Is theism outdated?

Not at all. I fall into the the deist/theist category in terms of my beliefs. Not outdated at all, in my opinion.

Well, the belief that the world is going to be destroyed, and that the believers are going to repopulate it, may be a hurdle as far as getting theists to try to preserve our planet, so perhaps that part isnt very healthy.

I think “outdated” is a bit of a vague term in this context. There are still many people who believe in gods. Surely you can’t say humankind is too old for that sort of thing now. Apparently it isn’t yet, or the temples would be emptier.

But I expect, and hope, that in the future people will at some point learn to let go of the last bits of religion, the way they already have let go of the really archaic barbarisms and most of the real world assertions.

Yes of course it “is practical, or even healthy, to believe in God anymore”! Personally I for one would think with all the science and other data available, theism would die a slow death but HS just look at these Mega Churches God is alive and well and even profitable based on these Mega Churches impact alone.

Whatever makes people feel good is fine with me. Live and let live, just don’t force your beliefs on others. Personally, I’m a skeptical agnostic. I don’t know and will not know until I’m dead. Goodness is its own reward and needn’t depend on “pie in the sky”. I hope that someday I’ll be reunited with my lady, but my rational side says that’s not going to happen.

It’s just my opinion, but I fail to see how we wouldn’t all be better off having faith in ourselves and using reason and compassion to guide us along our paths.

Is humanity ready for that, sadly, I don’t believe so.

I don’t think it is outdated; its continued existence and the fact that over three quarters of the world’s population are theists is enough to dispel that idea. However it is superfluous, and it not necessary to lead a good life or to achieve intellectual satisfaction. Theism is far from dead, but in time as education becomes more accessible and critical thinking becomes a habit rather than a learned methodology I hope it will start to die out.

And what if critical thinking leads us to Theism?

Oh how silly. In spite of people who do not believe in a god [myself among them], many more still do. Religions provide structure and ethical code for many people. Many beautiful buildings and great works of art, music, and literature have come into being because of major religions and more is still to come.

For me it is. They say the root of all evil is money, but I think it’s neck and neck with Religion. The things religion makes some people do are sickening and I think people are getting tired of it being used as justification for evil deeds, like war. God is alive and well for billions but religion is very slowly dying on the vine. I’ve read a few studies and I think it’s very interesting that female attendance is declining more rapidly than the men’s.

A relevant quote from a speech by author David Foster Wallace:

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, bet it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
And what if gravity leads to flight?

@anartist
“Religions provide structure and ethical code for many people.”
Do they, now?
My experience with mainstream religious people is that their ethics seem to be mostly identical to the ethics of non-religious people, and the only ethics more or less exclusive to religious people are ideas not worth adopting. Such as “women should stay indoors and cover up their hair”, “homosexuality is a sin”, “we should bother people when they’re having dinner and hand them a Watchtower” or “we should sever all ties with our families if they don’t support our religion”.

“Many beautiful buildings and great works of art, music, and literature have come into being because of major religions and more is still to come.”
That was in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. All we have left now is Christian rock and crackpot bible fan fictions.
Religious art has jumped the shark.

There are still some humans with primitive minds. But more people are starting to realize that the notion of god and religion are not needed now.

As far as Christianity goes, I don’t think theism is dead, but rather that its concept is, or has, transitioned into more social factors, the very same factors which over the centuries had slowly pushed God out of our homes in the face of a faster paced world which saw the need to change the aspect of necessity when it came to guidance, security and control.
The changes may be subtle, but they’re there, why else would God be so ’‘unimportant’’ yet still so prevalent?

I don’t see much of a difference in between going to church and going to vote or watching the evening news and then forming your mindframe on who’s right and who isn’t, but I might very well be off my rocker. Keeping informed is, of course, good, but nobody can deny that the way a lot of it is treated is very much reminiscent of Christianity’s obsession with power, control and remarkably frightening sense of strife.
This prolly doesn’t make any sense, but as Christianity is highly responsible for man’s social evolution, it most certainly still has its say with Ipods and cellphones.
I say this because other than what is most likely faulty logic on my behalf, I view religion as a concept which drives organizations or ideas, rather than an actual thing of its own.

With that said, that’s not everywhere in the world. I’m sure there are plenty of cannibals and Pygmies out there who’d let anyone who’s askin for it get their heads mounted on a pike for pronouncing the forbidden name of some demon or talking to the wrong tribe member, or some dude who’s gonna make your life a living hell because you have bewbz.

Sure it is.

In any case, it’s not about what’s trendy or even terribly practical. Believing in God is on the same order of importance as believing in gravity, not like having a membership at the local Y.

@Nullo Not to hear all them televangelists tell it, haha.

I think that religion today is a little outdated. I believe in god, but do not belong to any religion. I think that most religions are a little manipulative and cause wars and strife. I think that people should believe in a god though, just for comfort, and eventually that will die out too. But now, thinking there is some more powerful being, looking over us, and that things have a reason, it great solace to many people

It’s only “healthy” to believe in God when you’re in a community or family ready to burn you alive (figuratively or otherwise) if you don’t.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If that most unlikely of possibilities occurred, we would be compelled to design a theistic belief system from scratch, while minimising the impact of the existing ancient imaginings on the design process.

@kevbo “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships.”

That is absolute garbage. To worship is, in a general sense, “To regard with extreme respect or devotion; to ‘adore’” (Oxford). I do not believe in a deity, I am not materialistic, I am not egocentric, and I do not put any one thing first in my life. Instead, I have a balance between study, work, recreation, going out with friends, and all the other things that occupy my time. In order to worship, a person must set up something as greater than themselves, and pretend it is worthy of their veneration. A well balanced atheist does not do this, but gets on with life without the hindrance of pretending everything they do is in homage to some higher being.

We need to be more specific what we mean when we say “God.” Because some people use the word to mean a vague notion of the universe, or some abstract clockmaker deity that can’t be disproven or proven and has no effect on our lives.

But specific Gods like Yahweh? Allah? Zeus? Marduk? Yeah, they belong in the dustbin of history. They are obviously fictional characters. And they are extremely poor moral examples.

To all Atheists on this thread… A Q? about me specifically for you…

Do you suppose that my Theism is a mental illness… some form of delusion… am I sick?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I do not think it is a mental illness, it is just an idea about the state of the world that I personally believe is wrong. You may also believe in String Theory, which I think is wrong, without being mentally ill. I think it is possible to live a better life as an atheist, which is why I do not generally support in their beliefs. I also think that physicists would do better in advancing our knowledge of particle interaction if they dumped String Theory and went back to the basics of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Of course there are some forms of belief that, while not being mental illnesses, are severely decadent. For example the belief in earning Paradise through blowing up yourself and innocent people, or the belief that by forcing people to stick you your inviolable rules you are doing them a favour. Neither of these reflects a thinking person, or encourages survival and a well-rounded life.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I suppose it’s a gift handed down from your family. You were more likely than not raised to believe and you must feel in your heart it’s the right way or you’d become an Atheist like me. It didn’t feel right for me and I followed my heart to Atheism.

@FireMadeFlesh

Earlier you suggested that becoming a Theist through critical thinking would require abandoning current religious teaching and instead,“design a theistic belief system from scratch”.

So I need to ask, is your issue against Theism one of rejecting religion (current and past incarnations), or do you reject all possible God concepts in general, sans religious interpretations?

@Silhouette

I’m sure what you say is quite true for many so called believers. Do you feel that’s the only reason (programmed heritage) that people remain Theists? Would there be any other mechanism that might lead a person to believe in a sentient and intervening higher power beyond our known physical reality?

@Fyrius

What do you suppose has led numerous critical thinking philosophers over the centuries to believe in a ultimate creator? What might make a previously Atheistic scientist to do the same?

@Qingu

You are wise to suggest that we present specific definitions for what we mean when using the term “God”. I would offer your advice to both Theists and Atheists alike.

So please allow me to be very specific, and let me know if you have any good reason to think me mad.

God = Truth = Information

Satan = Deception = Entropy

This is the position that I currently hold. It was pure science and mathematics that brought me to this position. But there is more.

God/Truth/Information… is a sentient agent responsible for everything living and alive.

Satan/Deception/Entropy… is not a sentient agent and represents non living energy/matter.

This is the position that I currently hold. It was philosophy that brought me to this position. But there is more.

God/Truth/Information… is the driving mechanism behind any world religion that adheres to principles of The Word or The Way. Beyond the dogmatic religious teachings that have bastardized the original essence of meaning, I have found much unity between Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shamanism, and even Alchemy among other disciplines including but not limited to Genetics and Cloud Computing. The best encapsulation would revolve around Bhartrihari’s _Sphota Theory of Language

Now before you call the white coats on me, please understand that I do not suppose to know it all or suggest that I have everything completely worked out. For instance…

It seems to me, that Satan/Deception/Entropy can indeed become alive, but only when the ego of humans reject God/Truth/Information in favor of their own desires. In this sense, the Christ and Kirsna warn of a Spiritual Death. They offer instead, Spiritual Life by acknowledging God/Truth/Information. I’m still a little vague on this, but I think you’ll get the idea.

This is the position that I currently hold. It was Theology that brought me to this position. But there is more.

What I’ve encountered, is that the base foundations of every world religion are the same. Yes, we can discuss the differences birthed by dogma all we want. But beyond that, breaking it down to core principles, is a message of living life by Truth.

The different religions are just like different languages. “See the dog run” means the exact same thing as ”见狗运行” or ”कुत्ते को चलाने के लिए देखने के लिए”. But at first glance, it seems so different that we automatically think it couldn’t possibly relate.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Your post sounds exactly like the conclusions Ive been drawing recently. Im still studying, but I do believe thats theres an overall message to be learned here. I keep coming back to Truth, The Word, and The Way as well. This cant be coincidence. Also the language thing. Ill have to keep researching, but I have a few developing, basic ideas stewing in my brain. Lol

Yes. Existence is Language. Degrees of consciousness are directly scalable to degrees of language capacity. Everything living and alive is created by language. Our reality is defined by language.

Word!

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Language is the expression of those things, not so much the actual existence of them.

@KeithWilson
Remember that the earliest form of Christianity was called “The Way”... Just like the eastern teachings. Christ specifically denied the disciples from going into Asia. I theorize that the missing years of his life were spent in Asia, either to learn or to teach.

@zophu

Everything living and alive has a genetic code. It is formed by that code. The genetic code is the language of life. And it’s just as much of a code as any other language code that humans or honey bees have ever authored. Who authored the genetic code?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Whatever, I see what you mean. Language is what defines things . . . by definition. Good luck realizing that perception of reality is only a part of actual reality and no author is naturally required, thus no author exists (unless it’s authored.)

Unless that Author IS Information incarnate.

You want to define God as a being that is confined to the same physical restraints as human physicality. Well, I don’t believe in that kind of god either.

And one thing we know about codes… all codes… is that they have authors. You can’t just say no author required when that has never been demonstrated throughout all of history. Why should genetics get a free miracle?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I have a philosophical, abstract objection to the existence of any god/gods. I do not think such concepts accurately reflect reality, or that they are conducive to furthering the collective understanding of humanity. If I were proven wrong on this point, we would need to design a theistic belief system that fit this new proof.

Religion is what makes theism toxic. I generally have no problem with deists, because their deism does not make them discernibly different to atheists outside of religious discussions. Religion can take the ideas of theism, and use them to incite masses of people to take ill-considered action on key issues. Theism, in the hands of religion, starts to accumulate political and economic power – and that is when it becomes a global problem.

@FireMadeFlesh What if anything but abstract conceptions of existence as a whole is toxic? Religion is just theism that’s been outfitted with more specific absolute rules that great fools use to exploit and control lesser fools. The core problem is the disrespect of reality in unnecessary presumptuousness—more specifically with theism: belief in omnipotent beings.

@zophu I know many people who believe in ‘something out there’, or believe in a god without practising any rituals in relation to that belief. I have an abstract objection to this, but it is not toxic in the way that religions are. For example, debates surrounding abortion and euthanasia tend to be religious vs. secular ideas, when it should be individuals debating it rather than their religion. A fluid, abstract belief in a deity would not be sufficient to incite hundreds of thousands of young Muslims into conflict, nor would it be powerful enough to affect voting patterns in the US.

@FireMadeFlesh I think that theism, or at least monotheism, is toxic even when disregarding its relation to religion. Being psychologically capable of believing in infinite intelligence while considering human intelligence is similar to (on a simpler but related scale) being able to imagine the “perfect child” while considering your own “imperfect” child as you hold it and look into its eyes. It’s unhealthy for the individual, and for the people around that individual. And now reapplying the relation between theism and religion and the forces that go behind spreading and maintaining religion, it becomes poisonous to humanity as whole. Is that too philosophical and abstract an objection to begin debating with?

@zophu The nature of the faith meme means it is strongest when it perceives it is under attack. This makes it easy for the theist to form religious sects with others of a similar persuasion, and hence the division I have placed between theism and religion is largely trivial since it only refers to a very small minority.

Of course I belief that life is better lived without theistic beliefs, but I see little value in arguing against the relatively benign forms.

@FireMadeFlesh: Belief in “higher power” is the source of not only religions but so many other forms of inhumane ways of thinking. It isn’t just certain forms of theism that I argue against, it’s the belittlement of human intelligence that is unacceptable. I see arguing directly against religion over theism to be less valuable, actually. It isn’t the beliefs that are the essential problem, it’s the ability to hold those beliefs, the lack of wisdom that would otherwise make such concepts impossible to revere, that is the relevant problem here. Humanity is where the power of existence is, exclusively. Whether or not alien intelligences exist isn’t the point, but I suspect they would be in the same boat as us—the same Humanity.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“What do you suppose has led numerous critical thinking philosophers over the centuries to believe in a ultimate creator?”
What I suppose is that numerous critical thinking philosophers over the centuries were raised into religion when they weren’t critical thinking philosophers yet, and when they grew up they failed to properly apply their more sophisticated epistemic skills to every belief they held.
You might be surprised how many people can be rational about things they have no emotional investments in, but involuntarily navigate their questioning around the beliefs they subconsciously want to protect.

“What might make a previously Atheistic scientist to do the same?”
Hypothetically speaking? A miracle might. A miracle that unambiguously indicates the involvement of some entity that the term “ultimate creator” would need to be coined for. What such a miracle would be like, I don’t know.

But my beliefs predict that rational, scientifically educated people who have no prior partiality to religion and have no other non-scientific motives for belief will not develop a belief in a creator.

@FireMadeFlesh

I agree with you that religion can be detrimental to society. In previous posts, I’ve gone as far as calling it evil. It is the mouth piece of dogma.

But I am not so inclined to label the original scriptural texts as dogmatic evil. The ancient scriptures are not religion. They are stories. Religion manifests upon the teaching of those stories, and the bending of them to suit and support a particular human agenda.

Within those original stories, sans religious dogma, lies a great wealth of layered wisdom. The deepest layers (beyond the childrens picture bible) negate any need (for me) to create a new Theism from scratch, for they speak to the fundamental essence of what it means to be human. I cannot expect you to understand this without having studied the varied ancient scriptures intensely. If you had, or have, you may notice that modernity is still wrestling with the same old issues of pride, ego, deception, whilst foisting the individual will upon others by any means suitable to the cause, including, and most often, by promoting the noble lie.

I fear this new Theism. For ultimately, the original intent would be perceived, reinterpreted, bent to fit, serving only the desires of men. It is the destiny of man to butcher purity. Nothing retains its essence in the hands of humanity. Our unwillingness to accept and learn is a curse. We must reject truth, for that is part and parcel to our humanity.

And that’s the point. Learning to accept Truth, without the need to bend it to fit our desires, is a process of developing a co-joined relationship with Truth, rather than attempting to control Truth. That relationship, sans control, is precisely the mission of Truth… It’s the only mechanism that allow humanity to move beyond humanity.

We must abandon our humanity to be capable of relating to Truth.

@zophu

Are you arguing against Theism… or Religion?

You seem to suggest that any Theism is an insult to human perception. That sets up human perception as a false god, for I’m sure we all agree that human perception is not without its misconceptions. To rely only upon ones own senses and feelings, that to me, sounds the most archaic of all approaches.

@Fyrius

So basically what you are saying is that any form of Theism can be attributed back to some type of mental disorder. Do I read you correctly? Is it true that you believe there is no good reason to allow for any Theism?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies ” Do you feel that’s the only reason (programmed heritage) that people remain Theists? Would there be any other mechanism that might lead a person to believe in a sentient and intervening higher power beyond our known physical reality?”

Like I said in my answer, your parents introduced you to God, your heart tells you what to do with that introduction. So many people try to make religion about intellect, logic, it’s all about the heart. If your heart feels fuller when you believe in God you will remain faithful to God. If it feels fuller without God, you reject the idea of a God and get busy taking control of your own purpose.

@Silhouette

So you do think that the only reason that people are Theists is because of programmed family heritage.

Are there not any Theists who grew up in a family of parenting Atheists? What about when a Christian becomes a Muslim or a Jew becomes a Hindu? Are there no Atheist scientists that grew up with Atheist scientist parents, who later became Theists because of what they consider to be the scientific evidence for such a position?

Or is it all just programming, and thus, all Theists are suffering from a mental disorder?

BTW… I completely separate Religion from Theism. I also separate Religion from God. They are all too often conflated as being the same things. That’s why I don’t quite agree with your statement that “many people try to make religion about intellect, logic…”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies No, like I said in my two previous remarks, it’s about following your heart.

I’m sorry someone made you feel like you had to defend your religious mentality, but it wasn’t me. I’m all for the religious, if it makes them happy I say, bravo, belly up to the bar now serving tranquillity. For me, my peace comes from within.

“That’s why I don’t quite agree with your statement that “many people try to make religion about intellect, logic…”

That’s okay, it’s my own personal view point I’m just throwing it out there, I’m not trying to convert anyone.

What religion do you think I’m defending?

What religion do you think I follow?

What science is validated by “following your heart”?

And please address my question directly:
“Are there not any Theists who grew up in a family of parenting Atheists?”

I don’t know and I don’t think it really matters to this conversation which religion you are defending.

I don’t know and I don’t think it really matters to this conversation which religion you follow.

Wasn’t my intent to defend science, but the simple fact that you think it was validates my idea that people try to make the theists vs. atheist issue a logic puzzle.

And to directly address your question “Are there not any Theists who grew up in a family of parenting Atheists?” I’m sure there are, I’m sure they brushed up against religion and it felt right for them so they stayed. For instance, my eldest son decided he wanted to go to church to learn about God, so every Sunday and every Wednesday I drove him to church. He stopped going to church, but he hasn’t yet decided if he believes in God, I’m certain when he chooses it will be because his heart gave him the answer, not church, not any argument for or against, not his daddy and I, his heart.

It most certainly does matter “what religion”, for you have accused me of defending my “religious mentality”. And you said that someone “made” me feel that way.

So I’d like to be perfectly clear about your accusations. You seem to think me a religious person. Why do you believe that?

Do you not see the differences between religion, theism, and God?

____________________

I wish your son well on his quest for answers. I hope he can see the value of reason and critical thinking whilst pursuing his path. No disrespect, but I have little confidence for “following the heart” or “gut feelings”. Those are exactly the “feelings” that create dogma. If not kept in check, and contrasted against reason and evidence, the heart can lead us astray to folly in all manner of deviant behaviors.

How many world leaders followed their heart in their attempt to conquer the world?

How many cult leaders followed their heart like Marshall Applewhite, convincing people to commit suicide so they could meet with the galactic aliens flying past on the comet?

How many child abusers follow their heart because butchering children brings them great satisfaction?

I’m tempted to go on but you get the idea, and I really don’t want to disrespect your point of view. But I do have some seriously pointed questions about it.

I guess I’m somewhat confused about your position too. How does one really follow the heart? How does the “heart” send messages or give instructions? You must be using the term metaphorically, otherwise it all sounds quite mystical and spiritual.

And finally, how does your own situation with your son relate to your earlier comments that people are “programmed” to be Theists? Certainly you (as Atheist I presume) didn’t program this desire to search out alternatives to Atheism… did you?

Confused am I.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Accused? Really? You have your nightie in a knot because you think I was accusing you of some horrible crime? Your answers all include a pro God stance and your obvious annoyance with me and my answers not to mention this ”
To all Atheists on this thread… A Q? about me specifically for you…

Do you suppose that my Theism is a mental illness… some form of delusion… am I sick?”
have all lead me to believe you are of religious bent.

No, I do not see one iota of difference between, religion, theism, and God.

No disrespect, but the examples you have posted as reasons to avoid, no fear, following your heart are absurd. The heart wasn’t what lead the world leaders to try to conquer the world it was their greed. The cult leaders weren’t following their hearts, they were jerking off on a power trip. Child abusers following their hearts??? Sheesh…....

You don’t know how to follow your heart? You have never been motivated by emotion? You think atheists are less spiritual aka prone to compilation than the theist? We aren’t.

I’m sure I said you are handed a set of beliefs from your family and your heart tells you if these are right for you. I was raised with religion and I followed my heart to atheism.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“So basically what you are saying is that any form of Theism can be attributed back to some type of mental disorder.”
I don’t think I’ve even mentioned the term “mental disorder”. Please paraphrase me properly.
I think most forms of theism can be attributed to either indoctrination or a proclivity for magical thinking. But what I’m basically saying is that it can not be attributed to critical thinking, not without significant bias and/or some rather profound fallacies.

Ironic fun fact: my active interest in rationality can be attributed to (trying to deal with) a mental disorder.

“Do I read you correctly? Is it true that you believe there is no good reason to allow for any Theism?”
There’s one excellent reason to allow it – people have a right to make up their own minds. Telling people what they must believe is a horrible idea, counterproductive at best and inhuman at worst.

But from the point of view of someone figuring out what’s true, there is no rational reason to believe in theism. It’s an irrational idea. It’s anthropomorphism taken to an extreme.

@Silhouette

I never said it was a “horrible crime”. I asked if it was a sickness. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Why are you talking down to me with “nightie in a knot”?

I simply asked for clarity on your statements. There is no reason to be upset with me or talk insultingly. You have no basis for assuming me as a religious person. If you were not being accusatory, then you were over presumptuous at the very least. You seemed convinced that someone had bent my mind, alluding to the mental disorder that I originally questioned.

Your position, as a fundamental Atheist, suffers the same fallacy as the fundamentalist Christians. There is a huge difference between the definitions of religion, theism, and God. The dictionary will confirm this as more than just my opinion.

And when people talk of greed, they typically speak of greed in one’s heart. When people talk about hatred, they typically speak of hatred in one’s heart. Reference to a blackened heart is a common phrase. So what’s the difference between the heart that you speak of and the heart that I refer to? They all seem based in trusting your feelings. But my experience has demonstrated that feelings can be wrong, judgmental, misguided, stirred by fear, anxiety, and anger, and should not be the end authority to base one’s life decisions upon. Feelings can be jaded.

There is no need to “Sheesh” me. I’m simply asking questions about your position. I do not jump to presumptions. You haven’t asked me anything about my position. But you did jump to conclusions, and I suppose will refuse to acknowledge the differences between religion, theism, and God, though they are clearly defined as separate things. You won’t find they are used as synonyms for one another either.

Please, don’t make the mistake of forcing me to believe in the same god concept that you disbelieve in. Please don’t hold me to your standards of what you think these things are.

@Fyrius

Thanks for clarifying. So, instead, “It’s an irrational idea.”

Now tell me please, is your position qualified to claim my experience and knowledge base as irrational? Would I have any basis for claiming your Atheism as irrational in return?

Leaving town for a few days. It’s been informative. Thanks to all.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Talk about putting words in someones mouth. I have talked to you with matching respect, if our conversation has started a downward spiral and I’ll agree that it has, I’ll blame it on mutual talking down to each other, you can blame me. I presumed nothing, you said yourself ” A Q? about me specifically for you…

Do you suppose that my Theism is a mental illness… some form of delusion… am I sick?”
You connected yourself to religious beliefs.
You are reacting with aggression to your own assumptions like this one, You seemed convinced that someone had bent my mind, alluding to the mental disorder that I originally questioned. I never said that, I never even hinted at it and I know this because A. what I said is right up there ^^^^^ in writing and B. because I don’t believe it’s a mental illness so I wouldn’t say I did.
I don’t give a fig Websters defines these three words as different, they relate to faith in God and they are the same in my book. Your book may well be written differently than mine.

“There was no need to Sheesh me” You’re right I apologise, I reacted to the frustration of your continued misreading of my words, it felt like you were being purposely obtuse and to be perfectly frank, it still does.

Typically speaking, when someone is telling you they followed their heart they are speaking of love. Feelings can be jaded hence the corruption in the churches, but I’m pretty sure you knew what I meant when I told you I did what I felt in my heart was right and I chose not to fake a belief in God.

“Please, don’t make the mistake of forcing me to believe in the same god concept that you disbelieve in. Please don’t hold me to your standards of what you think these things are.”

Back at you. I have not tried to force you or anyone else for that matter to believe what I believe and I said that just as plain as day way up there^^^^^^“That’s okay, it’s my own personal view point I’m just throwing it out there, I’m not trying to convert anyone.” Once again you saw what you wanted to see and I cannot be held accountable for that.

You asked me to clarify and I did. I have not even attempted to argue you out of your position. You on the other hand, have tried all along to adjust my point of view. If you could just show me the flaws in my logic I’d change. Which brings us full circle, “So many people try to make religion about intellect, logic, it’s all about the heart.”

I stand by my statement.

*

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “You may notice that modernity is still wrestling with the same old issues.”
That does not make the Bible any better than any other book. The oldest known text, The Epic of Gilgamesh, is a great story with many layers that deals primarily with the fear of death and the quest for eternal life. Even though I do not believe the story, I found it an incredibly interesting read. The Bible has some great thoughts on these things as well (I particularly like Ecclesiastes), but that does not make it true.

“It is the destiny of man to butcher purity. Nothing retains its essence in the hands of humanity. Our unwillingness to accept and learn is a curse. We must reject truth, for that is part and parcel to our humanity.”
You seem incredibly pessimistic about the state of humanity (one of theism’s greatest pitfalls, in my opinion). Thanks to our evolutionary inherited need to dominate we do tend to unwittingly destroy things, but I don’t think we actively try to reject truth simply because we are human. For as long as humans have been capable of intelligent thought, there have been those among us who devote their whole lives to searching for truth. This takes many generations to filter down to the less intellectual circles, but that does not mean we are not capable of learning.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

The ability to believe in Omnipotent Intelligence is a neurosis. It conflicts with healthy perspectives of humans. It’s a deeper form of racism, in a way. “You’re only human.”

In response to your implication that human-perception is somehow a god to me; I no more worship human strength than I worship clean water and nutritious food. It’s necessity; that’s all there is. And that is in few ways simplistic.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“Now tell me please, is your position qualified to claim my experience and knowledge base as irrational?”
Well, let me put it this way.

Of all the theist people I’ve debated and otherwise talked to over the years, no one has proved themselves qualified to adequately bear the burden of rational justification for this notion, and in the most informative cases their tries showed a depressing lack of any rationality whatsoever. You’re welcome to give it a try yourself, of course – here and now, or elsewhere another time – but if you don’t mind, I’m not going to hold my breath any more.
On top of that, there are several reasons why theism is a fundamentally misguided notion that stopped being reasonably plausible a long time ago; such as the fact that intelligence is extremely rare in the known universe, the fact that we live in a reductionist universe where all complex entities (such as minds) consist of simpler things instead of being ontologically basic things, and the fact that theism makes no concrete predictions (any more) but still introduces a heckload of unneeded complexity into our model of the universe, while utterly failing to satisfy the burden of proof.
On top of that, there are a number of well-known human biases and fallacies to which the popularity of the idea can be attributed, including but by no means limited to mind projection, wishful thinking and emotional commitment to a dear belief.

Do I have enough information to know whether your theism is irrational? Well, not conclusively, but I believe I have enough information to anticipate it with rather high probability. Or in other words, I would be surprised if it weren’t.

“Would I have any basis for claiming your Atheism as irrational in return?”
I hope not. If you do, I’d like to hear it.

Incidentally, I believe the only way that not believing something can be irrational is if there are mountains of unequivocal evidence for the thing not believed. Which, as I think you’ll agree, is not the case here.
But then of course I don’t only reject an unfounded idea, I also oppose its undeserved popularity.

Calling Atheism an irrational belief system is like calling bald a hair color. The absence of a belief is not a belief. Its even incorrect to refer to atheists as a group. They are no more a group than people who get up on the right side of the bed.

Here’s a group of Atheists that seem to have a pretty firm set of beliefs. Lifetime membership is only $1,200.00 but family discounts are available. Magazine subscription is only $20, but I don’t know if it tells us what side of the bed they prefer to rise from.

@Fyrius ”...no one has proved themselves qualified to adequately bear the burden of rational justification for this notion”

Is there another demonstrable, repeatable, predictable and falsifiable mechanism that can explain the existence of codified information besides sentient authorship?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Evolutionary biology has done quite a good job of demonstrating the natural causes of the genetic code. You should not read into the fact that it is the only example – why would nature reinvent the wheel when genetics is such a successful code?

That’s evolution, not the creation of codified information. There is a difference.

I have no problem with accepting that code can reprogram itself by acting upon external stimuli. A.I., robotics, computer science, confirms this in spades. But in all cases, this functionality is programmed into the system from the beginning by a sentient author.

The question is, where did the genesis source of information arise from, if not from a sentient author? Please don’t confuse this with complexity. Code authoring has nothing to do with complexity whatsoever. They are complete opposites, and should not be conflated as similar in any way.

I have never heard of any mechanism or mathematics that can account for the origin of codified information other than sentient authorship.

@zophu “The ability to believe in Omnipotent Intelligence is a neurosis. It conflicts with healthy perspectives of humans.”

Thanks for being up front about this. I’m unfamiliar with the term “neurosis” being classified as an “ability” however. But I do understand your position.

Is it neurotic to consider the science behind information theory as support for a sentient creator?

@zophu “It’s a deeper form of racism, in a way. “You’re only human.””

Which is the more racist position… To believe that “I” am the greatest agent in the universe, or to believe that “I” am not the greatest agent in the universe?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I should have said it’s a deeper form of prejudice. The word racism confused my point. You’re prejudice towards the human race if you believe we are not the greatest agent in the universe. You are more inclined to blame all of our failings not on our incompetence within nature, but on our lack of compliance to some kind of God. It’s a twisted view mainly because when many people have it, it causes big problems. An individual might make it work for them, the same way a blind person might become more musically aware than the average person. Should I blind my children so that they might be more inclined to compose symphonies? You see? That isn’t even the question. Should I blind an entire population so that they might listen to each other more? It doesn’t make sense, regardless of what value you personally gain from your believe in omnipotent intelligence, we can not lose respect for human (or human-like) intelligence.

I’m also prejudice towards chocolate ice cream against vanilla.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“Is there another demonstrable, repeatable, predictable and falsifiable mechanism that can explain the existence of codified information besides sentient authorship?”
Is that your answer to the burden of rational justification? Shifting it to the sceptics?

For starters, this is an argument from personal lack of imagination. Not being able to think of an alternative is in itself no justification of a far-fetched hypothesis. Any hypothesis still has to compete with “I don’t know”, and if it makes no more predictions than “I don’t know” while being more complex than “I don’t know”, it loses. If there really were no alternative, I believe this would be such a case.

But secondly, yes there is. I’m not sure what you mean by “codified”, but there certainly is at least one inanimate mechanism that can create orderly information. It’s usually referred to as natural selection.
The mechanism is comparable to a certain model of linguistics called the source-filter model. It’s a mechanism consisting of one source of random information and one filter that saves everything that matches certain criteria and discards everything that doesn’t.
The workings of this basic mechanism have been demonstrated and repeated plenty of times, with concrete predictions that would be easy to falsify if it didn’t work. Here‘s an example of a digital experiment. This is an evolution demonstration video. You can ignore the biological application and the somewhat condescending tone towards creationists.

But surely you know this already.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I suggest you watch this video, which explains it quite nicely. Obviously the first few minutes is not particularly relevant to your beliefs.

@Fyrius ”...this is an argument from personal lack of imagination.”

I can imagine unicorns and the FSM. Is this the type of “critical thinking” you would have me pursue? Likewise, shall I imagine that codified information can arise by chance through chaotic mechanisms when nothing of the sort has ever been demonstrated in all of recorded history? Shall I imagine it is possible when mathematical critical thinking has determined that such a feat is impossible?

@Fyrius ” Not being able to think of an alternative is in itself no justification of a far-fetched hypothesis.”

There is nothing far fetched about hypothesizing that codified information requires a sentient author. We have no other explanation to stand against 30,000 years of empirical precedent. Believing otherwise is unwarranted, and begs for nothing short of a miracle.

And believing that chaos can author codified information is also supportive of ancient myth and folklore of talking trees, whispering streams, and burning bushes that give instructions to birth a violent nation. Chaos doesn’t speak. Chaos doesn’t author code. Chaos does not transmit messages. Nor does it have the required supportive structures to translate and receive them.

@Fyrius “I’m not sure what you mean by codified”

Code must fulfill Purlwitz, Burks, and Watermans definition of Probability Space A being mapped to Probability Space B. Code is the only mechanism that can represent Information. Code is the only mechanism that can transmit and receive Information. Yockey and Gamov discovered that DNA/RNA transcription was a communications network that depended upon codified information to function. It is specifically why we call it the Genetic Code and not the genetic blueprint or genetic template, or pattern. Nothing in the realm of Chaos has ever been demonstrated to produce codified information.

@Fyrius ”...there certainly is at least one inanimate mechanism that can create orderly information. It’s usually referred to as natural selection.”

That is not the genesis source of codified information. As I said to @FireMadeFlesh earlier…
“That’s evolution, not the creation of codified information. There is a difference. I have no problem with accepting that code can reprogram itself by acting upon external stimuli. A.I., robotics, computer science, confirms this in spades. But in all cases, this functionality is programmed into the system from the beginning by a sentient author. The question is, where did the genesis source of information arise from, if not from a sentient author? Please don’t confuse this with complexity. Code authoring has nothing to do with complexity whatsoever. They are complete opposites, and should not be conflated as similar in any way.”

@Fyrius “comparable to a certain model of linguistics called the source-filter model.”

Requires a mind to function.

@Fyrius ”...an example of a digital experiment.”

The video makes some very short sighted bold claims and begs for a misunderstanding of living organisms. It speaks to issues of living organisms without mentioning one word about codified information. It insults the viewer with whispering adhoc “everything dies” (disguised as science) whilst taking the antiquated position of hard Marxist Dialectic Materialism to support its premise. What an ignorant presentational joke.

Claim… “Everything dies”

The initial statement is flawed and must be dissected to demonstrate this. When the author states “everything”... he means every thing. The thing he speaks of is a material object consisting of energy/matter. He mistakenly assumes that energy/matter is the only thing to consider, because the physical realm consists of material substance located at a specific space/time coordinate. He does not acknowledge any differences between organic life and a common rock. He does not account for codified information… the very agent that separates living organisms from inorganic matter.

“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147 (from Betrayal to Betrothal)

Information is not a physical thing.

The author of the video does not account for this in his presentation. When he gets around to Property #3 “Life reproduces with variation”… Still Nothing mentioned about the genetic code, even though the variation he claims to demonstrate depends upon a change in the genetic code.

The author presents three claims that are “intrinsic” to life…
#1 Everything dies
#2 Organisms unsuited to their environment are more likely to die.
#3 Life reproduces with variation

Did he forget something?

How about… “Life requires codified information”.

That’s why SETI is searching for a genuine codified signal that conforms to Purlwitz, Burks, and Watermans definition of code. They understand that where there is code, there must also be life. And any life form that is capable of authoring additional code beyond their genetic makeup must be intelligent to the same degree that they can grasp communication protocols.

The author claims that “designed objects” have none of the “intrinsic properties” of his three requirements of living organisms. How shortsighted.

What he fails to mention, (out of ignorance, or the folly of promoting an atheist agenda) is the fact that ALL designed objects have the exact same crucial properties of ALL living organisms… That being of course… Codified Information.

Is this what you mean by “critical thinking”?

@FireMadeFlesh

You do realize that Abiogenesis is an unproven theory… don’t you?

That’s why Leslie Orgel (renowned Abiogenesis proponent) said: ”the self-organization of the reductive citric acid cycle without the help of “informational” catalysts would be a near miracle.”

Don’t misunderstand the creation of building blocks as the creation of information. Anything can be used as a medium to express a message. Smoke rings, weight, color, sound… and yes, even chemicals. But a communications protocol depends upon genuine codified information to function. Nothing of Abiogenesis explains this phenomenon.

As well, only one of the ribozymes necessary to allow for this appear in nature. Another has been created in the lab (yet I doubt the authenticity of a synthetic ribozyme), and two others needed to complete the theory don’t even exist.
While no natural ribozyme is known that can utilise a nucleoside triphosphate for polymerisation, considerable advances have been made using synthetic ribozymes

It does not account for the programming. Though inconclusive and highly speculative, we possibly have a medium. But I’m afraid that the medium is not the message. Where did the information arise from? Information is not reducible to the medium which expresses it.

Abiogenesis does not account for the huge chasm between the laws of Physics and the laws of Information.

Martin Line makes a great case in A Hypothetical Pathway from the RNA to the DNA World, but in the end still warns us that:
“The pathway proposed is not intended to represent reality”

and requires…_“a formidalbe conceptual leap”_… and hopes that

“If support for some of these steps can be shown, final resort to an intelligent creator for the origin of life (Gibson, 1993) may yet be premature”
________________________

The Math behind Abiogenesis is a rework of the Infinite Monkey Theorum. I’ve given you the building blocks, just like the Monkeys were given an alphabet. But there’s not enough time or matter in the universe since the Big Bang to even come close to writing a single simple sentence.

“the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed “gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers.” This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys

Again, I must quote Martin Line and his peer reviewed Abiogenesis presentation…
“If support for some of these steps can be shown, final resort to an intelligent creator for the origin of life (Gibson, 1993) may yet be premature”

“The pathway proposed is not intended to represent reality”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Obviously I have not studied Information Theory to the depth you have, but I do realise abiogenesis is unproven, and that the Infinite Monkey Theorem is garbage. Fortunately there are other people with the time and motivation to research this so I do not have to.

@FireMadeFlesh

I’ve seen that video before. Allow me to demonstrate its leap frog over the authoring of codified information.

At 7:52 it claims…
“Early genomes were completely random and therefor contained no information”.

At 8:16 it claims…
“Mutation + Natural Selection = Increased information”

Leapfrog conclusion, as it supposes to “Increase” something that wasn’t there to begin with. It begs for something from nothing… “a near miracle”.

As well, at 7:05, it erroneously concludes that…
“This is the origin of competition. They eat each other.”

How unfortunate this statement. It has personified a thing which should not be. The term should be “absorbed”… not “eat”. Very misleading. He’s already assumed the vesicle is alive, and even attributes the word “steal” to their personality.

The only point I’m attempting to get across, to everyone here, is that being a Theist does not mean that a person is stupid and unreasonably incapable of critical thinking. I’m not making any of this stuff up. There is very good reason based in logic to consider an intelligence behind our creation. Whether it be true or false, who knows.

Thus far, Theism has been attributed to a lacking capacity for critical thinking, neurosis and racism, and heritage programming. That very well may be some of the reasons. But there are also other reasons to consider Theism in our modern era.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Earlier I said “if that most unlikely of possibilities occurred [empirical evidence of a deity], we would be compelled to design a theistic belief system from scratch, while minimising the impact of the existing ancient imaginings on the design process.”

It seems you have come across what you believe to be evidence for a creative agent, which without training in information theory I am unqualified to refute. It would appear that your task now is to determine the nature of that creative agent, for example whether or not they are a deity, and see where that leads. Theism isn’t necessarily naive, but unfortunately a person who is a theist for reasons other than ancient texts is rare.

Not at all. Only superstitious forms of theism contradicting scientific findings are outdated. In my opinion there are two reason theism exists: one is the explanation for the nature of the universe (instead of a belief in a self-explanatory universe) and the other is an attempt of finding answers for the meaning and purpose of our universe and human life.

Is theism outdated? Hmm… this is an interesting question. I think theism isn’t outdated rather religion is outdated, or at least most religions are. I think that religion is a part of our cultural heritage, and should be cherished in that regard, but any form of fundamentalism is inherently dangerous. Proper education is the only answer. Thank God for the internet? :D

I think religion is probably one of the most harmful concepts on the planet along with money, labeling and property ownership. I don’t have any beef with the transcendent, or those who believe in the transcendent. But since we made god in our own image, perhaps it’s time to look in the mirror again and bring theism into the 21st century. Theism should be updated for sure. Maybe that does mean it’s outdated. I don’t know.