Sports, complete waste of time, it is just a huge pissing contest, and provides nothing of value that couldn't be gained in a more efficient manner elsewhere.

Dating, boy this is irrational. People rationally should be paired to produce the best offspring, not pander to these illogical urges and impulses.

Casual Sex, illogical irrational behaviour that increases risk of disease, or in the case of birth control defeats the only logical reason for sex which is producing offspring.

Wealth ownership, this is illogical, one only needs basics necessities to survive and reproduce.

Medical care, it is illogical to sustain the ill, or defective.

Universal Education, this is illogical, as some jobs do not require a high degree of education or any education in some instances.

Vacations, this is illogical, this activity puts undue stress on non-renewable resources and wastes time that could be used doing logical activities.


On and On and On......

Now, I don't really believe those things are bad, or even illogical. They would be from a purely scientific view that disgards innate human traits. This is what to a large degree the atheists are asking of the religious. BE PURELY LOGICAL, but the atheists aren't even logical using purely scientific view of humans as they are asking the religious to be. Using the standard of proof to deem what one can or should believe in is hyprocrisy at its highest form because none of us will even come close to passing that standard.


Here try making a list of what is important without introducing a human assumption for "proving" it actually is important or true. It really isn't possible, because we made it all up from top to bottom.

Example list:
Freedom of Expression(no real evidence this is important)
Property Rights(completely human concept, their is no such provable thing as ownership).
Human worth(This is really quite the opposite, there are to many humans destroying the equillibrum of the planet, it would be logical to kill a few billion off)
Value in general of anything(Nothing can be proven to be more important than anything else)
Free Time(Why is this important, but most believe it is necessary).
Medical Care(Why keep the weak alive, but most believe it's important to treat them)

On and On and On. What is my point, everything and I mean everything any of us believe in is unprovable if you removing the basic human created underlying concept accepted as fact. Unless I guess a person believes nothing? Hmmmm, Haven't seen any of those lately.

Argument: Humans don't need free time
Counter Argument: It's been shown that humans are happier and do better work when they have free time.

Under lying human assumption used as fact: Happiness matters, and how they work matters. Now it seems that is a stupid argument to say those don't matter. But where is the proof that our happiness and work matter. The only logic beneath those next layers are also human assumption.,

Argument: God is Stupid.
Counter Argument: I feel happier and better knowing that there is an afterlife, and the universe isn't chaotic.

Under lying human assumption used as fact: Your Happiness matters, and your thoughts on the afterlife matter. Now it seems a stupid argument to try to convince someone not to believe in something that makes them happy. But where's the proof.

Argument: Art/Entertainment/Sports are retarded waste of time.
Counter Argument: It make people feel good to watch such things, and happy people make for good citizens.

Under lying human assumption used as fact: That feeling good is important, that good citizens are important, or further that civilization is important for that matter.


Most of these things are treated as factually important parts of the human experience, and most couldn't imagine life without them or some of them.

It is a small leap from believing any or all of Music, Art, Sports, Human worth, medical care, education, property rights etc are relevant to human existance to believing that the concept of God is important to many humans. They are all made up concepts that aid in making us happy and content. They are impossible to prove of being of any value at all when you exclude the human assumptions. So what if some say that God is real. Others say that art is important and push that into schools as if it has real value. Prove it in a way not based on a human assumption that anything you believe is important or trully has "value". You can't......

Oh some smart ass is going to say I can prove hydrogen has one electron or something like that. But GOD isn't about physical science. GOD is about emotion, purpose, equillibrum, hope, justice, etc.... This is what the atheists miss focusing solely on the pure sciences aspect. God is a spiritual, emotional, thing, like love of art, or belief in karma, or belief in right and wrong, human worth, etc.... Those sort of things are purely human constructs every last one of them. Pure and simple. You can't scrap God, without replacing it with something else. And you can't compare measuring sand to belief in concepts like justice, equality, rights, political systems, god(which for most embodies those idealized concepts).  One is a real science, and the others aren't science at all. I'd say nearly universally recognized as fact concepts such as human worth, rights, government, are just as important as hard science facts.

Anywho, Atheists can beat there head against the wall until it bleeds, or they come to realize, that god is a social construct. No different than a belief in rights, or karma. It's a way of thinking about things in terms of HUMAN interaction and sets in place IDEALIZED controls and systems of RIGHT and WRONG. It also sets in place a system of mental reward and punishment mechanisms. Just like society does with it's social mores, taboos, fame, etc.... So, what exactly is to be proven wrong or right here that is of consequence?

Is all of this about Evolution, Where the Universe came from? Does it really matter? Those things won't affect us and there is so much to learn about the little questions that those questions aren't even worth mentioning. Like how does gravity transmit instantaneously when theoritically nothing can move or transmit faster than light. Or How to power a house without fossil fuels. Etc. Etc... Belief or Non-Belief in god is non-consequential for most scientific quests and doesn't even relate really.


So, I'm confused why people are so concerned with getting rid of "god" when there are so many illogical, irrational notions we accept as fact besides god. (okay, I know someone is going to deny believing anything so they don't get caught, so how about I say "most" people believe in some self-evident truths"

Why is this different? And when militant atheists realize that they stop being militant atheists.

No one here can claim not having at least one belief not based on proof.





Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:53:47 AM)

We do those things because they are useful , not because there is some truth value to them.

You are comparing belief to a variety of things like emotions, pleasure and ethics. That's like comparing apples to rocketships.

BTW, you haven't made your point at all.




Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 10:56:38 AM)

http://www.fodderstompf.com/LYRICS/firstlyric.html#RELIGION




SirDiscipliner69 -> There is No Penn Jillette by GOD (1/12/2007 10:57:04 AM)

There is No Penn Jillette by GOD
 
 
Ross
 




LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/12/2007 11:00:22 AM)

Excellent NTUY!

E




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875