What are the Benefits of Theism?

[tillingborn]

Would you accept from me as proof if I just said "everything for millennia," and "library"? Or are you familiar with the concept of actual evidence?

Are you familiar with books? People have different ideas. Read any two books and see if you can tell the difference.

[Immanuel Can]

Would you accept from me as proof if I just said "everything for millennia," and "library"? Or are you familiar with the concept of actual evidence?

Are you familiar with books? People have different ideas. Read any two books and see if you can tell the difference.

Oh. So now we've got thing about "everything in the last millennia," and "library," and now "books."

I'm sorry...it's all just too funny. You can't possibly be serious.

[tillingborn]

Oh. So now we've got thing about "everything in the last millennia," and "library," and now "books."

I'm sorry...it's all just too funny. You can't possibly be serious.

I don't know if anyone has ever proposed a serious study, the aim of which is to determine whether or not all the books ever written are about the same idea. If you really think such an effort would teach you anything you don't already know, you are either catastrophically ignorant, or you have lost your mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Among the people who do seriously examine their beliefs, there is no consistency of choice.

I don't think you know this is true at all.

Have you any study or set of studies that defines what is meant by "seriously examine," and shows the effect you claim to see?

Such was our conversation.

And your answers...

"Millenia"!

"Libraries!"

"Books!"

And now, "The studies can't be done!"

You're awesome.

[tillingborn]

And now, "The studies can't be done!"

How delusional do you have to be to invent such a quote, when the actual words are in the post that immediately preceded your fabrication:

I don't know if anyone has ever proposed a serious study

I'm astonished that you have so little sense of shame, and now I'm curious to see just what ridiculous depths you will sink to. Let's find out how insane you really are.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know if anyone has ever proposed a serious study

Yeah....like, I'm supposed to take you seriously in your suggestion that I had said you had to study all the books, and since I had "asked" the outrageous, you were off the hook.

And then I'm the one who's supposed to be ashamed of how he's arguing?

The high road would be to say, "Well, I was bluffing: I don't know how serious anybody's study of that question was, or how many ideologies they considered, or that none of them was motivated by something other than truth, but I was hoping it might be true..."

A little forthcomingness would do somebody a world of good here.

Your play, chief.

[tillingborn]

Yeah....like, I'm supposed to take you seriously in your suggestion that I had said you had to study all the books, and since I had "asked" the outrageous, you were off the hook.

No, I said two would do.

And then I'm the one who's supposed to be ashamed of how he's arguing?

Of course not. We have established that you have little or no shame.

The high road would be to say, "Well, I was bluffing: I don't know how serious anybody's study of that question was, or how many ideologies they considered, or that none of them was motivated by something other than truth, but I was hoping it might be true..."

Interesting. You are telling me how I should interpret the data from a study I have already said I don't know has been conducted.

A little forthcomingness would do somebody a world of good here.

On that we agree.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah....like, I'm supposed to take you seriously in your suggestion that I had said you had to study all the books, and since I had "asked" the outrageous, you were off the hook.

No, I said two would do.

Two would show that two authors had once disagreed. If you think that's necessary to prove, go ahead. It proves nothing of importance, though.

We have established that you have little or no shame.

"We?" Did somebody make you a king?

The high road would be to say, "Well, I was bluffing: I don't know how serious anybody's study of that question was, or how many ideologies they considered, or that none of them was motivated by something other than truth, but I was hoping it might be true..."

Interesting. You are telling me how I should interpret the data from a study I have already said I don't know has been conducted.

Lovely! There it is again! The "twist the claim" and see if you can stick the landing.

Sorry, sport. You're on your butt. I always knew you had no such study. I'm just telling you what you should have said in the first place, since "we" know it's true.

[tillingborn]

Two would show that two authors had once disagreed. If you think that's necessary to prove, go ahead. It proves nothing of importance, though.

It would prove that you had read two books.

I always knew you had no such study.

No doubt you worked that out when I told you that no such study has been conducted.

[Immanuel Can]

It would prove that you had read two books.

Heh.

Well, have a nice day, wontcha?

[tillingborn]

It would prove that you had read two books.

Heh.

Have all of the philosophical, scientific and theological books you have read started with the same premises and reached the same conclusion? Of course not. The elephant in the room is that some people cannot admit that ultimately ideas are held for aesthetic reasons, because emotionally they need their personal beliefs to be true. The benefits of Theism: eternal life, divine justice, moral authority, supernatural cosmogony, physics, biology and so on, are so great that for some people the idea that they might not be true is aesthetically repugnant. The good news for such people is that the fact that they like an idea doesn't make it wrong. The downside is that some people of faith will react with anger and even violence to challenges to their beliefs, and everyone who can see beyond the bridge of their nose knows it.

Well, have a nice day, wontcha?

I think the world would be a better place if we could say that and mean it. I hope you do have a nice day.

[Belinda]

Tillingborn wrote:

Have all of the philosophical, scientific and theological books you have read started with the same premises and reached the same conclusion? Of course not. The elephant in the room is that some people cannot admit that ultimately ideas are held for aesthetic reasons, because emotionally they need their personal beliefs to be true. The benefits of Theism: eternal life, divine justice, moral authority, supernatural cosmogony, physics, biology and so on, are so great that for some people the idea that they might not be true is aesthetically repugnant. The good news for such people is that the fact that they like an idea doesn't make it wrong. The downside is that some people of faith will react with anger and even violence to challenges to their beliefs, and everyone who can see beyond the bridge of their nose knows it.

Yes. And that is why humility is a virtue. Ability to accept that one's system of belief is inter-subjective is also a virtue.

[Skepdick]

Have all of the philosophical, scientific and theological books you have read started with the same premises and reached the same conclusion?

Why do you place such a normative view upon such matters?

Are they supposed to?

Of course not. The elephant in the room is that some people cannot admit that ultimately ideas are held for aesthetic reasons

Ultimately, aesthetics doesn't matter. Ideas are held for deeply instrumental/pragmatic and psychologically necessary reasons.

The only people who have the luxury to hold ideas on aesthetic basis are those who don't concern themselves with important matters.

Philosophers. Deep thinkers. Morons who think reason alone is sufficient to arrive at true conclusions.

Like this

The downside is that some people of faith will react with anger and even violence to challenges to their beliefs, and everyone who can see beyond the bridge of their nose knows it.

Of course! It's only natural. Since everybody's beliefs can be successfully challenged, and everybody's beliefs have no foundation to stand upon then it always raises the question. Why do you challenge other people's beliefs if yours won't stand up to the same level of scrutiny?

All beliefs, are ultimately based on faith. Facts are useless in deciding what the future should be.

[Dontaskme]

What are the Benefits of Theism?

Would be like asking a child what are the benefits of

[tillingborn]

humility is a virtue.

Indeed. Despite rarely being adhered to, that is arguably the single most influential maxim in western philosophy. The story of Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi in Plato's Apology is foundational to western thought. Socrates was wise precisely because he knew he didn't know. Fundamentally, it's why things as well established as evolution and relativity are still called theories.