Disproving the Existence of God

[Wildcat]

Good explanation. I have to make clear though, that me and you are seeing the mystical roots of religion in 2 different ways in relation to the current issue.

 

I was making reference to actual mystical practice,via which the practitioner aspires to personal experince of God (in christianity etc) or 'ultimate reality' (in Zen or atheist mystical traditions).

 

While I appreciate your point that mystical experience can be seen as the root of all faiths, i have to maintain that it's not in the active sense I refer to above i.e. few of the state religions encourage their flock to engage in personal mystical practice and, historically, some have very much discouraged it. The view is that knowledge of God is via the church organisation, not direct personal experience.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you there, simply clarifying my own position.

 

Point taken... my usage of mysticism is more in an ontological sense, in the sense of how the knowledge of God\ the divine is derived.

[flamingjimmy]

You can enjoy your photographs, I will enjoy the gut response I get when I look at art.

 

I don't need to have faith in anything whatsoever to enjoy the feelings I get when listening to a good piece of music or art.

 

As such your analogy is flawed.

 

I still contend that having unshakable faith in something regardless of evidence or reason is absolutely a bad quality. Please don't try and move the goalposts beyond that, I'm not denying at all that 'gut feelings' exist or that they can seem incredibly meaningful to a person.

[onewheeldave]

I still contend that having unshakable faith in something regardless of evidence or reason is absolutely a bad quality. Please don't try and move the goalposts beyond that, I'm not denying at all that 'gut feelings' exist or that they can seem incredibly meaningful to a person.

 

Do you have unshakable faith in rationality?

[flamingjimmy]

Do you have unshakable faith in rationality?

 

No, my mind is open to being shown to be wrong.

[plekhanov]

?????????

 

I'd suggest you chill out a bit

 

I do at least back up the points I make and, I'm. certainly not on a vendetta against atheists

Not on a vendaetta The 1st post I recall you making was one attempting to conflate atheism with Stalinism. Our current exchange was prompted by your attempt to depict atheists as would be cultural censors.

 

Your 'vendetta against atheists' is plain to anyone who's seen a few of your posts touching upon atheism. I'd no more take advice from you about how to conduct myself than a tobacco company rep about how to avoid lung cancer.

[onewheeldave]

Not on a vendaetta The 1st post I recall you making was one attempting to conflate atheism with Stalinism. Our current exchange was prompted by your attempt to depict atheists as would be cultural censors.

 

Your 'vendetta against atheists' is plain to anyone who's seen a few of your posts touching upon atheism. I'd no more take advice from you about how to conduct myself than a tobacco company rep about how to avoid lung cancer.

 

That post was about the fact that the Russian Communist state was run by atheists who believed religion to be evil and, who actively tried to destroy it by oppressing, imprisoning, torturing and executing those who practiced it.

 

At no point did I suggest that such behaviour is characteristic of all or the majority of atheists.

 

The point was made in response to implications that atheists, somehow, are immune to the possibility of carrying out the violent oppression that some religious organisations have.

 

It was also raised as a counterpoint to another suggestion that, historically, all such violence had been performed in the name of religion- the Communist Russian state was simply an example of a non-religious organisation that carried out atrocities (against believers, in this case).

 

You amy not like the example, but, it's a rational example that, in the context it was made (in response to those specific points), was, IMO, highly relevant.

 

As for would-be cultural censors- it's my belief that both state violence/atrocites and cultural censorship, are a matter more of human nature than religious belief/non-belief.

 

i.e. people in power in certain circumstances end up behaving like immoral monsters- historically, that has been mainly those who do it in the name of religion: but, it's my contention that this is only because, historically, religious belief was endemic- there were no atheist states.

 

If atheists were in similar positions of power, in similar circumstances, I belief they would be equally as prone to excess, due, not to their lack of religious belief, but, due to their human nature.

[onewheeldave]

I still contend that having unshakable faith in something regardless of evidence or reason is absolutely a bad quality. Please don't try and move the goalposts beyond that, I'm not denying at all that 'gut feelings' exist or that they can seem incredibly meaningful to a person.

 

Do you have unshakable faith in rationality?

 

 

No, my mind is open to being shown to be wrong.

 

But, do you accept the possibility that rationality could be flawed, or is that, in your opinion, not a possiblity?

[flamingjimmy]

But, do you accept the possibility that rationality could be flawed

 

I direct you to my previous response. ie. isn't that what I just said?

[onewheeldave]

I direct you to my previous response. ie. isn't that what I just said?

 

I'm not sure

 

I'm just trying to inject a certain rigour in an effort to avoid more misunderstandings.

 

After all, some rationalists believe that rationality cannot be flawed.

 

However, you seem to be saying that, in the case of rationality, your mind is open to being proven wrong, in which case, you do believe that rationality could be flawed.

[onewheeldave]

And, if that is indeed the case, do you know offhand, any arguments/lines of reasoning that would count, for you, as showing rationality to be flawed (and which would therefore, lead to you changing your mind)?