The debate between Vroomfondle and Magicthighs must end

Click for this part of the story

Click for this part of the story

For me, it is the certainty that people have about religious convictions that annoys. This is like thinking you have a firm foundation on shifting sands. It is an illusion. God is necessarily a human concept, one created, along with many other ideas, to explain the underlying reason of everything: why we die, the earth goes round the sun, earthquakes kill thousands. The human intellect is wasted on who god is. For if such a being exists it is beyond our experience of him, and as our language is based on our experience we end up having a meaningless discussion, about something we do not know.

How I live my life, how the natural world exists at this present moment, is not dependent on this question. It is part of our childhood at the dawn of Homo sapiens. Perhaps we will soon start asking questions worthy of us having obtained consciousness.

Often on a journey, to make any headway, we need to discard unnecessary baggage. Let’s leave the discussion of god to Vroomfondle and Magicthighs (philosophers in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), for there are more pressing things to occupy our time. In short, the theist atheist debate is non-sensei cal and its conclusions unimportant to real problems of philosophy, the natural world and ethics.

Too many resources have been wasted before blood thirsty gods, and even a world renowned biologist is being forced to try and put faith back in its place instead of concentrating on the natural world. I agree with Sam Harris that it is depressing that in some ways we need to still discuss whether there is or is not a god – my point is that it is not the question to be asking! The debate should not be about whether God exists or not. You and I cannot talk about anything beyond experience. God as a concept is definitely outside of our experience, like the sound of one hand clapping or meeting a man that was not there. We have better explanations for life the universe and everything, the god of the gaps argument is narrowed.

Wittgenstein said: ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.’

With creationists the biggest refute is not the irrationality of their religious beliefs, but that their faith tells us nothing about the natural world. That only empirical adequacy as demanded by science is the way to explain natural phenomena. That “We don’t know yet but we are working at it” is an acceptable statement of now and potential for the future.If you really believe that Bush invaded Iraq because god told him too than you are as gullible as a young earth creationist. There is more to the machinations of man than can be contemplated in your philosophy. We must separate the (meaningless) debate of there is/is not a God from the important point of whether our belief, philosophy, and actions benefit humankind or not. That is the task of the philosopher; to understand how this framework to achieving this goal may be achieved.

Vroomfondle and Magicthighs are a side show to the main event. Do not become distracted; religion is irrational not because of the god concept, but the tenant of faith that is placed in man because man said this in the past.



Filed under atheism, Philosophy, Religion

8 responses to “The debate between Vroomfondle and Magicthighs must end

  1. I want to ask one simple question of you. You say that Xianity is illogical because we place all of our faith on God to explain everything else. I would like to go ahead and point out that, Atheist and evolutionist, also place the entirety of their faith on something that Science says CAN’T HAPPEN.I.E. (universe origionated from a point of infinite density(nothingness) and made everything)

    “Matter can neither be CREATED nor destroyed.”-First law


  2. How there is something rather than nothing is not really a simple question. And pseudo scientific understanding does not help lead to god as the explanation.

    But saying god did it is one thing (A) – saying that this god sent his son via a virgin to redeem mankind with christianity is something else (B). There is no logic that gets you from A to B. Hence me calling christianity’s belief system illogical.

    Further there is no proof that god exists or is necessary for all other things to exist. And if we go on we end up playing out the characters of Broomfondle and Magicthighs.

    The discussion has to move on. But I can reject your accusation of faith. Rather I want to examine the evidence, the proof. What I know nothing about (how there is something rather than nothing) I remain silent about it. I wish people with faith would be as humble, Instead of saying they know god, how he did it, and how he wants me to live my life or else I shall burn in hell. Your proof is based on the writings of ancient men that were superstitious.

    Which does not strike me as meek or mild nor very wise. It is like staying in Plato’s cave preferring the shadows on the wall.

    You are entitled to your opinion. But if you believe in god you are wrong, and if you believe you know what this god wants from you and wish to serve such a god this is similar to a delusion based on gut feeling rather than evidence. In the public sphere you have no right to use your religion to constrain my freedoms or happiness as a sacrifice to your god.

    Just leave me out of it.

  3. Wow

    Wow, What an idiotic waste of bytes. An atheist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about is even funnier than a True Believe, and their are pretty funny.

  4. Pingback: Obsessed with God? Not as an atheist « Homo economicus' Weblog

  5. Although I agree that it is more important to investigate the use of religious belief, than it is to define if a God does or does not exist, saying that “God as a concept is definitely outside of our experience” is a subjective statement. You are judging, without evidence, that people stating they believe they have experienced “God” are automatically delusional. This is just as invalid as believing in a deity without any evidence.
    Further more, relating a belief in God to a belief in creationism is like relating a belief in Jesus to a belief in God or creationism.
    Trying to assess a group of believers without analysing the content of their beliefs is building your castle on shifting sand.

    If we isolate the argument of determining the existance of a deity without getting sidetracked into creationism etc: If a God exists, would that change the way you live?
    I think for a lot of people, sadly, the answer is that it would. So many people feel that they are not guilty of breaking societies rules unless they get caught.
    The introduction of a God, means that people are then scared of getting caught – which is precisely what the Catholic church was trying to do. Control of the masses and therefore order in society.
    Having an argument about the existance of God is a path to circumvent the masses saying “yes, we do behave badly, but what are you going to do about it”. Of course, the easiest reply will always be “not a lot, but look out for God!”.

    Frankly, I have found that a lot of “scientific” ideas are based on their very own special belief structure. There is no evidence to prove that people do not communicate with God as much as there is no evidence to prove that they do. Any belief in either direction depends on faith or at best probability.

    Personal experience determines a lot of beliefs and I for one say we should respect those beliefs, but promote the idea that beliefs without foundation or personal evidence, let alone publicly accepted evidence will always be open to debate and scrutiny.

    • I’m more saying that describing God becomes a flight of imagination, the essence of poetry and the sublime. In other words language expressing a feeling rather than an actual entity.

      It is not evidence for a God. But it is not meaningless either. The real problem is when people start saying this entity demands acts which we really would consider deranged accept for widespread belief “God said”.

      • Perhaps with our limited understanding, we can express our experiences of something on the very limits of our narrow frame of reference only as a feeling or through art.
        A description can only be derived from personal experience and will therefore never become world wide and acceptable evidence.
        Even if a deity chose to knock on mankinds proverbial door, every person who answers would describe the experience as different and perhaps not even accept the porch dweller as remarkable in any way.

        I would say that rather than rejecting a God, it would be more prudent to universally reject poor behaviour, illegal actions and injustice, no matter the mask the perpetrator wears.

        For example, in the UK, we introduced new terrorism laws. Was this because acts of terrorism were previously legal? No!! It was because (1) it gave the public a focus on a new threat (similar to 1984 by George Orwell) and (2) it allowed councils, police and agencies to breach the human rights of law abiding citizens.

        In this and your example, I would argue the core issue is enforcing existing laws and rules in society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s