God is an infallible theory

[Demigod79]

I would like to advance a point in this thread, which is that God is an infallible theory. I would like theists to pay particularly close attention to this. God is an all-encompassing theory and is inherently infallible. In other words, God cannot be proven false once it's held to be true. I will also show how infallible theories are incorrect and shouldn't be held.

I will demonstrate an infallible theory with another infallible example: good luck charms. Let's say you have a good luck charm (say a rabbit's foot or something) and you believe that it will bring you good luck (or better luck than you normally have). Now, let's say one day you have a fantastic day. You get a raise from work, you win the lottery, you get together with your ex, etc. Now, a person believing in the good luck charm will naturally attribute their success to the good luck charm. "See, this good luck charm works." However, let's say another day you have a miserable day. You get into a car accident and have to be rushed to the hospital. Now, lying on the hospital bed what would you think? Well, if you believe in the good luck charm you can reason "Well, if not for this good luck charm something worse might have happened. If not for the good luck provided by the charm I might have been crippled or might even have died! Therefore it's good that I had this good luck charm to protect me." Thus the good luck charm still works (as it provided more luck than normal). Therefore, no matter what happens, the good luck charm always works. It is infallible and can never be proven wrong.

God works in the same way. If you start out with the belief that God exists then no amount of evidence can convince you otherwise. If some atheist provides arguments against the existence of God you can reason that man cannot fathom God's actions (thus man's logic doesn't hold up) or that Satan is trying to lead you astray. If there's evil in the world you can reason that God, in his infinite wisdom, does it to make people stronger and to come to God. No matter what people say and no matter what evidence is there God still exists and can never be proven otherwise.

This is because infallible theories have one critical flaw. Infallible theories interpret the evidence based on the belief, which is typically the opposite of secularism (belief based on the evidence). They hold a certain belief and see everything in the light of that belief and it is because of that initial, unfounded belief (e.g., that a rabbit's foot brings good luck) that such a view is established. And this is why all infallible theories should be avoided. They are built on an unfounded belief, which then distorts everything thereafter. I wouuld encourage all people to drop infallible theories (good luck charms, Marxism, astronomy astrology, God) and form their beliefs on the evidence.

[edit] Fixed typo. Added extra

What I would like for theists to do is challenge that initial assumption. Try taking the opposite stance (God does not exist) or an alternate stance (believe in the Greek gods) and see if they can work. A person who believe in a good luck charm will usually find that it can also provide bad luck if you take the opposite stance (good days can be interpreted to be not as good as they could have been).

[a different tim]

Astronomy?

[Demigod79]

Oh, sorry, I meant astrology :rolleyes:

[Antyeller]

I'm confused what Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo (the 5 greatest Marxists of all time) have to do with infallibility.

[RenaissanceMan]

The theory I'm coming up with for this I'm called "Iterative delusion"

Basically, a deluded individual will believe some utter nonsense... If it can be clearly demonstrated that the delusion is false... then one of 2 things can happen, the individual will abandon the delusion or will iterate the delusion to accomodate the new evidence.

Example: A child believes there is a monster in the closet. Upon demonstration that there is, in fact... no monster is the closet the child may then become convinced that the monster is under the bed... eventually the child will determine that the monster was never there at all.

Children, of course... don't have groups telling them about closet monsters. Or about under bed monsters. They're able to iterate through each level of the delusion until it passes because they aren't being brainwashed into believing the delusion is real.

Religious groups have had a LONG TIME to process these iterations... at one point, god, the ultimate arm of justice, was just over that hill... later, he couldn't smite THOSE guys because they had chariots of iron... eventually he had no place to hide.

So the delusion had to iterate. Now... you have a god that cannot be demonstrated or proven by any rational means... only faith or death can explain it.

[Demigod79]

I'm confused what Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo (the 5 greatest Marxists of all time) have to do with infallibility.
Marxism interprets everything as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois. The Communist Manifesto shows this very clearly.

[Antyeller]

I'm confused what Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo (the 5 greatest Marxists of all time) have to do with infallibility.
Marxism interprets everything as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois. The Communist Manifesto shows this very clearly.
I'm also confused on why you answer a joke with a straight response. Clearly, Marxism interprets everything as a possible solution to the question "Why a duck?"

[RenaissanceMan]

I'm confused what Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo (the 5 greatest Marxists of all time) have to do with infallibility.
Marxism interprets everything as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois. The Communist Manifesto shows this very clearly.
I'm also confused on why you answer a joke with a straight response. Clearly, Marxism interprets everything as a possible solution to the question "Why a duck?"
Simple, because a duck and a bicycle both have handlebars, except the duck.

[Demigod79]

Heh, sorry, I've been reading up on a lot of Marxist theories lately (mostly because I'm forced to by my humanities course) and assumed that you were referring to them (should have read your post more carefully :rolleyes: ). I myself find that Marxist theories aren't all that bad, and there's an element of truth in them, but is also just one way of interpreting things.

[Viole]

Heh, sorry, I've been reading up on a lot of Marxist theories lately (mostly because I'm forced to by my humanities course) and assumed that you were referring to them (should have read your post more carefully :rolleyes: ). I myself find that Marxist theories aren't all that bad, and there's an element of truth in them, but is also just one way of interpreting things.
This is why you referred to Marxism as interpreting, "everything as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois," and as an 'infallible theory'. You're not displaying a terribly good understanding of that stuff you're reading.

[Demigod79]

Actually, I don't give crap about what I'm reading. Marxist media theory can go to hell for all I care (I really hate that class). Marx himself stated his methods to be 'scientific' or 'historically accurate' when it's anything but. From what he and Engels wrote in the CM and how he defends his view he can't seem to think of anything outside of the struggle between the working and ruling class. Throw any argument at him and he'll counter with stuff about ruling class, means of production, and capital. Anyone who disagrees is seen as having been "brainwashed" by beorgeois society.

[Viole]

You are one conflicted kid, you know that? Take a stand one way or the other.

Personally, I've always felt Marxism was centered around dialectic materialism. Can you tell me what that is?

[Demigod79]

I believe that would be the initial assumption behind Marxism. Much like psychoanalysis, I find that a psudeoscience at best (mostly observation, little or no testing).

[brad89]

The theory I'm coming up with for this I'm called "Iterative delusion"

Basically, a deluded individual will believe some utter nonsense... If it can be clearly demonstrated that the delusion is false... then one of 2 things can happen, the individual will abandon the delusion or will iterate the delusion to accomodate the new evidence.

Example: A child believes there is a monster in the closet. Upon demonstration that there is, in fact... no monster is the closet the child may then become convinced that the monster is under the bed... eventually the child will determine that the monster was never there at all.

Children, of course... don't have groups telling them about closet monsters. Or about under bed monsters. They're able to iterate through each level of the delusion until it passes because they aren't being brainwashed into believing the delusion is real.

Religious groups have had a LONG TIME to process these iterations... at one point, god, the ultimate arm of justice, was just over that hill... later, he couldn't smite THOSE guys because they had chariots of iron... eventually he had no place to hide.

So the delusion had to iterate. Now... you have a god that cannot be demonstrated or proven by any rational means... only faith or death can explain it.
That is a very good post. It shows how when a child says "uh, maybe a leprechan did it" and then a million overly happy adults come over going "Oh yes! It was the leprechan, do not let others fool you into believing otherwise!". Of course it isn't a leprechan. There is no proof that leprechans exist. Oh wait, same with god. Uh, maybe they do exist?

Well anyway, Christians build each other off of their cosiderate reactions to not go against the better of themselves because of fear of god. They probably do have the sense to know that they are incorrect, but when the Bible makes as strong a claim as "believe it or go to hell" it leads to an overall fear, one that can definitely envelop a gullible mind. I am even scared that I may be wrong and religion may be right. The only reason that the Bible might be right is because of the fact that they made it with surity. But that is only when I consider the narrow view, because the Koran and Torah say the exact same thing. Why is the Bible different?

For example, if you tell a child that he will go to hell for doing something, he will probably be scared to death of it. But if you say it ONCE and never mention it again, the child may learn that such an idea is childish. But when you hear it MILLIONS of times a sunday morning and afternoon, it is a terrifyingly real situation, one that causes people to never stray from the belief due to fear of the consequences.

This is astoundingly similar to George Orwell's 1984, the Big Brother (god) story about the totalitarian society (Christianity) and the "Big Brother is watching you" (god is everywhere). If anyone ever decided to speak against the Party (Christian Church) or Big Brother (god) or even think negatively of them (skepticism), they would be vaporized by the thought police (going to hell because of what priests say. But when they aren't under survailance (Priests) they can think freely of their ideas and concoct whatever they want to believe, whether Big Brother is really all that good (whether god is omnibenevolent) or whether he is a figment to instill fear (my view of the Biblical god).

I believe that most Christians are terrified that they will go to hell for even questioning their beliefs. All I can tell them is that if god gave you the ability to do it, don't worry about it, because otherwise he would not have done so. (unless of course the real god is the maltheist version!)

[Demigod79]

The theory I'm coming up with for this I'm called "Iterative delusion"

Basically, a deluded individual will believe some utter nonsense... If it can be clearly demonstrated that the delusion is false... then one of 2 things can happen, the individual will abandon the delusion or will iterate the delusion to accomodate the new evidence.

Example: A child believes there is a monster in the closet. Upon demonstration that there is, in fact... no monster is the closet the child may then become convinced that the monster is under the bed... eventually the child will determine that the monster was never there at all.

Children, of course... don't have groups telling them about closet monsters. Or about under bed monsters. They're able to iterate through each level of the delusion until it passes because they aren't being brainwashed into believing the delusion is real.

Religious groups have had a LONG TIME to process these iterations... at one point, god, the ultimate arm of justice, was just over that hill... later, he couldn't smite THOSE guys because they had chariots of iron... eventually he had no place to hide.

So the delusion had to iterate. Now... you have a god that cannot be demonstrated or proven by any rational means... only faith or death can explain it.
That is a very good post. It shows how when a child says "uh, maybe a leprechan did it" and then a million overly happy adults come over going "Oh yes! It was the leprechan, do not let others fool you into believing otherwise!". Of course it isn't a leprechan. There is no proof that leprechans exist. Oh wait, same with god. Uh, maybe they do exist?

Well anyway, Christians build each other off of their cosiderate reactions to not go against the better of themselves because of fear of god. They probably do have the sense to know that they are incorrect, but when the Bible makes as strong a claim as "believe it or go to hell" it leads to an overall fear, one that can definitely envelop a gullible mind. I am even scared that I may be wrong and religion may be right. The only reason that the Bible might be right is because of the fact that they made it with surity. But that is only when I consider the narrow view, because the Koran and Torah say the exact same thing. Why is the Bible different?

For example, if you tell a child that he will go to hell for doing something, he will probably be scared to death of it. But if you say it ONCE and never mention it again, the child may learn that such an idea is childish. But when you hear it MILLIONS of times a sunday morning and afternoon, it is a terrifyingly real situation, one that causes people to never stray from the belief due to fear of the consequences.

This is astoundingly similar to George Orwell's 1984, the Big Brother (god) story about the totalitarian society (Christianity) and the "Big Brother is watching you" (god is everywhere). If anyone ever decided to speak against the Party (Christian Church) or Big Brother (god) or even think negatively of them (skepticism), they would be vaporized by the thought police (going to hell because of what priests say. But when they aren't under survailance (Priests) they can think freely of their ideas and concoct whatever they want to believe, whether Big Brother is really all that good (whether god is omnibenevolent) or whether he is a figment to instill fear (my view of the Biblical god).

I believe that most Christians are terrified that they will go to hell for even questioning their beliefs. All I can tell them is that if god gave you the ability to do it, don't worry about it, because otherwise he would not have done so. (unless of course the real god is the maltheist version!)
Not only that, but Christian apologists build intricate logic behind their beliefs which make God seem plausible. It's not only gullible children who believe, but intelligent adults as well. Although I don't doubt many Christians believe out of fear many others do so because it makes sense.

Plus it only makes sense because a lot of people are ignorant. Laymen generally don't know enough about cosmology or genetics to fully understand scientific theories like the big bang or evolution. Thus a relatively simpler religious explanation might makes more sense to them. Even a university graduate will not understand scientific explanations if they've not studied them. Christian apologists will also reinforce their beliefs by pointing out supposed errors about scientific theories, and present them in a way that regular people will understand. However, an atheist's arguments pointing out fallacies in religion will usually go right over most people's heads (again, due to lack of knowledge about logic). When all of this is taken together (religion's simple explanation and simple rebuttal of science vs science's complex explanation and complex rebuttal of religion) it indicates that even without pressure or fear, when given all this data the average person would probably go for religion because it makes more sense.

The thing about the belief in God is that most people don't know how crazy it is because they've automatically assumed it to be true and their worldview comes out of that belief which then reinforces that belief. "I assume A. The world now seems to support A. Therefore A is true." It's like someone putting on a pair of red sunglasses, seeing that the world is red, and then saying that the sunglasses's red color accurately reflect the world. This is why I want theists to challenge that initial assumption, that initial belief. Without removing the red sunglasses you can't ever see the world as anything but red. Likewise, without removing the God-colored sunglasses theists can never see the world as anything else, no matter what evidence is brought up.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Example: A child believes there is a monster in the closet. Upon demonstration that there is, in fact... no monster is the closet the child may then become convinced that the monster is under the bed... eventually the child will determine that the monster was never there at all.

For example, if you tell a child that he will go to hell for doing something, he will probably be scared to death of it. But if you say it ONCE and never mention it again, the child may learn that such an idea is childish. But when you hear it MILLIONS of times a sunday morning and afternoon, it is a terrifyingly real situation, one that causes people to never stray from the belief due to fear of the consequences.
You put that very lucidly, which brings up an interesting notion. This preposterous notion that some religions have of prosthelytizing seems counterproductive; if there really were a singular god with a singular plan, it would stand to reason that a very large number of people would realize it on their own. So it would stand to reason that NOT prosthelytizing -- letting people "find god" in their own time -- would at least present a chance to show some genuine sociological evidence. If a child grows up without external interference -- by which I mean that any time she asked for advise on theological matters, she is not told what to believe or that any ideas she currently has are correct, but rather encouraged to think the matter out for more fully for herself -- then we could see the majority of the conclusions reached by individuals within this group.

I'm willing to bet that very few of those individuals would create the complex god-concepts that major religions espouse. The problem is that children are simply told that these unprovable concepts are true, and so their worldviews become informed by ideas that were imported from an external source with its own agenda. It's a classic case of the elephant in the living room, except that the elephant -- being religion -- is put in place before the living room -- being reality -- has been properly built. As such, the child has no way of knowing that elephant is out of place, because their reality. If the house is built around the elephant, however, it will be a very distored house; so too is the case with the worldview of the religious. Many of them think that oppression and intolerance -- against people of different genders, races, sexual-persuasions -- in the name of a god are good things, when they are in fact grossly immoral.

My proposal is for a large group of atheists to form a gated metropolis that is completely self-sustaining and free of external influence: an island would obviously be optimal, though largely impractical. To conduct our sociological experiment, this group of atheists would raise its children without intentionally passing any unproven information to them. This includes Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. When they watch television or movies, or read books, they are made aware that what they are seeing or reading is not real. Any time that any issues of a theological nature arise, they are dealt with in only the most philosophically rational and scientific manner -- we do not tell our children anything on the matter, but only question what they provide. Any time that moral issues are arise, we begin with the premise of Ebon Musing's article; because the desire for human happiness is consistent, morality serves firstly to minimize actual and potential suffering and secondly to maximize actual and potential happiness. The topic of a god is most certainly not off limits; but it will be treated like any other idea. It will be questioned; it will be reasoned. We will make these children think. And because the parents are all atheists, we avoid the problem of anyone worrying that they are endangering their child's eternal "soul," since we know such concepts to be unfounded fabrications of religion.

I feel certain that these children will grow into moral, productive adults not only despite, but BECAUSE of, their lack of religious ideology. They will internalize their obligations and responsibilities for the betterment of the human condition, making external god-concepts irrelevant at best, and detrimental at worst. These children will grow into adults who look with horror upon the atrocities committed by brainwashed barbarians in the names of fictional god-characters out of poorly-written novels. These children will grow into adults who respect every person as a human being capable of equal suffering and equal happiness, and they will understand that truly moral behavior is the only way for the species to peacefully coexist.

Of course, I'm also pretty certain that religions understand this very well, and so preempt any critical thinking with indoctrination at the earliest stages. Otherwise, why have religious schools at all?