Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2017, 12:06 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(18-01-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  Trust without evidence has other names: naiveté, gullibility, credulousness.

Dollars in the pastor's bank account...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
19-01-2017, 01:50 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(18-01-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  Trust generically -- if it is legitimate and justified -- IS based on evidence. Of course one CAN have trust that is ill-advised or mistaken in that it is not evidence-based. But the basic concept is void and meaningless without a sound basis. Trust without evidence has other names: naiveté, gullibility, credulousness.

The only discernible difference between 'faith' and 'gullibility' is their connotation, the former is positive and the later is negative. How silly that is when they're effectively synonyms. A faithful person who doesn't think they are gullible is simply ignorant of what those words mean, and the implications to themselves.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(18-01-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  Trust without evidence has other names: naiveté, gullibility, credulousness.


Say what want, in such a situation you'd be saying something either about the person who trust's here, or the person/being being trusted. You wouldn't be talking about the term trust at all.

And it's not surprising that for an atheist, who doesn't believe God exists, any hope/trust/faith in God as result, is naive, gullible, credulous, lol.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 07:56 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(19-01-2017 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  Trust without evidence has other names: naiveté, gullibility, credulousness.


Say what want, in such a situation you'd be saying something either about the person who trust's here, or the person/being being trusted. You wouldn't be talking about the term trust at all.

And it's not surprising that for an atheist, who doesn't believe God exists, any hope/trust/faith in God as result, is naive, gullible, credulous, lol.

Your faith in God has no evidence to back it.
That makes it fucking idiotic.
This is not hard.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-01-2017, 08:11 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(19-01-2017 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-01-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  Trust without evidence has other names: naiveté, gullibility, credulousness.
Say what want, in such a situation you'd be saying something either about the person who trust's here, or the person/being being trusted. You wouldn't be talking about the term trust at all.
If a person is naive, gullible or credulous, what DOES that say about the person? It says that their trust is misplaced and not evidence-based, and possibly, that the object of their trust is demonstrably undeserving. All these adjectives with negative connotations exist for a REASON: trust is only useful if it has some valid basis in reality. People are rightly derisive of those who give unearned trust.
(19-01-2017 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it's not surprising that for an atheist, who doesn't believe God exists, any hope/trust/faith in God as result, is naive, gullible, credulous, lol.
And it's not surprising that for a theist, who believes god exists, any hope.trust/faith in god as a result is wise, supported, and credible, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 09:02 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(19-01-2017 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Say what want, in such a situation you'd be saying something either about the person who trust's here, or the person/being being trusted. You wouldn't be talking about the term trust at all.

And it's not surprising that for an atheist, who doesn't believe God exists, any hope/trust/faith in God as result, is naive, gullible, credulous, lol.

Trust is earned. It's the result of learning. A process.
The gods have never once done anything to earn anyone's trust.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 11:51 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 08:32 AM)mordant Wrote:  That you frame this in terms of "what I am left with" as if it represents an unfortunate poverty of explanations, is rather telling. It is only "what I am left with" in terms of the most economical explanation consistent with the knowledge base that humans currently have -- and therefore the most likely to be closest to the truth of the matter. The weakest link in our knowledge is how life arose from non-life -- an area in which we have only unproven hypotheses at this time. But even there, an invisible Being speaking life into existence is far from the most likely explanation.

No, what you’re left with is not a poverty of explanations. It’s an ontological position, a question beyond any particular explanation you offer. What you’re doing is sort of like what I accused the individual in the iPhone example of doing, just repeating a series of functional explanation, which are not in dispute. I’m not arguing against any scientific explanation, now or in the future. It’s a position in regards to the totality, which would include any methodological explanations, past and present. Without understanding this, I think we risk talking past each other.

Take your example of life arising from non-life, perhaps one day we’ll have a strong explanation for how that happened, a perfectly natural explanation, that you, nor I would disagree with. An analogy to the type of question I’m raising here, would not be about this explanation. But the sheer fact that we occupy a reality in which life can arise from non-life in the first place, regardless if it arose through a series of verifiable conditions. There’s no explanation that can be given in response to that question, just a claim that it “just did”.

Quote:You are just water in a puddle exulting how perfectly shaped and suited to you the hole in the ground that you find yourself in, [……]but to common human perceptual tics and quirks

Well, that’s the rub. When observing what appears to be the equivalent of mount Rushmore on another planet, you see pareidolia. When another sees a swimming pool, you see a large puddle. Where someone perceives a moral direction, moral obligations and duties, a purpose he is to pursue, you see tics and quirks. Where someone sees meaningful order, you see meaningless noise. When someone hears a song, you hear sound and fury signifying nothing.

What I would say, is that when it comes to people such as yourself, your atheism, dictates you perception here, where as for theist such as myself, the perception dictates our theism. I.E because God does not exist, it’s all meaningless noise, puddles, and quirks, rather than because it’s all meaningless noise God does not exist. Where as for theists such as myself, it’s because a meaningful order exists, that God exists.

A particular tell, is revealed in the way many atheists tend to dictate their perceptions here, by indicating that we must start with the question of whether God exists, before inferring meaning, or design, or purpose. That the later can’t be done, without the former, which to me suggests the underly psychology here.

Quote:And of course now you resort to the age-old smear tactic of claiming to know what is in other's hearts so you can dismiss their belief positions as less than genuinely held. Maybe you should ask yourself why that tactic is so attractive to you, and why it is so intolerable for you to accept that others could have a considered opinion that the supernatural, and gods, and other invisible beings and realms, don't exist.

I don’t think I believe this because of attractiveness. In fact prior to actually engaging with atheists, I used to imagine that atheists were individuals who believed God did not exist, as some of the older dictionary definitions would define it. But in the actual encounters and interactions, atheists who believe God does not exist, are kind of like unicorns. What you find instead are those who prefer to define their position as a “lack of belief that God does not exist”. Whose basic appeal is to uncertainty, rather than certainty one way or the other.

And when it comes to questioning genuineness, of any position, it generally has to do what you another thread refer to as empathy, and the palette of experiences that make up a persons life. I gauge genuineness in communication, from the recognized times in which I haven’t been genuine, and when I’ve know other’s haven’t been genuine, and when those mirror neurons associated with this are triggered when others express themselves with me or communicate with me, a sense that they’re not being genuine arises. Perhaps you’d say my spider senses are not an accurate means of engaging genuineness, but they’ve served me well, and I also can’t help they way I feel as a result of them.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 12:00 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(19-01-2017 08:11 AM)mordant Wrote:  If a person is naive, gullible or credulous, what DOES that say about the person? It says that their trust is misplaced and not evidence-based, and possibly, that the object of their trust is demonstrably undeserving. All these adjectives with negative connotations exist for a REASON: trust is only useful if it has some valid basis in reality. People are rightly derisive of those who give unearned trust.

Well according to you since God doesn't exist, every person in history whose ever hoped, trust or had faith in hims is gullible, naive, and credulous, every religious abolitionist, folks like Rev. King, Nelson Mandela, Bonhoeffervetc... all naive, credulous and gullible folks, as result of having faith in God, lol.

Quote:And it's not surprising that for a theist, who believes god exists, any hope.trust/faith in god as a result is wise, supported, and credible.

Well surely there's gonna be a different outlook when it comes to the matter of trusting a being, which one party believes exists, and the other doesn't, lol.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 01:25 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(19-01-2017 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I would say, is that when it comes to people such as yourself, your atheism, dictates you perception here, where as for theist such as myself, the perception dictates our theism. I.E because God does not exist, it’s all meaningless noise, puddles, and quirks, rather than because it’s all meaningless noise God does not exist. Where as for theists such as myself, it’s because a meaningful order exists, that God exists.

"it’s because a meaningful order exists, that God exists."

Meaningful when defined can be seen as synonymous with purposeful which itself means "having a useful purpose"

So.. Tommy what useful purpose does this order serve??

Oh no. He's here - God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2017, 01:40 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(10-01-2017 02:33 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:  So.. after my last posts, and the users on this site making it clear, I'm just repeating stuff. I got a good question from a couple of users on this site.

Why does there need to be an deity??
Good question.
The answer :

He may not exist at all but His apparent existence is a sort of comfort for believers
on points such as suffering, the idea of reward for it, the deity also provides a convenient and easy explanation for those hard to explain things i.e.

"Why do I suffer"
It's God, man he's testing you

Like the above, its human nature to try and find answers even if there aren't any.

So in short, there needs to be a deity because His existence helps the vast majority of people just cope with day to day life (I guess) and some people can't accept that the world may JUST HAVE EXISTED, they need a cause and for them, that cause is God..

Be nice in the comments Wink
Superstition seems to be an inherent part of the makeup of human beings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: