logo Sign In

Religion — Page 92

Author
Time

I remember the fact that I read it, but I don’t remember a thing about it. I did a lot of drugs in high school.

Author
Time

Then again I did skip or miss on average 45 days of school each year in high school so I may have just not been present when I was supposed to read it.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

The most important thing I learned was that basic knowledge of German made Middle English much more readable. All those kids taking French and Spanish were really struggling.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus, the problem with your imaginary duck hypothetical is that it relates to nothing. If theists viewed God in that way it would be just as nonsensical.

The duck was a man-made invention that was purpose-built to be an entity that can neither be disproven nor fully understood. So in that sense it’s exactly like gods – the fact that theists and atheists view such things differently was the point. The feathers were added to highlight the implausibility angle.

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Two books come to mind which I can’t distill very well without more time and thought. First, in “Reality and Identity” by Emile Meyerson (available as scanned on archive.org), there is a good exploration of provability and questions about the foundations of scientific understanding. If you’re super interested/motivated, pages 27-28 get to what I have in mind.

In passing, free will is mentioned. Free will is a concept that seems the go-to junction of science and religion. So far there is no resolution of the question whether free will exists.

Which brings me to the second book, “The Measure of Man,” by Joseph Wood Krutch. The gist is similar to the aforementioned pages by Meyerson, but focused on free will. Basically, whatever science might possibly explain, it can’t foreclose the existence of free will, though science tries. For Krutch’s purposes the existence of a God is neither here nor there.

Maybe free will is like an imaginary invisible duck, but I don’t think so.

I see the same relation in those debates to the debate over whether God exists. And if free will exists, we might ask pesky questions like where does it come from.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

The difference between God and your duck is that God doesn’t order a drink and then demand it just be put on his bill.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you. It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god. You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

If I believed in God I would find your duck oversimplification as offense as what Dawkins says. I don’t necessarily mind insulting people either, by the way. I just think it’s weird that you would be insulting to theist while simultaneously claiming that religion is a benefit to society.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

If I believed in God I would find your duck oversimplification as offense as what Dawkins says. I don’t necessarily mind insulting people either, by the way. I just think it’s weird that you would be insulting to theist while simultaneously claiming that religion is a benefit to society.

There’s also a difference, in my mind, between answering someone’s question about what I believe honestly in a way that may offend them or someone else, and calling people idiots for believing what they believe, which is what Dawkins does.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

But it’s not adding new roles, but a fundamentally different conception of God. Whether one finds any particular asserted attribute of God to be implausible or absurd can be discussed. Some claimed qualities will be more like feathers and bills, but we must also be on guard not to dismiss possible attributes just because we don’t like them.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

calling people idiots for believing what they believe

That’s pretty close to what you’re doing with the duck thing though. From a certain point of view. 😉

You saying that believing in God is equivalent to believing in the space duck just sounds like mocking.

Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

The space duck might be real though.

Sans feathers and bill, maybe.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

It’s definitely beyond any condescension I’ve seen Dawkins use. I’d rather be called an idiot than told my beliefs are dumber than believing in a cosmic space duck.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

But it’s not adding new roles, but a fundamentally different conception of God. Whether one finds any particular asserted attribute of God to be implausible or absurd can be discussed. Some claimed qualities will be more like feathers and bills, but we must also be on guard not to dismiss possible attributes just because we don’t like them.

You’d started on this point earlier. i.e. Just take a conception of God, strip out all the stuff you find implausible, and what you’re left with is a concept of God that works for you.

The trick is, with me, if I strip out all the stuff I find implausible, what I’m left with no longer qualifies as a god in any sense. In fact, I’m pretty sure what’s left is just a squirrel. You know, mammals being less offensive than birds and all that 😉

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I used to feel ambivalent* towards this thread, but had forgotten the reasons why. Now I remember.

*The correct definition of “ambivalent”, as in having mixed feelings.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

But it’s not adding new roles, but a fundamentally different conception of God. Whether one finds any particular asserted attribute of God to be implausible or absurd can be discussed. Some claimed qualities will be more like feathers and bills, but we must also be on guard not to dismiss possible attributes just because we don’t like them.

You’d started on this point earlier. i.e. Just take a conception of God, strip out all the stuff you find implausible, and what you’re left with is a concept of God that works for you.

The trick is, with me, if I strip out all the stuff I find implausible, what I’m left with no longer qualifies as a god in any sense. In fact, I’m pretty sure what’s left is just a squirrel. You know, mammals being less offensive than birds and all that 😉

I’m not saying strip stuff out until it works for you. I’m saying through the application of reason (and increased knowledge) certain conceptions may be effectively ruled out (eg those that resemble an unknowable and irrelevant cosmic duck) while others remain plausible, whether or not one accepts them as fact. The idea that any concept of God may be ruled out remains, as Frink said, more unlikely than someone knowing for certain that God exists.

If you treat God as man’s own creation from the get-go then that is where you will end up. Your standard for implausibility remains opaque. The cosmic duck may be - unbeknownst to you - conveying the secrets of the universe to you, but there is plenty we might say is “implausible” without indicating we actually possess especial insight. I wager there are people here on both sides of the debates over time travel, string theory, sasquatch, ghosts - I find the first two implausible, though I wouldn’t say I know they are false, and the latter two factual.

I still don’t know how anyone can have such certainty to know there is not a God.

*Squirrels, who have a longstanding feud with birds, are awesome.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

*Squirrels, who have a longstanding feud with birds, are awesome.

And here we find our kumbaya moment. Here’s to continuing the struggle against the rear guard of the dinosaurs!

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)