Layers of god discussions

[Kilmir]

Hello, I've been a lurker for a while here, and occasional poster on
alt.atheism.
I'm a born atheist and ever since childhood I never could figure out
how people could suspend logic and reasoning when it came to the point
of religious beliefs.

I've followed a lot of discussions and I've noticed, especially from
the theist viewpoint, that most discussions about the evidencing and
proving of the god entities and actions jumps around a lot. Usually it
comes down to the point where a theistic standpoint is reached which
has almost nothing to do anymore with the initial premises, but can't
be reliably disputed. The theist assumes that argument is won and
"feels" the entire discussion is won at that point.
Further discussions tend to reach that point sooner or later and
reinforce his/her viewpoint. Almost any basic premise can eventually
be validated in this way.

It is now my current assumption that this sort of "tactics" play a
major role in maintaining religiosity in many of the theistic
adherents. The flaw in logic that individual arguments can be won or
lost in an overall discussion seems to be inherent to all religious
posters.

I've build a sort of layer framework for myself to deal with these
jumps. As a general rule I tend to consider an argument as "lost" when
it jumps a layer up.
The difficulty sometimes comes when more experienced (atheist) posters
immediately use arguments from a higher layer to invalidate the
initial standpoint. This is not so much about jumping layers as it is
experience with these types of discussions and where they will end up,
and attack the final arguments.
Also, some points are almost between layers. Issues that are at the
razor's edge of current scientific understanding fall in that grey
area for instance. A lot of discussions about origin of life /
abiogenesis are like that, but the discussions in these grey area's
are usually at the higher of the 2 layers.

The layers I use, though they probably need finetuning, are as
follows:

Layer 1 - creator god
Basically a Deist version of gods. The properties of this entity
encompass basic god-like things like creator of the universe / this
world / men.Other properties in this layer are being outside of
reality / being reality itself, all-knowing, all-powerfull, timeless.

Layer 2 - indirect god
Building on the first layer, additional properties are assigned. Layer
2 gods influence our current universe, but do so via non-obvious
methods. The extras in this layer describe things that are outside of
our verifiable perception and are usually only known via holy texts or
preacher claims. Describing properties are things like handling the
afterlife, influencing decisions and things like comforting people in
times of need. Another part of this layer are claims about the will or
purpose of the god in question as well as other defining
characteristics of the entity itself.

Layer 3 - direct god
At this layer the god is claimed to directly influence events in the
world. It's often claimed to respond to actions done by people or is
assigned handling events of nature. This can be both current as in the
past, but all describe (currently) verifiable events.


Basically, layer 1 can not be proven true or false, though a logical
base position would be false.
Layer 2 is where most discussions happen because it can usually only
be interfered. The theist arguments are often (based in) scripture or
precedent, atheist arguments are mostly logic.
Layer 3 is a bit weird. Theistic arguments in this layer are general
proven false in seconds, but the majority of theists assume it's all
true. Theist arguments are usually claims and scripture, atheist
arguments in this layer are mostly evidence based.


Let my try a fictitious example to illustrate my framework:
T: Prayer works, because I prayed for the lottery and won it (Layer 3,
assuming the Christian god where prayers are answered)
A: But praying doesn't always work, "states an example". Also,
exhaustive tests have proven that prayer does not beat statistical
odds.
T: God decides which prayers are answered (jump to Layer 2, basically
the "Prayer works" argument is lost here and the discussion suddenly
goes about a Layer 2 subject: god's will)

If the discussion rests at this point (it usually doesn't, but let's
assume for the sake of argument), T will take it that the argument is
won, therefore the discussion is won and relates that back to the
point where T assumes the initial standpoint is also valid.


Another example, please keep in mind this is just to illustrate my
point and are not exhaustive discussions:
T: Adam and Eve were the first humans and they were cast out of Eden
(Layer 3, specific actions done by the god)
A: The fossil record proves Adam and Eve never existed and thus were
never cast out of anything
T: Then where did good and evil originate from if not from god's
punishment (jump to Layer 2, the discussion of A&E is lost and the
discussion focuses on the Layer 2 subject "good and evil")
A: Good and evil are subjective generalizations of (genetic) survival
instincts, influenced by cultural values and memes
T: It was god's plan when he created to universe that humans would
turn out this way (jump to Layer 1, abandoning the good and evil
argument and focusing on the Layer 1 subject of the creation of the
universe)

Generally when you get to Layer 1 there are no persuasive arguments or
evidences to be found to convince either participant in the
discussion. This usually means the theist assumes a form of victory
(it's not a loss...). This "feeling" then gets applied to the whole
discussion and both the Layer 2 and even Layer 3 arguments are then
assumed to be true as well.

So despite being falsified at the start, the theist still assumes Adam
and Eve were real at the end of the discussion. This makes religious
discussions basically useless because there is always a higher layer.
It does explain a lot of weird assumptions and ideas that keep popping
up as if they were never refuted though.


On the flip side, I have encountered a few issues where no decent
arguments could be made (for or against) without jumping to a higher
layer. This jump needs to be justified though, so the basic premise
that jumping is an automatic loss can be circumvented if the need
arises. There are not many of these kinds of issues though and I can't
recall any out of hand.


So.. does anyone care to shoot holes in this framework idea?

[Iamthesonofthedeviliam]

I think it's cool.

It also shows how someone can justify these things.

The framework of yours is really just as much theirs and it's all tied
together.

I actually focus more on getting them toward layer one thinking and
consider the other two layers as unneccessary for them(and their
God?).

[student13]

Hi,

thanks a lot for an interesting analysis.

need to keep this in mind while discussing.

thanks for this education.

cheers
student13

[Neil Kelsey]

I like it. It makes the theist's arguments less confusing to me.

[BlueSci]

On Jan 29, 5:21 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd say that's quite insightful. I've even given it 5 stars and I've
never used that rating stuff before. I think that this is worthy of
adding to the pages, so you ought to ask OldMan or Rap to post it for
you.

And please post more often.

[Drafterman]

God is like an onion. Ogres are like onions. Therefore, God makes me
cry when I cut him.

[Keith MacNevins]

Lettuce move on.

[parkwayandy]

On Jan 29, 7:21 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a solid post. I'll be interested in reading more of your
thoughts.

[Dag Yo]

Well come to think of it, the fact that theists use different Gods at
different times when it suits their argument the best is probably
exactly why so very few of them ever care to be forthcoming with their
own beliefs.

[Dev]

Yep. Kilmer's observation is clearly born of experience.

> > So.. does anyone care to shoot holes in this framework idea?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[fredcox]

My question is , assuming atheism is true, then where did the logic
the theist "suspended" as you say come from? If matter is all there is
matter gave rise to intelligence, This would mean we are all dumber
than dirt .
How would a person who believes his brain is the result of trillions
of random accidents know what logic is?
How can you be sure anything you believe is true?

[bonfly]

I don't think anybody here is questioning whether you are dumber than
dirt .

[Drafterman]

On Jan 29, 5:16 pm, fredcox <fpcharn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My question is , assuming atheism is true, then where did the logic
> the theist "suspended" as you say come from?

Philosophers.

> If matter is all there is
> matter gave rise to intelligence, This would mean we are all dumber
> than dirt .

No, it wouldn't. Dirt does not think.

> How would a person who believes his brain is the result of trillions
> of random accidents know what logic is?

I don't know, I've never met a person who believes his brain is the
result of trillions of random accidents. Have you?

> How can you be sure anything you believe is true?

Failed attempts at falsification.

[Dag Yo]

> If matter is all there is
> matter gave rise to intelligence, This would mean we are all dumber
> than dirt .

So to parse this out:

matter is everything
some matter is intelligent
therefore the matter that is intelligent is actually LESS intelligent
than non-intelligent matter

This argument is so good I think i'll serve Jesus from now on. Sorry
atheist buddies, but this guy is really onto something. We atheist
are actually dumber than dirt we should change our ways and beg for
forgiveness. I know I am.

------

[Sketch System]

On Jan 29, 5:21 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So.. does anyone care to shoot holes in this framework idea?

Not I. It's quite a good observation.

[Sketch System]

You've just done a fabulous job of demonstrating Kilmir's point.

On Jan 29, 2:16 pm, fredcox <fpcharn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Iamthesonofthedeviliam]

On Jan 29, 4:16 pm, fredcox <fpcharn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My question is , assuming atheism is true, then where did the logic
> the theist "suspended" as you say come from? If matter is all there is
> matter gave rise to intelligence, This would mean we are all dumber
> than dirt .

Or as intelligent. It's relative so that's fine.

> How would a person who believes his brain is the result of trillions
> of random accidents know what logic is?

It's a naming not a finding.

> How can you be sure anything you believe is true?

We don't have to be sure, we just have to live until we die.

[Trance Gemini]

Hi Kilmir.

No holes to shoot that I could see. Great post. And I agree with
BlueSci, you should ask OldMan or Rappoccio (our moderators) to post
it in Pages.

We can use it as a reference ;)

[Keith MacNevins]

You have no sense of humus.

[Dev]

You have a lot to learn about nonbelievers, fredcox. For one thing, I
almost never see nonbelievers call something that developed through
millions of years through trial and error an "accident"--that is
generally the Christian definition of the word. We know what logic is
because we use it, like you do when you're not being a theist, and it
works in contradicting bad ideas. As far as certainty is concerned,
that falls in your camp--atheists generally believe that if you don't
understand something, it is better to try to figure it out than take
the first illogical explanation that you like.

[DigitalPoet]

Great post!

You have to be a programmer. ;-)

I can't count how many times a conversation has resolved into a "Level
1" 'testimony to faith'. I have since tried to frame a way to call
"level 1" concepts into question. I used to think that this was the
end of the conversation... but now I try to push it further. (I do
agree that such beliefs cannot be challenged with only logic and
evidence)

I have, in essence, thus tried to focus the conversation on their very
concept of faith.

The valid arguments I see are:
- Faith (belief without evidence) silly because:
--- Any faith cannot be shown to be any different than any other faith
and should thus make one question the initial position. (FSM, IPU
arguments)

- Faith is dangerous because:
--- It sets a low standard for one's life that will leave one prone to
questionable judgment. Examples include:
----- Increased chance of being taken advantage of by those in higher
authority (pedophile priests, etc.)
----- Such faith can also cause one to inadvertently take advantage of
others (if you have faith that a sugar pill will cause weight-loss,
you will cause others harm by promoting it)

Note: once we move the target to 'faith', it does expand the
discussion past religion and to a wide variety of topics. I know
plenty of people who think religion is silly, but those crystals are
_for real_. ;-)

Please... if you have other ideas that can speak to the benefit or
harm of 'faith', I would like very much to hear them.

DigitalPoet

[Timothy 1:4a]

Bravo! Encore!

[Bob Crowley]

Whenever scientists attempt to emulate these so-called "accidents"
which are supposed to have given rise to life (and which they are
nowhere near proving), they inevitably use their intelligence to
design the experiment, and always start with the building blocks
already available. There's an article in today's Time where some
bloke called Ventner is supposed to be creating new life. All he's
done is extract DNA from an existing bacteria, tack on some DNA
building blocks (with DNA there already to copy from, so he has the
information already to hand) and insert it into a virus which already
exists.

To use a parable - if he were writing a new book, he's cut and pasted
from other books written by other intelligent authors, added a few
notes of his own due to his own thoughts, and compiled them together
to create a new book. In effect it's a mixture of other intelligent
design plus his own.

Where's this chance element we're always hearing about?

And of course in his case ALL of the work was intelligently designed.
Not one bit was left to chance.

[bonfly]

Bob Crowley, you should offer your head as a sacrifice to the shark
God, Big Maui. Maui absolutely 'thrives' on dead meat.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 29, 8:21 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very straight forward. I enjoyed the examples. I hope to see more from
you in the future.