Is God a projection of our thoughts only?

[ElanorGamgee]

Oops!

This is completely false.

The "proof" is only a philosophical position. The "Theory" of Pythagoras works every single time - it proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, but because science is honest and we cannot get the odds lower than infinity to one against, we don't call it "proof".

100% certainty is for people who gets their facts from religious books.

It sounds as if "100% certainty" is also for people who call themselves The Atheist. ;>)

By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false. Check the dictionary. Also check your math book because you are referring to the Theorem of Pythagoras. A theorem is a statement in mathematics or logic that CAN be proved to be true by logic. Of course, the theorem of Pythagoras works every time; however, a mathematical theorem and a philosophical theory are not synonymous.

[MarkBastable]

Oops!
By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false.

....


the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.



the·o·rem   /ˈθiərəm, ˈθɪərəm/ Show Spelled[thee-er-uhm, theer-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. Mathematics . a theoretical proposition, statement, or formula embodying something to be proved from other propositions or formulas.
2. a rule or law, esp. one expressed by an equation or formula.
3. Logic . a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.
4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.



It's nothing like as straightforward as you suggest, Elanor. Both those words - theory and theorem - have different meaning depending on context - as do most words that are specific to several academic or intellectual disciplines and also used in vernacular senses.

As an exzmple of that - if my wife says I'm paranoid (vernacular use) she means I'm uptight and cautious, and I need to lighten up. If a clinical psychologist says I'm paranoid (specific disciplinary use) he means that I have a medical condition of which the characteristics are established and I need drugs.

You might argue that Atheist's use of the word was imprecise, but that would be an argument about context. It won't change the thrust of his argument, which remains in need of a response, I'd say.

And his position is this: Pythagoras' Theorem is demonstrably true. The existence of God isn't - not in that demonstrable way. You might say God must exist, or you believe he exists, or it's not possible to prove that he doesn't exist. But none of that proceeds to the conclusion that he does.

Atheist requires proof. You don't. But you can't protest that his logic is faulty, because it isn't. And he can't say your faith isn't logical, but faith doesn't require logic.

[LMK]

There is only one qualifier to be christian - belief in the christian god, which we can tell by asking the person. The overwhelming majority of prison inmates state that they are christian.

Please don't start any "True christian" fallacies here.



Is becoming an axe-murderer "turning your life around"?

I strongly disagree, and that is my prerogative.

Simply making a statement does not make a thing so, regardless of how passive aggressive or outright vitriolic the statement is.

I maintain my suggestion that there are probably far fewer Christians in jails than The Atheist presumes.

[ElanorGamgee]

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous. Will you concede that both IceM and I were using theory in a philosophical context in which its meaning is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact?"

Also, in both my posts, I intentionally made no attempt to reply to the statements made. I was merely trying to point out that IceM's words were contradictory and that The Atheist was mistaken when comparing a philosophical theory to a mathematical theorem. I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others. Was I too cryptic or just plain ineffective?

Just making sure we all speak the same language and that we are honest with our logic.

[LMK]

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous.

I disagree, that is like saying God and Religion are synonymous, in my opinion. Mathematically speaking; a theory is an idea that has yet to be proven wrong, while a theorem is an application of the theory that shows it to be consistent with the theory.

[The Atheist]

It sounds as if "100% certainty" is also for people who call themselves The Atheist. ;>)

Only on Sundays.

By the way, what I said regarding theory and certainty was not false.

Thanks to Mark for clearing this one up!

I strongly disagree, and that is my prerogative.

Sure.

Simply making a statement does not make a thing so, regardless of how passive aggressive or outright vitriolic the statement is.

Given that there is no consensus whatsoever on what a christian should believe, the only possible qualifier is "someone who self-identifies as christian".

Fred Phelps believes he is a christian, and he is, no matter how warped or insane his ideas are. Roman Catholics are all unquestionably christian, yet Jack Chick believes they are not.

The problem is, if you put qualifiers in to decide who is and who isn't christian, you immediately run afoul of the True Scotsman fallacy.

I maintain my suggestion that there are probably far fewer Christians in jails than The Atheist presumes.

Well, you'd better tell me what your qualifiers are, because the figures I showed are quite definitive.

Okay, Mark, I concede that if the context is math theory and theorem are synonymous. Will you concede that both IceM and I were using theory in a philosophical context in which its meaning is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact?"

You mean like the "theory" of evolution? Many fundies make a lot of fuss about that, claiming it is "only a theory".

Unfortunately, they're completely wrong and evolution is factual. Because science is honest, it uses terminology that may confuse the uninitiated.

To check my views on philosophical theories, check out the "when is philosophy drivel?" thread.

I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others.

Where have I made absolute statements?

[LMK]

Well, you'd better tell me what your qualifiers are, because the figures I showed are quite definitive.

No, I do not think I need to supply qualifiers when it was I who asked the question. Additionally, I am not sure that the figures are quite definitive.

I also wanted The Atheist to see that he was guilty of the same absolutism of which he was criticizing others.
Where have I made absolute statements?

Where did you get this quote? I do not recall writing it and cannot find it.

[tailor STATELY]

Is God a projection of our thoughts only?
Most of you do not agree. I often wonder how man can carve out a figure that he has never seen. The Bible or the rest of theologies are man's projections and how can man project things he has never seen.

This premise is false from the git-go from my LDS, a Christian, perspective; from "The Grandeur of God" by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

"In addition to the witness of the ancients we also have the modern miracle of Palmyra, the appearance of God the Father and His Beloved Son, the Savior of the world, to the boy prophet Joseph Smith."

Full article here

Perhaps those of faith would remember this admonition of Paul's which is still relevant in these passages:

2Timothy 2:
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

From "The Pattern of Our Parentage" by Elder Boyd K. Packer
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

"And I add one more conviction: there is an adversary who has his own channels of spiritual communication. He confuses the careless and prompts those who serve him to devise deceptive, counterfeit doctrine, carefully contrived to appear genuine."

And lastly from 2Timothy 2:16 an exhortation that applies today:

"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

and 1Timothy 6:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY

[The Atheist]

No, I do not think I need to supply qualifiers when it was I who asked the question. Additionally, I am not sure that the figures are quite definitive.

Well, I answered it the only way possible, so that subject's closed.

Where did you get this quote? I do not recall writing it and cannot find it.

My apologies, it's a bad quote by me - now fixed above.

[b]This premise is false from the git-go from my LDS, a Christian, perspective;...

The bible/other religious books aren't really relevant to answer the question since they have an a priori position that a god exists.

[MarkBastable]

tailor - If you'd like us to pay attention to Paul's advice, I think you have to give us some reason to consider him an authority. In short, why should I give any credence to what Paul says on the subject of the existence of God or anything else?

[OrphanPip]

I don't understand the question in the OP.

If you're implying that the concept of the Christian God is a construct, a fable, or merely a pretty (and often not so pretty) story, then, yes, I agree.

[blazeofglory]

This is what I want to know for sure. I simply cannot subscribe to a mythical God or a personal God. There is a Hindu God, a Christian God, an Islamic God and the like and the followers of one God clashing with the followers of another God.

I have no evidence to prove there is a God or disapprove of a universal God. But I think the Gods or their ideologies in perpetual clash with one another. That is the root cause of the dis-harmonies in this modern age

[Aragorn Elessar]

I believe in a psychological god - a projection of our thoughts indeed! He is the God of our minds, nothing more, as I see it. Feel free to disagree: roughly 80% of humans, according to some estimates, are religious, which is substantially high. The percentage is dropping, though. I think with the fast improving science and technology of the modern era, people are finally coming to their senses.

[The Atheist]

I believe in a psychological god - a projection of our thoughts indeed! He is the God of our minds, nothing more, as I see it. Feel free to disagree: roughly 80% of humans, according to some estimates, are religious, which is substantially high. The percentage is dropping, though. I think with the fast improving science and technology of the modern era, people are finally coming to their senses.

What's more, the numbers of theists in educated societies has fallen very sharply in the past 50 years - outside of USA - while growth in religion has been in the less-ediucated parts of the world, notably Africa and Asia.

[Aragorn Elessar]

What's more, the numbers of theists in educated societies has fallen very sharply in the past 50 years - outside of USA - while growth in religion has been in the less-ediucated parts of the world, notably Africa and Asia.

Yeah, I don't know that the decline of religion is actually beneficial to the human race, however. It probably doesn't cause more harm than good most of the time, so it's really nothing to worry about. But, on the other hand, there is really no reason to believe in something that has no evidence.

So, although I am an atheist, I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference to us as a species to become chiefly non religious. Rarely does religion actually do harm to others, so I suppose its existence is not so awful.