• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

Stone said:
That latter statement would seem to make perfect sense. But for some weird reason, it just doesn't fit with the evident history. There is indeed an uncanny and constantly recurring symbiosis that emerges after all between those individual pioneers who tweak the priests' noses with some novel take or other on deity and those who introduce some novel more inclusive social ethic alongside it.<snip>
Click to expand...

You'll be providing evidence, I trust?
 
Donn said:
Stone,
I also find your basic point elusive, but I think you're saying that religious people in history have done more to introduce altruism than atheists.

This may be so, but it does not lend truth to those religions. Great painters and musicians have also, historically, been religious. So what? History is soaked in religion, it speaks to the ologies of the humans who made it all so — not to the reality of the notions behind their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I think he is also saying that it goes the other way--that altruism commonly springs up where priest's noses are "tweaked".

(Is nose-booping a priest, in itself, an altruistic act?)
 
Stone said:
That latter statement would seem to make perfect sense. But for some weird reason, it just doesn't fit with the evident history.
Click to expand...
What if I told you that BOTH relgious and non-religious, alike, have tended to become MORE altruistic, and less violent, over time, on average?

Granted, this is not a perfect trend: Exceptions of great violence from both tend to errupt from time to time. But, it is still a general trend one can plainly see, when analyzing all of the data.

Steven Pinker wrote a nice, thick book about this, called The Better Angels of Our Nature, if you care to read it.

When one looks at ALL the data available, my statements of altruism being independent of faith (or lack thereof), seem to fit history fairly well.
 
Stone said:
Any posts seeking to grapple with 5,000 years of human history are necessarily going to be "guilty" of some degree of detail. If you view those as "verbose", I'm afraid that comes with the territory. Glib arguments for deity like the fine-tuning argument (easily debunked by the reminder of millions of years of development in many directions) or the cause/effect argument (easily debunked by the reminder that then deity would need a Cause in turn) don't require much digging (or thought). However, analysis of thousands of years of human history does.
Click to expand...

And that's fine with me, insofar as there is a point to that verbosity which addresses the thread question. If not, then this is a massive space-taking derail which, intriguing as it may be, merits its own thread.

Stone said:
To your immediate question, my analysis does offer _some_ support for a belief in something or other that _might_ be termed divine; but it only does so _if_ one views any phenomenon that appears to interact positively with the human species as necessarily contingent on an external reality of some kind. Now, in this case, gutsy pioneers through the millennia have repeatedly inserted increasingly inclusive social paradigms into human society. So society appears to have functioned in an increasingly productive way as a result. Now, does that show a positive interaction of some kind with something altogether real, externally real? -- (i.e., "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" is proven a useful ethic, because it's grounded on something real: the presence of fellow creatures with whom we must cope and survive).

Likewise, if the end result for any mechanisms _behind_ increasingly inclusive paradigms reveals an interaction with something real (the end result of the paradigms certainly shows the practical need to cope with fellow creatures just to survive), then those mechanisms themselves also need to be analyzed. Do those mechanisms behind those recurring paradigms also interact with something just as real as their results do? -- (the results pointing up the practical reality of fellow creatures and of the need to get along with them). What is the nature of those mechanisms and how come their insistent and repeated involvement with obstinate and new-fangled and counter-cultural notions on the divine? -- (notions always at odds with the religious status quo rather than affirming them).

No one has made a proper study of those mechanisms that have appeared to trigger these more inclusive paradigms era by era in the first place. My 12-part study is strictly an amateurish start at doing that by a layman only. It is not intended as something conclusive at all. But it is intended as a beginning, to provoke more rigorous research by proper professionals throughout the world. This study is just a tiny bottle tossed in the ocean. The chances for a whole phalanx of professional scholars and brain researchers then coming together and actually doing this more rigorously than I can ever do are slim to none. But if there's any chance that this may happen at all, introducing an amateurish study like this one is still worthwhile.

Of course, this is all predicated on a premise: the premise that anything proved positive for humanity must necessarily interact with something or other that's real. However, if that premise is queried, then the whole argument I'm pursuing here won't wash.

Cheers,

Stone
Click to expand...

You construct sentences nicely (except for the hilited one; it's missing a predicate in the second clause). I'll ask again: What does this have to do with supporting belief in a god or gods?

If you cannot or will not answer that, then you're off-topic and I'll kindly ask you to stop posting here.
 
Vortigern99 said:
You construct sentences nicely (except for the hilited one; it's missing a predicate in the second clause). I'll ask again: What does this have to do with supporting belief in a god or gods?
Click to expand...

Since all the historic breakthroughs in social-ethics paradigms seem to interact constructively rather than self-destructively with external reality in some way, then the initiating mechanisms by which, historically, these paradigms have all been initially triggered may also be interacting with some sort of external reality as well. Now, those triggering mechanisms appear to have all consisted of some kind of new-fangled (for their time) takes/constructs re deity. Why is that? Could there be some sort of external reality behind those triggering mechanisms that is just as palpable and "present" in the human condition as the palpable presence of fellow creatures with whom one must interact in any workable social-ethics paradigm?

So is that palpable and "present" reality behind the initiating triggers really some actual deity of some sort, as these pioneers always aver? Or is there some universal component in the human brain that combines an extremely far-sighted interaction with reality (a social-ethics paradigm that urges due consideration for the vulnerable) with a mere delusion of some sort of deity (or deities) alongside it? How likely is it that the most far-sighted social pioneers, as shown in the long-term practical value of the altruistic models they introduce through the millennia, are also the most deluded in other ways?

That bothersome question is why this survey remains wholly pertinent to the chief question in this thread.

By the way, you're right that the highlighted sentence is badly written. But it doesn't lack a predicate: I used "how come" badly; I should have used "why" instead.

Anyway, if my explanation here as to the relevance of this survey to the OP suffices, I'm ready to continue with the installments and hopefully show SlowVehicle that I'll "be providing evidence" for the uncanny symbiosis of social and deist pioneers through history.

Please let me know if I can proceed.

Thank you,

Stone
 
Stone,

I agree with Vortigern99.

Your lengthy treatise deserves it's own thread.

It's so easy to start one - I don't see by you're hesitant.

Once that thread is established, with your treatise either posted in full or linked to externally, you can then link to either of those in this thread or others to the extent you think it's relevant.

Also, ask yourself how often we see multi-part treatises inserted into other's threads. It's rare for a reason. For someone not interested in your lengthy position on a tangential matter, it kind of dilutes the thread.

I have not read any of your posts in their entirety - I just don't find them well written or insightful enough to occupy my time and attention. Others may or may not be skipping your posts as well. But it would explain why their content has gotten so little discussion here.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Stone,

I agree with Vortigern99.

Your lengthy treatise deserves it's own thread.

It's so easy to start one - I don't see by you're hesitant.
Click to expand...

I do see the logic behind that. Thank you. -- And I don't dismiss that idea. Unfortunately, I don't -- right now -- have access to an external "spot" where I can place the series in its entirety to be simply linked to in a new thread. So, even in a new thread, I'd still have to submit each installment in its entirety right there in the thread, as here (which isn't necessarily a "deal-killer").

Ultimately, this current thread is Vortigern99's, though, and we should allow her/him to make the final call. Naturally, I will suspend further installments here until she/he writes back.

Cheers,

Stone
 
Last edited:
Stone said:
Since all the historic breakthroughs in social-ethics paradigms seem to interact constructively rather than self-destructively with external reality in some way, then the initiating mechanisms by which, historically, these paradigms have all been initially triggered may also be interacting with some sort of external reality as well. Now, those triggering mechanisms appear to have all consisted of some kind of new-fangled (for their time) takes/constructs re deity. Why is that? Could there be some sort of external reality behind those triggering mechanisms that is just as palpable and "present" in the human condition as the palpable presence of fellow creatures with whom one must interact in any workable social-ethics paradigm?
Click to expand...

There could be, but it's more rational and evidential that the combination of evolved traits I listed upthread -- pattern-seeking, agency attribution, need for unarguable authority, urge towards justice, need for forgiveness/scapegoating, etc. -- are responsible. Inserting deity into the scenario introduces an unnecessarily complex and undefinable mystery-being, when we have already identified all the necessary components in the human mind and emotional make-up.

Stone said:
So is that palpable and "present" reality behind the initiating triggers really some actual deity of some sort, as these pioneers always aver? Or is there some universal component in the human brain that combines an extremely far-sighted interaction with reality (a social-ethics paradigm that urges due consideration for the vulnerable) with a mere delusion of some sort of deity (or deities) alongside it? How likely is it that the most far-sighted social pioneers, as shown in the long-term practical value of the altruistic models they introduce through the millennia, are also the most deluded in other ways?
Click to expand...

Extremely likely, given that until the last 300 years or so, we didn't have a firm enough grasp of reality to accurately describe the workings of the weather, much less the origins of life or the universe. Theism was an immediate, obvious and satisfying choice for those "far-sighted social pioneers" you revere, back when the heart was believed to be the center of awareness and the brain a cooling device. The ancients were "deluded" only in the sense that they had not yet developed a better system of explaining the world.

Your core argument, that the progenitors of social justice and altruism were theists, therefore gods probably exist, is weak, however densely worded your treatises attempting to support it.

Stone said:
That bothersome question is why this survey remains wholly pertinent to the chief question in this thread.

By the way, you're right that the highlighted sentence is badly written. But it doesn't lack a predicate: I used "how come" badly; I should have used "why" instead.
Click to expand...

Sorry to quibble, but no, it's still missing a verb:

What is the nature of those mechanisms and how come why their insistent and repeated involvement with obstinate and new-fangled and counter-cultural notions on the divine?​

Why does their involvement... do something? Why is their involvement... something? Perhaps you mean "whence".

Stone said:
Anyway, if my explanation here as to the relevance of this survey to the OP suffices, I'm ready to continue with the installments and hopefully show SlowVehicle that I'll "be providing evidence" for the uncanny symbiosis of social and deist pioneers through history.

Please let me know if I can proceed.

Thank you,

Stone
Click to expand...

You can proceed until and unless the mods shut you down for being off-topic! I'm not the owner or master of this thread; I only started the ball rolling. But I'll point out to you -- yet again -- that "providing evidence for the uncanny symbiosis of social and deist pioneers through history" is by no means offering support for belief in a god or gods. To a theist it may offer comfort that you're in good historical company with some really swell fellows, but it gives me zero reason to give credence to some invisible superpowered world-creating overlord.
 
Wowbagger said:
What if I told you that BOTH relgious and non-religious, alike, have tended to become MORE altruistic, and less violent, over time, on average?

Granted, this is not a perfect trend: Exceptions of great violence from both tend to errupt from time to time. But, it is still a general trend one can plainly see, when analyzing all of the data.

Steven Pinker wrote a nice, thick book about this, called The Better Angels of Our Nature, if you care to read it.

When one looks at ALL the data available, my statements of altruism being independent of faith (or lack thereof), seem to fit history fairly well.
Click to expand...

Also, this.
 
The fact that people have believed in gods is not evidence for the existence of gods. That is all.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Your core argument, that the progenitors of social justice and altruism were theists, therefore gods probably exist, is weak, however densely worded your treatises attempting to support it.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not my core argument. My core argument is that the "progenitors of social justice and altruism" are pioneering theists who always introduce some new take on deity that makes the priests of their day nervous. Naturally, theism in and of itself is never news. Instead, it's the counter-cultural theisms that these progenitors always introduce that's the real story here. If their theisms matched their culture, there'd be no story at all. But there is a story because they don't match.

Stone
 
Last edited:
Frozenwolf150 said:
The fact that people have believed in gods is not evidence for the existence of gods. That is all.
Click to expand...

Not proof you mean.

Anyone reaching the conclusion that there is not a God/god, is likewise adopting a position on the issue in the absence of proof.
 
Stone said:
Actually, that's not my core argument. My core argument is that the "progenitors of social justice and altruism" are pioneering theists who always introduce some new take on deity that makes the priests of their day nervous. Naturally, theism in and of itself is never news. Instead, it's the counter-cultural theisms that these progenitors always introduce that's the real story here. If their theisms matched their culture, there'd be no story at all. But there is a story because they don't match.

Stone
Click to expand...
Your core argument has some traction in my eyes, but demonstrating it would be virtually impossible. As we don't know how civilisation would have developed in the absence of theists, or we don't know to what extent humanity would have arrived here in the absence of religion.


One way of illustrating the idea is that humanity was seeded on the planet and was chaperoned by alien/divine prophets. With the purpose of helping the civilisation through its difficult adolescence.
 
punshhh said:
Not proof you mean.

Anyone reaching the conclusion that there is not a God/god, is likewise adopting a position on the issue in the absence of proof.
Click to expand...


An utterly useless statement. So likewise anyone reaching the conclusion that there are no unicorns is adopting that position in the absence of proof.
 
AdMan said:
An utterly useless statement. So likewise anyone reaching the conclusion that there are no unicorns is adopting that position in the absence of proof.
Click to expand...
Yes and to compare God/god with an imagined object, in order to demonstrate that it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god, is a fallacy.
 
punshhh said:
Yes and to compare God/god with an imagined object, in order to demonstrate that it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god, is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

False analogy?

How so? I think it's apt.

But I'll see your fallacy and raise you one: straw man.

Unless someone here argued "...it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god...", you're arguing against a position no one has taken, and the very fact this has been argued from both sides indicates that the parties so engaged do not consider it "pointless".
 
punshhh said:
Yes and to compare God/god with an imagined object, in order to demonstrate that it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god, is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

God is an imagined object.
 
punshhh said:
Not proof you mean.

Anyone reaching the conclusion that there is not a God/god, is likewise adopting a position on the issue in the absence of proof.
Click to expand...

So if I look in my wallet and see no money that's not proof that I have no money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom