Hermit wrote:

BWE wrote:

Hermit wrote:

BWE wrote:My point is that the god hypotheses which can be rejected, should be rejected. They are active propositions. I am not opposed to philosophizing about the concepts that have been attached to god in various ways btw. But interventionism has been falsified. To lack a belief regarding interventionism is to either feign ignorance or be ignorant of the world today. As soon as we drop all bits of interventionism we no longer have the gods that people argue about. There is no point in a religion based on a non-interventionist god.

My claim is a bit more overall than just the mind body issue. Heaven and hell are interventionism based ideas. Take away the intervention and the point goes too. Therefore, it is an active, not passive claim that I have rejected the proposals of pre-scientific peoples regarding god. That actually is the only god that matters. The rest is personal. I am not going to argue that a monk who goes off a d meditates for 30 years won't learn something. In fact I think he is likely to. And I'm happy to use the word god in that context. But that god has nothing to do with anything that we would blindly replace science with. There is a reason physics and psychology cannot be reconciled completely. That doesn't invalidate either physics or psychology though. Although it may invalidate some efforts to use the same methodology for both.

That's what I keep saying, albeit using different words.

So you have been saying that you believe there is no god?

Hermit wrote:Personal, interfering, meddlesome gods, such as the Christian god can be empirically tested for. I have proposed one test scenario earlier. If it turned out positive and reproducible, I'd say "Yes, I believe in the existence of that god (with the proviso that all empirical knowledge is provisional), but until such evidence is furnished I believe your god does not exist."

Close enough?

Fallible wrote:

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:The rest is personal.

Precisely. It's just grandiose to "lack belief" in somebody else's personal whatever. What one lacks instead is empathy.

That is a pretty good precis. It gets right at the part that seems disingenuous to me.

You say pretty good precis, I say complete bollocks. The glaring question for me is why would someone hold an actual belief about someone else's whatever? Why do you feel the need to do that? What exactly is wrong with saying 'ok, that's nice,' and leaving it at that? It's hilarious to me that you think it disingenuous and grandiose to lack a belief in someone's personal belief, and yet spend your time criticising someone's personal lack of belief. I suppose you call that humble?

Fallible wrote:Pretty much the last 3 responses. There's no need to start loading people who say they don't have belief with motives that can only ever be assumed. Contrary to what BWE has said, god is not a claim when discussing belief. If someone tells me they believe in god, they're claiming the belief, not the god.

As I said, I don't give a shit about what people believe, whether it's a god or not-god. I only care what either theists or atheists who have faith without evidence think they can dictate to me about what I should believe.

No, Cito, get bent. The irony is, he just accused me of not being able to stay out of his shit privately. He sits there criticising others' 'inner worlds', making all sorts of uncharitable, unfalsifiable noises about them, and accuses others of not staying out of his business. Makes even less sense than his usual bilge. Either his emotions are causing him to behave irrationally or he's trolling again.

BWE wrote:
it helps me understand his point to read his posts in the voice of animal from the muppets

surreptitious57 wrote:All joking aside though I highly rate Cito as he is one of the most intelligent contributors in the online atheist community

BWE wrote:Cito is a complicated dude with strong opinions that are usually difficult for me to make sense of.

Fallible wrote:
It was a long process in my case to come to terms with the fact that figures of authority are in large measure an illusion.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:
It was a long process in my case to come to terms with the fact that figures of authority are in large measure an illusion.

This is the most mind-bogglingly incomprehensible piece of detritus I think I've ever read here. Get over yourself?

Keep It Real wrote:It would appear that jamest and myself are not the only ones who sporadically experience feelings/delusions of grandeur methinks. Can't help when tattooed strangers turn up at your door with flowers.