politicartoons | god is a genesis of stupidity

I don't think logic is on this side

I'm going to differ. Logic would dictate that the onus for evidence lies upon the assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence. Unless you want to conflate imagination with reality.

Okay, I ask you, "Is there a higher being, a God?"

What assertion do you make? Can you prove it?

Whether you assert positively or negatively, I don't think anyone can prove it.

Edited 2014-07-06 19:24 (UTC)

We prove lots of stuff, but the majority we don't. We can do useful things with our collection of knowledge.

What is even more exciting is we CAN justify a theory for how the universe was created without a God. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYg2JfRa0TA)

Whereas the theists still have no more to offer the story than poetry they have offered for eons.

Okay, I ask you, "Is there a higher being, a God?"

It is an unanswerable question. It is like asking "What can you see just beyond the range of your vision?" Er, uh. . . .

Evidence of God is by definition literally supernatural, that is, above the natural world. We could no more detect such evidence than we could speculate on its existence.

I prefer living in the natural world. There's plenty of cool stuff to entertain me here.

Whether you assert positively or negatively, I don't think anyone can prove it.

Exactly! So why bother entertaining the question at all?

why bother entertaining the question at all?

Because not everyone is a PolitiCartooner. Some people believe different things, and we have to work out an accommodation that allows all of us to live together on reasonably satisfactory terms.

Why?

I am not asking out of spite or a rhetorical need.

Accommodation in my mind is simply respecting that people have different beliefs, to which they are entitled. Should someone be inclined toward the god thing, good on 'em. Should someone be inclined to the godless thing, good on 'em.

Both you invite to drinks. One you invite to a really, really raucous night of drinking.

Some people believe different things, and we have to work out an accommodation that allows all of us to live together on reasonably satisfactory terms.

That is a fallacy a lot of people believe, yes.

And what is the non-fallacy answer? Intolerance?

The non-fallacy answer is that there is nothing compelling you to work out an accommodation with other people other than personal preference, regardless of what that preference is informed from. We don't HAVE to do anything. You can be tolerant, intolerant, or any level inbetween. It's entirely up to you. But there is no "have to" involved in it.

Once you recognize that, you can understand why others don't feel they have to work out an accommodation. Once you eliminate "have to" as a compelling premise, other's actions become understandable. There's no guideline, no force, no law of nature or physics that requires it.

That's true for any particular individual, but society effectively comes up with one answer or another, whether pluralism or intolerance.

Society is nothing more than the collective response of the individuals involved in the society, with more weight being given to the opinions of those with power and influence. There is no "have to" involved in that either; it's whatever the society in question wants or feels like or randomly chose that day.

Is there a higher being, a God?

Only in our heads. We have no external evidence to posit a creator. If we did, it begs the question who/what created the creator?

Many questioned if a god initiated the big bang, but now we have quantum theories that demonstrate entire universes will spring from "nothing", without a creator intervening.

In other words, you cannot prove it. We have a more scientific theory, using quantum dynamics and everything, and it is very utilitarian, but there is no conclusive proof. I think our fundamentalists are lost in fairy tales, but sectarians are not really knocked out of the fight on the basic fundamental question of God's existence. Moreover, they could argue for some utilitarian grounds as well, saying that our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions, particularly the idea of equality, and that faith has given people a vision and aspiration to build civilization, whereas not in our more godless time we are falling into a sort of nihilism.

I'd argue we owe every bit as much to Greek Philosophers, the Code of Hammurabi and other sources as we do faith traditions.

Slavery wasn't ended by religion and the fight for human equality has been resisted at every turn by religious conservatives.

Good, rich debates can be had on just about all the particular points being touched on; libraries can be buried with the debates. I'm just taking stock of an argument that I still find creditable, in which the Christian idea of each of us being accountable to God, with each soul being a key battleground between Good and Evil, may be our most solid foundation for a thoroughgoing notion of equality.

True the leaders on the earth, even Christian, have not held to the standard, even sanctioning slavery, but this is true for the Greek philosophers as well, and probably Hammurabi too.

Then why do you ascribe it reverence beyond human? Surely there is no earthly accountability other than what we've made for ourselves. Also, I could hold a god accountable for a thing or two, but alas, its a childish wish.

Edited 2014-07-07 05:28 (UTC)

Then why do you ascribe it reverence beyond human?

I don't understand. What do you mean? I don't think I have been reverencing anything except to say that we cannot prove that there is no God. I'm not even saying that I believe there is a God, much less reverencing one.

Oh. I misunderstood.

"I'm just taking stock of an argument that I still find creditable, in which the Christian idea of each of us being accountable to God, with each soul being a key battleground between Good and Evil, may be our most solid foundation for a thoroughgoing notion of equality. True the leaders on the earth, even Christian, have not held to the standard, even sanctioning slavery"

There may be a positive outcome to a flawed idea. Usually it isn't so. I wish we were accountable to a God, but it appears we are only accountable to ourselves during our lives.

...our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions...

It's a pretty pick-and-choose version of the 'old faith traditions' that variously condone racism and violence and slavery.

it is very utilitarian, but there is no conclusive proof.

Science has done more to reveal how little we truly understand about our universe than has religion. Religion ascribes false answers for feels. Science endeavors to weed out the falsehoods and open the casket.

Our eyes see a tiny percentage of the visible spectrum of energy. Its like only using two keys on an 88 key piano. Science revealed this and made better eyes (Xray, gamma, etc.)

our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions

Rape (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm), child sacrifice (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Child-sacrifice), the old time religion.

Its more than proof, its which approach is useful. If prayer worked, I'd do it more.

Edited 2014-07-07 08:34 (UTC)

Yeah, I think science is better than religion too, and even science cannot disprove the existence of God, which has been and continues to be my only point. It's an elementary point, and it does not mean that we must have state religion or be religious ourselves.

I agree we cannot disprove a negative assertion.

god is a genesis of stupidity

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject