[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What does a four-year-old know about Santa Claus?[/quote]
Magic and wonder. A sense of a good human being that is above himself and gives unto others for the other’s sake.
Movies, books songs, folk lore, etc…
The child and the family who celebrates the joy of the holiday.
Seeing as Santa is the just the representation of joy and elation within a time of year people get together simply to be together, yes “Santa” cares.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Let’s find out. Answer the questions and let’s see if belief in Claus is, in fact, equivalent to atheism.
[/quote]
I feel like your premise is that children would not know of Santa Claus or any of the stories associated had they not been brought up to believe. That is a usual argument against religion.
Take specific religion out of it for a moment. Take a clean slate child with no outside views being introduced. Is the default setting for God or no God? If religion is taught, isn’t atheism also taught?
[/quote]
Well, the nature vs. nurture argument always depends on several variables, and it’s impossible to say which is the case in this instance. There can be no completely clean slate. Has there ever been a society in history in which there was no multi-generational supernatural beliefs in gods, fairies, gnomes, trolls, devils, ghosts, or aliens? Of course not.
Had there ever been, it would be easier to formulate this experiment, because a belief in a god, rising up spontaneously in a child despite his atheistic societal environment, would be a strong point in favour of a “default setting” for “god”.
Conversely, in every society which believes in such things, which is to say, every society ever, there is a certain percentage which does not believe in them. Whether this disbelief is innate, or whether it is cultivated, cannot be said with any certainty.
On a certain level, most people who believe in the supernatural must force themselves to do so, in the absence of evidence for, and despite the evidence against, their beliefs. If you have to make yourself believe in things which do not apparently exist, or attempt to make others believe them, then we are quite literally talking about “make-believe”. Which admittedly doesn’t sound as nice as the word “faith”.
It takes far less effort, and certainly no amount of “faith”, to not believe in things which do not apparently exist.
Now, back to the question of a “default position”: a number of interesting studies have suggested that our brains (along with apes and other primates) have an area of the frontal lobe of the cortex that seems to be responsible for processing feelings of “religiousness”. When this area is stimulated (either artificially using electrical impulses, or endogenously, through prayer or religious contemplation), the area acts to produce in the body a feeling of bliss and satisfaction.
Notably, Richard Dawkins said he felt nothing when this area in his own brain was stimulated. Although this is not by any means conclusive evidence, it would indicate that some people are “wired for God” and others are not. It would be interesting indeed if one could study the brains of self-proclaimed “religious” and “irreligious” people, and see if their brain activity in this area is consistent with their professed belief or unbelief.
It would also be interesting to temporarily inhibit all activity in these areas and see how religious and credulous the subject remains.[/quote]
I was raised an atheist, and struggled for almost 30 years to try and prove I was the good little mouth foaming, rabid Militant Atheist I was raised to be.
I’ve since become comfortable that I do believe in some sort of higher power, and really wish I had gotten over myself a longtime ago.
I’m not religious really, and a lot of the dogma, ceremonies and holy books seem really silly to me. However, I’m not at all uncomfortable with my relationship with whatever this power may be. (IE: if Jesus happens to be all that I’m told he is, I’m not too particularly worried he is all that angry about how I feel and view the world. I’m merely a person, who apparently misinterpreted things.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]HopefulWanderer wrote:
Hi T-Nation!
Long time lurker, first post. Really wanna share this! After reading the first post of SM, I wanna react mostly on that.
I was raised religious, christian. I really tried to belive. Mostly it worked and I found peace in praying and talking with god. But I never really belived all the things about going to heaven or hell, being judged after your life…
When I was around 16, I was kinda depressed and began searching for wisdom. I kinda found this in Buddhism.
To make my point clear, the opposite of beliving, is the truth. Finding it, knowing how what you are and what god is.
Some religious people refer to this as finding god. I am sure many people that lived before found the truth, to name some: Jesus Christ, Buddha, Marcus Aurelius. Maybe even Einstein, Newton and Bob Marley…
The truth is simple (but hard to find). God is all there is, including you. So god is the universe! If god is the ocean, you are a wave!
We are god/the universe experiencing itself!
Why is this the truth? Because all the proof tells us it is… You are alive! And we are all I? There is absolutly 0 proof for god, but there is for life. We did evolve out of the universe, we didn’t came in to it (this is how most experience it).
I am sure this must be sounding like the storry of a madman for most, but try to be open minded and go inward as deep as you can… What is there? What is inside? What is your soul? Who are you?! The funny thing is that, the mind and words can’t grasph the truth of life, and you can’t find it, because searching implies you don’t have it allready… You are it! You are allready where you should be, every moment is perfect!
This brings me to the point, that religions brings us further away from the truth of life, because they forbid you from recognizing that you are it. But that is because the wrong interpretation of the bible, not because the truth is not in the bible.
Peace and love![/quote]
Varq, you have a fellow church member!
[/quote]
It’s a pretty big universe. I doubt it’ll get crowded anytime soon.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Let’s find out. Answer the questions and let’s see if belief in Claus is, in fact, equivalent to atheism.
[/quote]
I feel like your premise is that children would not know of Santa Claus or any of the stories associated had they not been brought up to believe. That is a usual argument against religion.
Take specific religion out of it for a moment. Take a clean slate child with no outside views being introduced. Is the default setting for God or no God? If religion is taught, isn’t atheism also taught?
[/quote]
Well, the nature vs. nurture argument always depends on several variables, and it’s impossible to say which is the case in this instance. There can be no completely clean slate. Has there ever been a society in history in which there was no multi-generational supernatural beliefs in gods, fairies, gnomes, trolls, devils, ghosts, or aliens? Of course not.
Had there ever been, it would be easier to formulate this experiment, because a belief in a god, rising up spontaneously in a child despite his atheistic societal environment, would be a strong point in favour of a “default setting” for “god”.
Conversely, in every society which believes in such things, which is to say, every society ever, there is a certain percentage which does not believe in them. Whether this disbelief is innate, or whether it is cultivated, cannot be said with any certainty.
On a certain level, most people who believe in the supernatural must force themselves to do so, in the absence of evidence for, and despite the evidence against, their beliefs. If you have to make yourself believe in things which do not apparently exist, or attempt to make others believe them, then we are quite literally talking about “make-believe”. Which admittedly doesn’t sound as nice as the word “faith”.
It takes far less effort, and certainly no amount of “faith”, to not believe in things which do not apparently exist.
Now, back to the question of a “default position”: a number of interesting studies have suggested that our brains (along with apes and other primates) have an area of the frontal lobe of the cortex that seems to be responsible for processing feelings of “religiousness”. When this area is stimulated (either artificially using electrical impulses, or endogenously, through prayer or religious contemplation), the area acts to produce in the body a feeling of bliss and satisfaction.
Notably, Richard Dawkins said he felt nothing when this area in his own brain was stimulated. Although this is not by any means conclusive evidence, it would indicate that some people are “wired for God” and others are not. It would be interesting indeed if one could study the brains of self-proclaimed “religious” and “irreligious” people, and see if their brain activity in this area is consistent with their professed belief or unbelief.
It would also be interesting to temporarily inhibit all activity in these areas and see how religious and credulous the subject remains.[/quote]
It’s simply putting the impetus of evidence in the wrong place, be it looking for brain waves or fairies and magical winged things is always an avoidance to address the fundamental questions. The question is of essence and existence. Not whether or not you feel it, see magical fairies and the other little silly anecdotes the atheists have decided ad hoc constitutes evidence.
I am forced to take it as a desire to avoid truth or to not really want to know. God isn’t super-natural, but the most natural thing essential to existence it self. if not God, what do we have? Ridiculous theories about about magically existing gravitational forces that just happen to exist for no reason? Multiverses where you exist in infinite forms yet happen to be duly aware of your own existence in these other forms, yet manage to magically the same self acting out that ‘Coke or Pepsi’ decision you made long ago? Or accordion universe theories where we blow squeeze and blow back into existence repeatedly.
Of course all these silly theories seem natural! Of course there’s a multiverse with infinite ‘you’s’ that just happen not to be aware of each other, but are the same self. Of course the universe expands and contracts infinitely in a cycle, repeating the same cycle over and over again. Because all that outlandish shit, as a desperate attempt to remove the possibility of God from existence makes a lot more sense, even if there is infinitely less evidence for these scientific theories, than their is for a Creator. Yet, God is fairies and silly things, and infinite existing ‘you’s’ or contracting and expanding universes repeating itself is just far more logical despite the fact that no evidence exists at all for any of these theories.
But no, we’re the stupid ones. We’re the silly spaghetti monster loving, sky fairy believing fools. Because these other explanations make sooo much more sense. It’s gravity, it just exists for no reason and does everything even though it has no identifiable capability to do any such thing. Hawking never does explain where gravity comes from, it just is. We should take his word for it, because a retard cripple has managed to time to figure it all out and does not feel the need to explain it, we should just take his bullshit on faith, cause he’s the “MAN”, or half a man.
You mock what you believe to be the beliefs of theists, but you haven’t really bothered to actually find out. It’s sad for a man of your intelligence. I am sure you don’t care. You’ll just jump back to your fairy and gods accusations, without giving it any real thought. And would it matter if you did?
Who is doing the mocking, here, Pat?
A “retard cripple”? Really?
I expect better from you.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the nature vs. nurture argument always depends on several variables, and it’s impossible to say which is the case in this instance. There can be no completely clean slate. Has there ever been a society in history in which there was no multi-generational supernatural beliefs in gods, fairies, gnomes, trolls, devils, ghosts, or aliens? Of course not.
Had there ever been, it would be easier to formulate this experiment, because a belief in a god, rising up spontaneously in a child despite his atheistic societal environment, would be a strong point in favour of a “default setting” for “god”.
Conversely, in every society which believes in such things, which is to say, every society ever, there is a certain percentage which does not believe in them. Whether this disbelief is innate, or whether it is cultivated, cannot be said with any certainty.
On a certain level, most people who believe in the supernatural must force themselves to do so, in the absence of evidence for, and despite the evidence against, their beliefs. If you have to make yourself believe in things which do not apparently exist, or attempt to make others believe them, then we are quite literally talking about “make-believe”. Which admittedly doesn’t sound as nice as the word “faith”.
It takes far less effort, and certainly no amount of “faith”, to not believe in things which do not apparently exist.
Now, back to the question of a “default position”: a number of interesting studies have suggested that our brains (along with apes and other primates) have an area of the frontal lobe of the cortex that seems to be responsible for processing feelings of “religiousness”. When this area is stimulated (either artificially using electrical impulses, or endogenously, through prayer or religious contemplation), the area acts to produce in the body a feeling of bliss and satisfaction.
Notably, Richard Dawkins said he felt nothing when this area in his own brain was stimulated. Although this is not by any means conclusive evidence, it would indicate that some people are “wired for God” and others are not. It would be interesting indeed if one could study the brains of self-proclaimed “religious” and “irreligious” people, and see if their brain activity in this area is consistent with their professed belief or unbelief.
It would also be interesting to temporarily inhibit all activity in these areas and see how religious and credulous the subject remains.[/quote]
It’s simply putting the impetus of evidence in the wrong place, be it looking for brain waves or fairies and magical winged things is always an avoidance to address the fundamental questions. The question is of essence and existence. Not whether or not you feel it, see magical fairies and the other little silly anecdotes the atheists have decided ad hoc constitutes evidence.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed the part above where I said “this is not by any means conclusive evidence”. I simply find it interesting that there is in the brain an area or areas that seem to be the processing centre for religious thought and experience, and that people without a belief in the supernatural tend to be less affected by stimulus to these areas.
Okay. I don’t mind agreeing with that statement. I have said as much on other threads. Wandering Whatsisname said as much just a few posts up, and Push immediately recommended him for membership in “my church”. But a lot of people, perhaps not you, really do convince themselves of the existence of angels and devils and “fairies and magical winged things” all around them. I’ve spoken to these people. They really do exist. The people, I mean, not the magical winged things.
The physical universe, for better or for worse.
First, I know of no theory which proposes that there is no reason for the existence of gravitation other than magic. Second, if you find any scientific theories ridiculous, then by all means attempt to falsify them using experimentation and evidence. Perhaps you’ll develop alternate theories. However, pro tip: “because God” in and of itself generally doesn’t count as evidence in most scientific circles.
These are hypotheses, not theories, by the way. There is a big difference.
Actually, they are interesting hypotheses, but I don’t necessarily think they are any more plausible than the hypothesis of an omnipotent invisible deity abracadabra-ing the physical universe into existence. I actually subscribe to the theory first suggested by Georges LeMaitre, the Belgian Catholic priest.
I don’t consider you to be particularly foolish. Was not aware that you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but hey, if that’s your thing, then great.
Tell me, Pat: why do we have earthquakes, lightning, solar eclipses, hurricanes, and plagues? What is the reason behind them? Is it because of God’s will? Is God angry? Is he punishing us? Or could it be that we live on the surface of a cooling planet inhabited also by microorganisms that we don’t quite have dominion over? People used to attribute these things to the former explanation, but now that we know a bit more, we understand it’s the latter. This is not a denial of God, just an acknowledgement that we understand more now than we used to, and the old explanations are no longer sufficient.
[quote]You mock what you believe to be the beliefs of theists, but you haven’t really bothered to actually find out. It’s sad for a man of your intelligence. I am sure you don’t care. You’ll just jump back to your fairy and gods accusations, without giving it any real thought. And would it matter if you did?
[/quote]
Well, you mock what you believe to be the beliefs of scientists and non-theists, so I suppose it all balances out. But I think you’ll find if you go back and look at what I’ve written on this thread, there has been very little mocking going on from my side.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Who is doing the mocking, here, Pat?
A “retard cripple”? Really?
I expect better from you.[/quote]
Love and charity, yes? You can feel them in the air, like blister agent.
I debated this with Pat once. He (amazingly) believed himself capable of demonstrating god’s inarguable existence by way of a logical proof (this despite his not knowing how to do basic logic). I don’t think that I have to tell you how that turned out. But he doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson, rambling as he is about “retard cripple” scientists who forget, in a single day, more than he’ll ever know. And mocking the evidential and logical grounds of atheist scientism from a position of exactly equivalent* evidential and logical disadvantage.
*Speaking only about the broad, first-cause-we’ll-call-god or not struggle between theism and atheism, that is. If we get into the specifics of Biblical Christianity, the footing is tremendously unequal, and not in the believer’s favor. But I have demonstrated that many times before [Genesis 2:7, etc.]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Who is doing the mocking, here, Pat?
A “retard cripple”? Really?
I expect better from you.[/quote]
C’mon Varq, you’re the last person who should be complaining about disparaging remarks.
With all your taunts, insults, and name-calling of Christ, his followers, Jehovah and Yahweh why would you take offense at insulting a mere man?[/quote]
There is a big difference between expressing unbelief in supernatural or mythological beings, or criticising the behaviour of people who are acting as self-proclaimed proxies for these beings on the one hand, and taking a cheap shot at a brilliant man suffering from a wasting disease on the other.
But perhaps Pat was just following Christ’s example. I don’t personally recall the passage in the gospels in which Christ or his Apostles hurled insults at lepers, cripples and blind men. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
No one wants to play the Santa game with me?
And apparently my email is broken? Because I’m missing some responses… 
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.[/quote]
Faith or nihilism is a false dichotomy. Is existentialism not a tenable middle ground?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.[/quote]
Faith or nihilism is a false dichotomy. Is existentialism not a tenable middle ground?[/quote]
Faith that self is the creator of ultimate truth and meaning is an alternative to faith? Existentialism is a belief that self is god.
You either start with faith or you are a nihilist as far as I’ve ever figured.
Based on what I got from the gospels, I think Jesus would be very sad after he read some of the posts in this thread.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.[/quote]
Faith or nihilism is a false dichotomy. Is existentialism not a tenable middle ground?[/quote]
Faith that self is the creator of ultimate truth and meaning is an alternative to faith? Existentialism is a belief that self is god.
You either start with faith or you are a nihilist as far as I’ve ever figured.
[/quote]
Not quite. Existentialism can be defined as a philosophy that “emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.” Faith is simply belief in a Deus outside of empirical evidence, not that there is anything wrong with that. Existential nihilism can be overcome through the self’s creation of meaning. For some individuals, this may be the will to power.
Start with faith? Are you arguing that faith is inherent to humans? Are humans not tabula rasae upon birth? Are neonates nihilists before religious socialization?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Is nihilism the only logical alternative to faith? I think it is. Either nihilism or some delusion that you have avoided being touched by the void. It leaves its mark upon you. I can see it. And it frightens me. :)[/quote]
This I completely agree with.[/quote]
Faith or nihilism is a false dichotomy. Is existentialism not a tenable middle ground?[/quote]
Faith that self is the creator of ultimate truth and meaning is an alternative to faith? Existentialism is a belief that self is god.
You either start with faith or you are a nihilist as far as I’ve ever figured.
[/quote]
Not quite. Existentialism can be defined as a philosophy that “emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.” Faith is simply belief in a Deus outside of empirical evidence, not that there is anything wrong with that. Existential nihilism can be overcome through the self’s creation of meaning. For some individuals, this may be the will to power.
Start with faith? Are you arguing that faith is inherent to humans? Are humans not tabula rasae upon birth? Are neonates nihilists before religious socialization?
[/quote]
I’m not claim what is or isn’t inherent.
“Existential nihilism can be overcome through the self’s creation of meaning” = “outside of empirical evidence”
“Self” creates meaning, external god creates meaning, I personally don’t see a big difference. Even believing in “self” is faith based.
Nihilism is " the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy."
I find it rather hard to believe that anyone actually thinks that nihilism is the only alternative to faith. There are plenty of atheists in the world but most of the killing I see on the news is committed by self-avowed “people of faith”.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Nihilism is " the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy."
I find it rather hard to believe that anyone actually thinks that nihilism is the only alternative to faith. There are plenty of atheists in the world but most of the killing I see on the news is committed by self-avowed “people of faith”.[/quote]
There are lots of people that call themselves Christians who aren’t too. I’ve never actually met a real positive atheist.
But you are missing the point. Without faith doesn’t mean that you go around and hurt people, it means that such distinctions are meaningless. You can do the same things as a theist, it’s just arbitrary. So while I could say there are atheists who behave morally, a real positive atheist couldn’t.
You are mistakenly assuming absolute morality in an atheist’s view.