Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Life is just a test, there will always be outside influences that will make you question your way of life and those influences can either be used to reinforce you beliefs or break them.[/quote]

Never understood this concept. Assuming there is a divine being, and that divine being is all knowing and all powerful, then that divine being already knows the outcome of the test. So what’s the point of giving a test to which the outcome is already known?

Kind of reminds me of a George Carlin bit about praying, although I had come up with a similar question even before I heard the bit. If you pray, and your prayers are answered, then that is proof that God exists and answers prayers. If your prayers are not answered, then it’s “God’s will.” Okay, if it’s all God’s will, then why bother praying? Presumably, God’s will is based on a divine plan. What good is a divine plan if, as Carlin put it, “some schmuck with a $2 prayer book can fuck up your plan?” It’s a good and valid question.

102

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Humour me for a moment.

We, as a collective, share common perceptions. Sometimes these shared perceptions go awry, for instance mass hysteria. We also share concepts that, when there’s enough concensus, become “reality”, e.i. religion.

So it doesn’t matter a blind man can’t see the moon, as long as there are others who can see the moon.

A little story: once upon a time i wanted to open a bottle of wine. I asked my mother where her openers were. She said in the drawer. So i opened the kitchen drawer and i started looking for a certain kind of bottle opener. I couldn’t see the one i was looking for. So i asked her if she’s sure there’s an opener. Yes she said, there are three!

So i had another look and low and behold, suddenly i saw the three bottle openers right in front of me. I looked for a specific type of opener and the three other openers looked nothing like it.

IOW, your perception of the thing is the thing; observer = observed.
[/quote]

The consensus doesn’t become reality, it merely reflects our perception of that reality. When the world thought the planet was flat, that didn’t make it so. Your perception of the bottle openers didn’t change the objective fact that all three of them were in the drawer, despite your inability to perceive them. If the entire planet were to go blind, the moon would still orbit around the earth and exert its influence on the tides and the orbit of the planet.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but again, believing something doesn’t make it objectively true.[/quote]

Sadly i can’t verbalize my thoughts well enough to not have to refer to someone else’s words: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/365

For your last sentence: ofcourse believing something does not make that something objectively true. Everything we perceive and experience is subjective, but we also share a collective perception of everyday things.

Expats often complain of cultureshock, feeling like a fish out of water in a new society. I think that’s because they can’t easily shift between their old collective perception, and the new one.

I will not pretend to be able to answer the question of nature’s subjectivity though. I can scratch the surface, look underneath and reach for a conclusion. Intuition is a poor substitute for facts, but it beats battling ZEB (:

103

On the subject of psychology and the assumption of self in regards to religion

As Tirubulus pointed out, religion [Christianity[ has nothing to gain from a deeper understanding of self. Psychology may be a “soft” science, but it does allow one to delve deeper into one’s motivations for acting like they do.

Religion offers an answer that gives the believer an excuse to not engage their mental problems, and substitute those problems with a blanket statement, “I’m a sinner”. It’s laziness, plain and simple.

ZEB’s enduring fascination with homosexuality reveals an underlying issue he’s able to skirt by simply pointing at the bible and say, “It’s a sin”, without ever looking deeper into his own psyche for the real reasons.

I believe this mechanism exists with many believers. I know it’s true for my crazy sister who found the J.W.'s, but still is batshit crazy. Religion offers a different path wherein mental issues are projected onto the fabric of that religion making them somewhat manageable, but without real understanding.

And it does not come as a surprise to me that therapy goes against the gospel. A faith can only exist without questioning that faith.

Seen in this light, i think that religion is an obstacle that blocks greater understanding of the human condition, which in turn hinders humanity’s progress on a whole. Let’s release humankind from the burden of religion so we can move forward as a species.

104

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
ZEB, please stay on topic without your usual diatribal ranting.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with [a]theism, so take it somewhere else.[/quote]

But our emotions have much to do with our belief system. We find the facts that reinforce our beliefs, and we all do it one way or another. If you don’t like the facts maybe you better take it somewhere else.[/quote]

This is a common theme among true believers. As I said before, they MUST attribute a nefarious motive to those of us who disbelieve or question the existence of a deity. To do otherwise would mean that maybe, just maybe, the emperor really isn’t wearing any clothes.

I probably live more like a Christian than most Christians. Been married for many years to one woman, never wanted to “try” being with another man (don’t take offense forlife because I care not what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms, nor do I “worry” that watching figure skating might suddenly predispose me to be attracted to men), I don’t cheat or steal, I don’t do drugs and never have, I have a regular job and work hard to support my family.

I wish there was a supreme being, I really do. How cool would that be to have a benevolent being watching over us? Although I think that some religious people are scary, I have no phobia or fear of any deity. Why would I? I would WANT nothing more than to believe that a benevolent supreme being exists. And yet…

I cannot accept that one exists. While I don’t deny that one can possibly exist, I cannot accept one either. I simply do not know. No one can KNOW. You can believe with all your might. You can pretend that you “feel a presence.” You can insult those who question the existence of a deity all you want. But you will never, ever KNOW.

My agnosticism can be explained very simply: I don’t just want to believe, I want to know. And there simply is not enough evidence to KNOW. Period. That’s it. No desire for an “alternative lifestyle” or whatever else the believers may attribute to my skepticism. There simply is not enough evidence to KNOW.[/quote]

Excellent post. I’m seeing some twisted logic in this thread. People are acknowledging the role of cognitive dissonance and confirmatory bias in determining their belief system, but for the religious it is only a surface acknowledgment. Deep down, they actually believe that their religious experiences are rock solid, undeniable proof for the veracity of their beliefs. They refuse to acknowledge that people of contradictory religious faiths have had similar profound religious experiences, and that logically these experiences are NOT a reliable proof that their beliefs are actually true.

It’s true that the nonreligious are similarly subject to these cognitive biases. But that is where the similarity ends. Recognizing that we have these biases, we are distrustful of personal conclusions that are not supported by science. The very reason we turn to science is because it offers an objective, reliable method for differentiating fact from fiction. It protects us from these cognitive biases, and instead of demanding that people just have faith, it encourages others to independently test its claims. If they fail to produce supporting results, science rejects the hypothesis as unreliable and unfounded.

Instead of dismissing “dusty old science”, people would do well to recognize that it is our only reliable method for knowing what is real. Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so.

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dmgctrl wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:That explains a lot. I’d hire a witchdoctor before going to modern psychology for anything meaningful.
[/quote]

This should be an interesting response, but… why?
[/quote]Because aside from being anything other than scientific with it’s ever evolving inconsistent explanations for everything, it’s an assault on the gospel. I would study advanced finger painting before secular psychology. There is almost no discipline I have less respect for. That isn’t to say that nothing formally true at all can come of it, but witch doctors will get something right sometimes too.

It won’t do any good to go into detailed debate about individual ideas. Each one will have dozens of schools of thought attempting to define and explain them anyway. I have direct first hand knowledge and numerous associations demonstrating the utter uselessness of what we call psychology beyond somebody to talk to which makes perfect sense because 2 dead people don’t make a life.
[/quote]

Sounds like you might benefit from some courses in cognitive psychology, social psychology, human development, experimental design, and statistics.

Your blanket dismissal of psychology seems like an uneducated response to an entire field of science based on a narrow range of personal experience. I can’t tell you how many people hear the word psychology in my degree, and automatically assume I’m going to have them lie down on a couch and psychoanalyze them. Have you even heard of industrial/organizational psychology and do you understand it has nothing to do with Freud?

106

[quote]ephrem wrote:

ZEB’s enduring fascination with homosexuality reveals an underlying issue he’s able to skirt by simply pointing at the bible and say, “It’s a sin”, without ever looking deeper into his own psyche for the real reasons.

[/quote]

I can’t quite see down to the depths of how off the mark your statement is. It certainly shows that you have not read (or understand) all of my posts. Did you happen to read where I wrote: "we are all a product to one degree or another of our upbringing. And “we are all pretty much the same we rationalize our postions based upon what we like or dislike.” Tell me oh wise one, you’ve lived so long and know so much and never miss even a sentence, where did I even once write anything on this thread about “sin”?

Maybe you better look deeper into your psyche to figure out why these facts have passed you by. Is it your intellect? Is it “laziness”? Or, is it the usual nonsense from people like you? You don’t agree with my position and you’ll say anything to demean it and let accuracy be dammed. Next time, before you respond to something try to grasp the meaning of it first, even a kernel of understanding would be helpful. If you feel it’s too difficult then don’t post until someone can explain it to you.

107

[quote]forlife wrote:
Deep down, they actually believe that their religious experiences are rock solid, undeniable proof for the veracity of their beliefs.[/quote]

At least as rock solid as what you’ve accepted as a quality understanding of your existence, its true meaning and how you came to hold such beliefs so near and dear.

108

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< So depression is not caused by an imbalance of serotonin levels in the brain but a lack of belief in God which would otherwise bring joy to everyone? >>>[/quote]That’s a physical malady that hinders the function of the brain. If you think this is what I’m talking about you must believe I’m an idiot and I would be wasting my time talking with you which would be a disappointment for me. You really do hold me in this low a regard don’t you. I know I forced you into it. I didn’t even read the rest of your post.

I’m talking about psycho babbling counseling methods and techniques that even spawn spoof movies like “What
about Bob” which was a great flick BTW. Hilarious.
[/quote]

You just confirmed my suspicion. Dismissing the entire field of psychology as psychobabble just shows your ignorance.

I agree though: What About Bob is hilarious :slight_smile:

109

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Deep down, they actually believe that their religious experiences are rock solid, undeniable proof for the veracity of their beliefs.[/quote]

At least as rock solid as what you’ve accepted as a quality understanding of your existence, its true meaning and how you came to hold such beliefs so near and dear.
[/quote]

This is another classic logical fallacy that the religious use in an attempt to place themselves on an equal footing with science.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly in this thread, there is a difference between subjective values/attitudes/preferences and objective facts about the universe.

I have no problem with the religious saying they value love, for example. What I find indefensible are their conclusions about objective facts which are only supported by subjective religious experiences. Claiming that there is a god who created the universe, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Moses parted the Red Sea with divine power, places the religious within the scope of scientific inquiry. They move beyond values to making claims about the nature of the universe, yet they offer no reliable evidence for these claims.

110

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Seen in this light, i think that religion is an obstacle that blocks greater understanding of the human condition, which in turn hinders humanity’s progress on a whole. Let’s release humankind from the burden of religion so we can move forward as a species.

[/quote]

You’d move backwards. Religion is progress. We build societies. Atheists/secularists spend off the social capital of their more religious forefathers, fail to reproduce, and leave nothing but debt to the few children (inreasingly born to broken homes) being born to replace them. Don’t worry though, you’re being outbred (especially by the more devout), and children are far more likely to practice the faith of their fathers, so we’ll fix the west’s modern ailments eventually.

111

If we only had religion, without science, we would still be in the dark ages. I do think religion can help keep some people in line, and it can provide meaning and hope to people who would otherwise feel lost. I have no issues with it, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my own life.

112

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we only had religion, without science, we would still be in the dark ages. I do think religion can help keep some people in line, and it can provide meaning and hope to people who would otherwise feel lost. I have no issues with it, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my own life. [/quote]

Science did come into existence though, thanks to religion. Now, had we only had science, we’d wouldn’t have even made it to the dark ages. For scientific progress, a society needs ‘leisure’ time for the pursuit of intellectual endeavors. Community/Societies provided that. And one of the, if not the, most powerful communal forces has always been religion.

The purely mechanical minded might say we’re the best adapted for proliferation. When secular modern society runs out of young tax paying workers to fund sending even younger citizens to university for biology degrees, it’ll be the highly fertile taking the back the reigns to society.

113

Don’t forget that said science has been invented by religious people.
even if we use narrow definition of the word “Science” it still goes back from at least Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum in 1620.
modern atheism didn’t existed back then.

atheism has yet to prove it can get birth to a viable civilization.

114

That’s partly true, although in fairness most of the religious leaders of the day considered scientists to be heretics and fought their claims tooth and nail. Unfortunately, the same is true today on more than a few important issues.

115

[quote]pookie wrote:
Just thought I’d say hi while I’m here.
[/quote]

Hey Pook! How the fuck are you? Long time no type…

116

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

We may have gained understanding of eachother in light of our discussions, but neither of us has come over to the other side [as if it’s truth] just one little bit. If anything, our discussions merely enforced the opinion we already had.

It really doesn’t matter what you say T, because this isn’t about god or God. I’m perfectly fine with having a personal relationship with [a] god if he chooses to reveal himself to me, but it’s the believers i have a problem with.

I don’t want to be a part of the same religion ZEB is part of. Or Sloth’s and Chris’ religion. I don’t want to be part of your religion either. It’s any kind of religion i have a problem with; not god. Why can’t you see that?
[/quote]

Given the way religious people behave sometimes, I can’t blame you.
I am postulating several theories lately about behaviour and religious or non-religious belief.

Do you want God to reveal himself to you?[/quote]

Maybe he already has. As ZEB said, he’s supposed to work in mysterious ways, isn’t he?

The idea of a god is not incompatable with my worldview/philosophy. From my POV, reality follows fascination, and as such we’re granted an life-experience that reflects that.

Seen in that light, none of us can really help ourselves to be something other than what we are. Not you, not me, not Tiribulus, not ZEB or even mick28.
[/quote]

God does work in mysterious ways, but if he had, I am pretty sure you’d know it. The question is if he exists do you want him to reveal himself?

In my point of view, fascination follows reality, with out reality, there is no fantasy. All made up stuff is just reassembled reality. If God exists and you wish him to reveal himself and your world view requires that he does not exist, then your world view will have to change. My world view wouldn’t change much if I were proven wrong. But I am not, so I am not worried either way…

117

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

swoleupinya answered: If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. [/quote]

How about answering the question: “Does the electron exist?”? There is no evidence to my knowledge that matter is created or destroyed by virtue of subjective observation, only that it behaves differently based on the observer’s perspective. Anything to the contrary would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I realize we’ve only scratched the surface on quantum mechanics, but come on. If I plant a flag on the moon and nobody stops by to see it, the absence of visitors doesn’t magically cause the flag to self-annihilate.[/quote]

At the quantum level, each “thing” has very few properties, and hence each property a quantum object has looms much larger because of the finite nature of it. Being observed is a property of an object and that property has a much larger effect at the quantum level.

It is a theory that matter can in fact be destroyed in black holes. Nobody of course knows for sure, but the theory exists.

118

[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, given your belief that god creates some to be saved and some that are “spiritually stillborn”, it seems the only logical conclusion is that men have no free will. No matter what I might or might not choose, your god has already chosen for me.

That’s a pretty harsh philosophy, but at least it reconciles with my point that free will is impossible to anything that had a beginning. [/quote]

I did not read Tirib’s post, but if he said that, he made a right dandy argument for determinism which is typically an atheist tenant.

He’s a question for determinist’s. If determinism exists, what is the determinator???

119

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t want to be a part of the same religion ZEB is part of. Or Sloth’s and Chris’ religion. I don’t want to be part of your religion either. It’s any kind of religion i have a problem with; not god. Why can’t you see that?
[/quote]Funny how you don’t mind Pat’s religion. He may never know how I intercede on His behalf.

Uh, seeing as how I practice the same faith as Sloth, he covered that. My participation has been sparse lately so I really haven’t been a factor in these conversations.

120

this whole story about quantum physics and subjectivity lies on a misunderstanding.

matter is NOT changed because we observe it. not even at a quantum scale.
matter is changed because we have to change it in some way (using tons of energy to accelerate it or break it, colliding it in LHC, etc) in order to observe it in some other way.