Honest Conversation Starter for Rich2022

[airportkid]

At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world:  Science has definitively proved that no god exists - anywhere in the universe.  All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job?  Would your friends abandon you (or would you abandon friends)?  In what ways would how you spend your time change?  Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade?  Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question.  Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it.  What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?


Note to Mods - I meant this to be in the atheism thread, not here, please relocate, thanks and apologies.

[Gwaithmir]

"What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?"

A belief that life continues beyond the grave. Theists just can't accept the notion that life is finite. Once it's over──it's over. 

[no one]

god adds magic.

And without magic, who is going to kiss my boo-boos, while caressing my arrogance? Who is going to swaddle my ignorance, while tucking me in? And lastly Mr. Science guy, who is going to tell me that everything is alright, while vanquishing my fears?

god must exist, because I'm so fucking special.

[Rhythmcs]

Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it.  What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

For those that believe in them, theistic gods can be a transactional agent that they might anticipate and/or bargain with.  A human-alike arbiter of outcomes past, present, and most importantly, future. Whether a life can be lived without such a thing must come down to individual dispositions and apprehensions.

Honestly, though, the possibility of there being no gods shouldn't be concerning to people with a deep and abiding faith, imo. If there were no gods to do or provide x.... there should be. I'll use a non religious analog - I believe that we can feed everyone on earth many times over. That there are starving people doesn't actually threaten this belief..but, on the offchance that for some reason I could not understand we actually can't do that, I would continue to believe that we should.

[Dānu]

Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it.  What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?

For those that believe in them, theistic gods can be a transactional agent that they might anticipate and/or bargain with.  A human-alike arbiter of outcomes past, present, and most importantly, future.  Whether a life can be lived without such a thing must come down to individual dispositions and apprehensions.  

Honestly, though, the possibility of there being no gods shouldn't be concerning to people with a deep and abiding faith, imo.  If there were no gods to do or provide x.... there should be.  I'll use a non religious analog - I believe that we can feed everyone on earth many times over.  That there are starving people doesn't actually threaten this belief..but, on the offchance that for some reason I could not understand we actually can't do that, I would continue to believe that we should.

Actually, no. If it turns out that breaking the limit imposed by the speed of light would as a side effect result in the destruction of the universe, the goal of doing so ceases to be desirable. If feeding everybody is a physical impossibility, desiring it is dumb; desiring to get as close to it as possible, however, isn't. Don't conflate the two. If living forever in heaven isn't possible we most definitely should not act as if it is and pursue it. That's just a form of neurosis.

[airportkid]

A belief that life continues beyond the grave.

That belief does not need a god.  A god can be added as a feature, so many people do put a god in it, but the belief can easily stand on its own without one.

[Rhythmcs]

If the fate of the universe depends on a bunch of speed freaks not making a machine.......

It's not really uncommon for me to believe I should do something I can't do. That things should be some way they are not. I think that's probably translatable to the experience of what I called a deep and abiding faith in the setup of the thought experiment - the thing you have a deep and abiding faith in is conclusively proven wrong (or, in my non religious analog not wrong, merely impossible).

[Rhythmcs]

A belief that life continues beyond the grave.

That belief does not need a god.  A god can be added as a feature, so many people do put a god in it, but the belief can easily stand on its own without one.

Because the universe loves irony....the people who came up with the gods we're currently obsessed with didn't (and still don't) put much stock in afterlives.   The celebration of life, this life, not the next one (if there even is such a thing) is central to judaism.

L'chaim!

[Dānu]

If the fate of the universe depends on a bunch of speed freaks not making a machine.......

It's not really uncommon for me to believe I should do something I can't do.  That things should be some way they are not.  I think that's probably translatable to the experience of what I called a deep and abiding faith in the setup of the thought experiment - the thing you have a deep and abiding faith in is conclusively proven wrong (or, in my non religious analog not wrong, merely impossible).

I was assuming that you meant that we should rationally want that. Hell, anything goes if we're talking non-rationally. My mind is like a poorly tended garden, filled with the weeds of irrational desire. I have no problem with that. There are a few cases which, my previous post not-withstanding, may deserve further scrutiny.

One is the case of libertarian freedom and the presumption that we are all capable of rational choice. Libertarianism posits that the greatest good for the greatest many may be achieved by people being allowed to make any choice, no matter how detrimental to themselves, provided it doesn't impinge upon another's ability to do the same. This assumes that on the whole we exhibit general rationality in our choices, and ceterus paribus, we do. However it tends to ignore people whose rational choosing is systematically compromised, such as a drug addict choosing to abuse, or a child doing something its parents consider unreasonably dangerous. But should we strive to embrace the libertarian assumption in spite of such edge cases? Perhaps.

A second case is that of economic theory which, under most theories, postulates that we are rational shepherds of our own self interest, that we make economic decisions rationally. But the field of human psychology documents a multitude of ways in which this assumption is flawed. Yet these theories seem to best approximate human behavior in the aggregate, even though in the particular they are full of rocks. Should we continue refining and using these tools, or abandon them in favor of some other approach? I don't know.

A third case, like the first, is that all humans, even criminals, should be treated with the same dignity, concern for rights and well-being, and freedoms, as permitting, as even the most virtuous among us. The Declaration Of Independence suggests that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and woe be unto the English who would stand in our way. We believe that there are a core set of human rights which, even among the lowliest of us, must of necessity be honored. Should we treat everybody as if they were good and just even though some may demonstrate a consistent tendency to be otherwise? Probably.

[Rhythmcs]

Cultural christians would probably tell us that there -is- a rational basis for the desirability of christian society and ethics.  That no part of it truly depends on the existence of a god. A fourth case (and, largely, what most believing christians who fall away from faith actually do).

[Dānu]

Cultural christians would probably tell us that there -is- a rational basis for the desirability of christian society and ethics.  That no part of it truly depends on the existence of a god.  A fourth case (and, largely, what most believing christians who fall away from faith actually do).

Yes, but that's neither a desire for theism or religion, but rather for benefits that might be wholly separable from either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jehovahish character in the Old Testicle killed everything but Noah's family and some fish. My question is "why did the people who had never heard of Yahweh have to die?"

[Dānu]

Jehovahish character in the Old Testicle killed everything but Noah's family and some fish. My question is "why did the people who had never heard of Yahweh have to die?"

Sympathy birth pains.

[Sefan]

At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world:  Science has definitively proved that no god exists - anywhere in the universe.  All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job?  Would your friends abandon you (or would you abandon friends)?  In what ways would how you spend your time change?  Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade?  Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question.  Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it.  What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?


Note to Mods - I meant this to be in the atheism thread, not here, please relocate, thanks and apologies.

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

[Vera]

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

How about you answer the HYPOTHETICAL question, instead of your usual prevarication and evasion?

You know, purely HYPOTHETICALLY. Or is this a sin? A mortal one even, like dissing the holy ghost or something? (Weird this, how touchy the holy ghost is in particular. Everything else - genocide, raping of babies, burtalising and torturing your "neighbour" - *is* forgivable, but god forbid someone breathes a single word against the holy ghost. Imagine being *this* thin-skinned).

Or maybe you're incapable of even imagining a world without a universal father figure? Why is that? Lack of imagination or is the notion that one day, all too soon, you will be gone from this universe, forever and ever, utterly forgotten within a couple of generations, if that, just too scary?

[Rhythmcs]

Yes, but that's neither a desire for theism or religion, but rather for benefits that might be wholly separable from either.

IDK about it not being a desire for either.  In a very consequential sense it is the normative statement that though things are not some such way in fact, they should be, and in a better world would be.  That, to me, seems like it is either caused by or engenders some desire.  Granted, the things they reference are arguably separable just as you note.

[Rhythmcs]

Jehovahish character in the Old Testicle killed everything but Noah's family and some fish. My question is "why did the people who had never heard of Yahweh have to die?"

They weren't fucking who god wanted them to fuck, were fucking who god wanted them not to fuck, and wouldn't do what god told them to do....creating yet more impurity in the world....and just generally gumming up his otherwise "perfect" plan. 

Map reset.

[Cavebear]

Jehovahish character in the Old Testicle killed everything but Noah's family and some fish. My question is "why did the people who had never heard of Yahweh have to die?"

"And God, in a fit of Puerile Pique (perfect in all Ways of course), decided to kill all of humankind, his flawed start with those, you know, Adam&Eve types who basically incestuated themselves (forced by HIS Original Idea). And WHEN they (apparently) managed to get enough genetic diversity after all that incest were starting to multiply (healthfully), HE decided that HE had made a mistake in the beginning. So HE decided to punish all the healthy survivors of incest to make up for HIS origiginal sin and destroy them all.

EXCEPT, This time he would Do The Same Thing and recreate humans only by another small family of related adults (expecting to get a different outcome). So, HE decided there would be no unicorns and it pleased HIM that there would not be. And the oceans of the Earth expanded.

Never mind that the blidals were a favorite food of the tigers and were quickly eaten. HE expected that of course. What would HE be without foreknowledge?

So This Time, of course, Incest would not be a problem (HE hoped). And we are all the children of Noah (and his small incestuaist) family and are therefore perfect in his mind. "

The Book According To Cavebear. The finally revealed and the unvarnished and unpainted truth according to the person who wrote this (I come to you from the future).

[TheGentlemanBastard]

At your discretion -

You awaken tomorrow to find headlines around the world:  Science has definitively proved that no god exists - anywhere in the universe.  All the religious leaders concur.

How would your life be different?

Would you lose your job?  Would your friends abandon you (or would you abandon friends)?  In what ways would how you spend your time change?  Would your expectations for your future change - for the next day, next week, next month, next year, next decade?  Would you suddenly lose talents?

Etc.

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question.  Millions of atheists around the world enjoy fulfilling lives without needing a god in it, while many millions cannot envision a life without a god in it.  What is it that a god adds that cannot be lived without?


Note to Mods - I meant this to be in the atheism thread, not here, please relocate, thanks and apologies.

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

[Rhythmcs]

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

Pretty simply, actually.  A theistic god is so called because it is interventional, and anything that intervenes in this world....can be studied by that intervention. God isn't a blind spot for science, rather, the other way around - the people who came up with gods could have never imagined science.

[Inkubus]

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

The existence of the supernatural isn't a blind spot for science. The supernatural does not exist and we have known this for a long time, there are no miracles, no magic, no omnipresence, no resurrections and no... any of the other bollocks you find in magic books.
The God of the bible, the God of Christianity does not, can not, exist.
We know this as sure as we know the Earth is not fucking flat.

[Cavebear]

How do you expect to use Science to prove the existence of God? Don't you think the existence of God is a blind spot for science?

The existence of the supernatural isn't a blind spot for science. The supernatural does not exist and we have known this for a long time, there are no miracles, no magic, no omnipresence, no resurrections and no... any of the other bollocks you find in magic books.
The God of the bible, the God of Christianity does not, can not, exist.
We know this as sure as we know the Earth is not fucking flat.

Actually (and I'm sorry), but we don't "know" this with equal certainty. We can provide evidence that the Earth is not flat. But we cannot prove that a deity (or anything else) does not exist.

[Inkubus]

The existence of the supernatural isn't a blind spot for science. The supernatural does not exist and we have known this for a long time, there are no miracles, no magic, no omnipresence, no resurrections and no... any of the other bollocks you find in magic books.
The God of the bible, the God of Christianity does not, can not, exist.
We know this as sure as we know the Earth is not fucking flat.

Actually (and I'm sorry), but we don't "know" this with equal certainty.  We can provide evidence that the Earth is not flat.  But we cannot prove that a deity (or anything else) does not exist.

How do you prove the non existence of something that cannot, as defined, exist? There is no possible mechanism.

[Rhythmcs]

The existence of the supernatural isn't a blind spot for science. The supernatural does not exist and we have known this for a long time, there are no miracles, no magic, no omnipresence, no resurrections and no... any of the other bollocks you find in magic books.
The God of the bible, the God of Christianity does not, can not, exist.
We know this as sure as we know the Earth is not fucking flat.

Actually (and I'm sorry), but we don't "know" this with equal certainty.  We can provide evidence that the Earth is not flat.  But we cannot prove that a deity (or anything else) does not exist.

Don't have to.  Deities do exist - tens of thousands of them...history's endless parade of gods...and it's actual evidence about what they actually are, that tells us what they're not, and what they do not and cannot do.  Can they exist as we tell them and as believers propose them?  No, because of how we tell the stories of their existence and the many completely testable positions they take, which have been utterly discredited.  It's a pretty tight little knot.

I don't personally think that this is deleterious to the normative contents of the religions of gods - but here again, it's because I take gods to be what they self evidently are as a matter of fact. Not because of anything we don't know.

[rocinantexyz]

Brushing the question aside by claiming such a proof is impossible only ducks the question.

Maybe a slightly modified version where everyone on the planet agrees with X (or perhaps doesn't agree) except you? To avoid the mentioned pitfall.