Existence of God - Irrelevant?

[Pista Gyerek]

The meme's-eye view of religion in Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell focuses on the development of attributes that have ensured religion's survival throughout human history. One of the design features most important in this regard is the belief in belief, the concept that religious belief is commendable and positive, whether or nor it's true.

Dennett obviously doesn't think God exists, but he argues that neither do many believers. Who can say whether people really believe nonsense like John 3:16? The only thing that's certain is that people believe in the sanctity of these ideas. This allows the meme-apparatus of religion to coerce people into professing ideas to keep them in social currency, as well as committing acts that demonstrate their dedication to the ideas. The ideas themselves are not the point.

So are we atheists missing the point by simply asserting that God doesn't exist? In the grand self-perpetuating scheme of religion, isn't that actually an incidental issue?

[r~]

"Nevertheless, most physicists believe this unification is possible..."

(Our ancestors)...felt that their behavior influenced the natural elements... This is totally different from the way modern believers think. Their religious behavior consists of mostly inexplicable rituals and illogical professions of belief designed to (at best) net them an intangible reward in some afterlife. Isn't it convenient that the religion meme now has people professing belief in a vague celestial force, not an anthropomorphic deity? That professing faith and behaving according to the arcane rules aren't expected to produce tangible results in this lifetime?

Imprinting is a survival phenomenon that resonates in the reward circuits of the brain; religious rituals thus become imprinted and the meme continues even though the original purpose or belief is no more. Yet I am convinced that a significant percentage still do believe that these rituals invoke God's attention and grace.

If I would propose to someone in the 17th Century that there was a "vague celestial force or spirit" that could carry their image and voice anywhere around the world and beyond, most would not believe. Is it not convenient that (some) atheists believe they know all there is to know about the laws of physics and the big bang and existence? Or that an open mind is a bad thing?

ItS
Peace
r~

[Pista Gyerek]

I am convinced that a significant percentage still do believe that these rituals invoke God's attention and grace.

Okay, but that wouldn't include you, of course, since you're too enlightened to think of God except as a scientifically verifiable 'force.' And there's no reason to worship a non-anthropomorphic force. Right?

Is it not convenient that (some) atheists believe they know all there is to know about the laws of physics and the big bang and existence? Or that an open mind is a bad thing?

Would you rather discuss these subjects in a rational way or take cheap shots? All I've been saying is that the religion debate shouldn't center on God-is-God-ain't. Whether someone believes in a Big Magic Guy or a Unified Force or whatever isn't my business. But the perpetuation of a violent, divisive meme and all its attendant cultural baggage most certainly does concern me, as well as science and society at large.

[Beto]

There's a known metaphysical proposition, said many times to be self-evident.

Saying a something is self-evident does not necessarily make it so.

I'm glad you finally recognize it.

If you wish to start a thread that the scientific method is an argumentative fallacy, please feel free...

Where do you get off at suggesting I said the scientific method is an argumentative fallacy? Since when do you rely on the scientific method to arrive at your "self-evident truths"? The method doesn't rely on axioms. All scientific facts and explanations are subject to test.

If you wish to continue in this thread, at least make a token attempt to respond to the OP

He don't know me very well, do he? Look, if I find a flaw in your argument, I'll pick on it. It's as simple as that. If what you say pertains to the OP, what I say may or may not be relevant. For example:

If I would propose to someone in the 17th Century that there was a "vague celestial force or spirit" that could carry their image and voice anywhere around the world and beyond, most would not believe.

I disagree. To me it sounds like something people could take for granted, even many centuries before. It's hardly an advanced conception.

[r~]

Is it not convenient that (some) atheists believe they know all there is to know about the laws of physics and the big bang and existence? Or that an open mind is a bad thing?

Would you rather discuss these subjects in a rational way or take cheap shots? All I've been saying is that the religion debate shouldn't center on God-is-God-ain't. Whether someone believes in a Big Magic Guy or a Unified Force or whatever isn't my business. But the perpetuation of a violent, divisive meme and all its attendant cultural baggage most certainly does concern me, as well as science and society at large.

I was excluding present company. That is why I wrote "(some)". Please accept my apologies for not clarifying "present company excluded" earlier. If you will re-read the whole thread, you will understand to whom those comments were directed. It is not only the religious that can be divisive.

I might be wrong, but I would guess that the name God being perverted and used for dividing and violence raises my passion even more than it does yours. The fact that innocuous rituals are perpetuated by a religious meme bothers me not at all.

ItS
Peace
r~

[bernee51]

We (all of us) exist. It is self evident that existence requires force. "God" is the shorthand name given to the force (no matter the form it takes) behind existence.

So 'god exists' because existence exists.

Just because atheistic zealots reject this name for that force does not mean there is not a force behind existence; does not mean that we do not exist.

And how else do you believe this 'force' interacts with humanity....other than bringing existence into being?

The point is that we exist and that arguing over a name is counterproductive.

It has not been shown that 'existence' began. There is no reason not to hold an opinion that the universe as we perceive it i.e. existence has, in some form or another, existed eternally.

The celebration of Winter Solstice was co-opted into Christmas. Now it is politically incorrect to celebrate light in the midst of darkness or the birth of one and every child or the love of neighbor because the name "Christmas" is offensive to small minded people – usually atheists.

And how does this effect your celebration of christmas? How is, as you have claimed, your liberty limited?

Ad hominems don't help.

Arguing against names is counterproductive.

However arguing against delusion is not.

My you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[Pista Gyerek]

I might be wrong, but I would guess that the name God being perverted and used for dividing and violence raises my passion even more than it does yours.

Lots of "moderate" believers say that. However, by supporting the irrational belief that creates the violence, they're just reinforcing the behavior they claim to deplore. The violence helps perpetuate the meme, regardless of the professed disapproval of the rest of the religious community.

This is the "spell" to which the title of Dennett's book refers. We're all supposed to respect religion and assume its aims are noble, even when its systemic flaws are revealed. But there should be more honest dialogue about the subject. People shouldn't be afraid to criticize the way religions benefit from having a group of enforcers to commit violent acts. And "moderate" believers shouldn't be exempt from responsibility when they put faith above rational humanistic values.

[r~]

And how else do you believe this 'force' interacts with humanity....other than bringing existence into being?

It gives us life, it fuels our sun and feeds us. It gives us the ability to create shelter and luxuries and travel in space. It also allows us to either annihilate humanity or create an Eden. It is also manifest in "spirits" (e.g. cruel or kind, loving or hateful) that can be passed from one intelligent being to another. If you don't believe me, snarl at some and smile at others and see whether or not their reactions tend to reflect your spirit (do unto others). But that's another thread.

It has not been shown that 'existence' began. There is no reason not to hold an opinion that the universe as we perceive it i.e. existence has, in some form or another, existed eternally.

Science seems to show that the universe as we perceive it was created in and evolved from the big bang. There is no reason not to believe that the force behind our universe does not exist externally and eternally. Arguing against names is counterproductive.

Now it is politically incorrect to celebrate light in the midst of darkness

How is, as you have claimed, your liberty limited?

Their goal goes beyond the rational separation of church and state. That is also another thread.

Ad hominems don't help.

My apologies. I had assumed that you were not one of those small minded atheists and that instead you would be willing to stand against those that give atheism a bad name. Please forgive.

Arguing against names is counterproductive.

However arguing against delusion is not.

[religious meme] Amen [/relmem]

ItS
Peace
r~

[bernee51]

It gives us life, it fuels our sun and feeds us. It gives us the ability to create shelter and luxuries and travel in space. It also allows us to either annihilate humanity or create an Eden.

The universe has provided that.

It is also manifest in "spirits" (e.g. cruel or kind, loving or hateful) that can be passed from one intelligent being to another.

Is the 'spirit' passed? or the effect of 'spirit'?

If you don't believe me, snarl at some and smile at others and see whether or not their reactions tend to reflect your spirit (do unto others). But that's another thread.

It si indeed. One I have addressed in some depth - from a purely secular POV. The 'supernatural' is not a prerequisite to 'spirit.'

It has not been shown that 'existence' began. There is no reason not to hold an opinion that the universe as we perceive it i.e. existence has, in some form or another, existed eternally.

Science seems to show that the universe as we perceive it was created in and evolved from the big bang. There is no reason not to believe that the force behind our universe does not exist externally and eternally. Arguing against names is counterproductive.

Indeed - so why call it god. A concept that carries the baggage of all human frailties.

Ad hominems don't help.

My apologies. I had assumed that you were not one of those small minded atheists and that instead you would be willing to stand against those that give atheism a bad name. Please forgive.

I will defend all against ad hominems - even sarcastic ones. I took no offense - there is nothing for me to forgive.

[r~]

People shouldn't be afraid to criticize the way religions benefit from having a group of enforcers to commit violent acts... there should be more honest dialogue about the subject.

Amen

Lots of "moderate" believers say that. However, by supporting the irrational belief that creates the violence, they're just reinforcing the behavior they claim to deplore. The violence helps perpetuate the meme, regardless of the professed disapproval of the rest of the religious community.
This is the "spell" to which the title of Dennett's book refers. We're all supposed to respect religion and assume its aims are noble, even when its systemic flaws are revealed... And "moderate" believers shouldn't be exempt from responsibility when they put faith above rational humanistic values.

Zealots (not moderates) are the ones that put faith above rational humanistic values. "Moderate" believers are no more or less likely than "moderate" atheists to understand liberty. "Irrational" belief" is more likely to sublimate selfishness into humanitarianism than is logic.

Religion and government and all organizations have systemic flaws; they are called "people". That does not mean we should eliminate organizations.

Dennett (by your account) would throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is counterproductive. It is better to guide religion back toward noble aims – understanding and serving In the Spirit of good and all. It is more logical and productive to use religion against the zealots than to alienate the moderate believers.

Arguing against religion is counterproductive. However, arguing against zealotry is not.

ItS
Peace
r~

[r~]

The universe has provided that.
Is the 'spirit' passed? or the effect of 'spirit'?

Arguing against names is counterproductive.
The supernatural is not a prerequisite to spirit.

Indeed - so why call it god. A concept that carries the baggage of all human frailties.

Your headdress carries the baggage of human frailties (some terrorists have worn similar headdresses). Why wear it?

God is simply one of the innumerable names for the force that is our existence. Yet is one that religious zealots understand. It is wise to speak in a tongue that your enemy will understand.

I will defend all against ad hominems - even sarcastic ones. I took no offense - there is nothing for me to forgive.

Please understand that I am anti-Political Correct. I will call a spade a spade and a bully a bully. I honestly do not care whether or not I hurt a bully's feelings.

Bullies only understand strength. An attack is sometimes necessary to gain a their attention.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

I am
ItS
r~