You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 12:19:18 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)  (Read 2361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Silk

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2010, 10:45:44 AM »
Just to note kate,  there has been experiments regarding "Placebo effect" on patients, and the results were the opposite of your current belief, those who believed and knew they had people praying for them suffered more complications than the ones who didnt. I cannot currently find the peice for you however, when I'm back later I will find it unless someone can get it ahead of time for me. :)

Other stuff comes later but I'm currently busy

Offline Kotah

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2010, 11:23:52 AM »
Krunk thinks you should get your head out of the communist party's ass.

I'm not in the communist party, I seemed to have pointed out the labor party. LABOR party.

Thanks anyway.

Offline Jude

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2010, 06:08:41 PM »
You mention that it doesnt matter what my grades were in math or science - to you perhaps some may view my faith in god as a sign of not being educated - this was to prevent some saying "hmm if you learned
some of the logical disciplines a little perhaps you would think otherwise"
I don't believe what intelligent people gives credence to any belief. Einstine beleived quantum
mechanics was delusional - I do believe in quantum mechanics relevance to accurately describing phenomena
(if i believed only in what i deem is the views of the most intelligent person i know i wouldn't believe what i do)
Einstein was quoted saying "God doesn't play with dice."  A reference to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and how he believed everything should be a matter of yes and no, not chance.  His religious points of view specifically got in the way of him accepting a field of Science.  Thus anyone, no matter how intelligent they are, can make logical mistakes.  I just thought your prefacing things with what grades you got and your education was a non-sequitor.
Jude I do agree with your use of "Seem" when your addressing my second quote FROM your perspective.
As far as what I seem to experience or others also - some seem to exist in a god-filled reality.
Some seem to exist in a godless reality. One believing others should adopt their perspective or not
is something that can be debated (we are). I am trying to convince you that you should beleive in god btw jude - I am saying that your perspective is not authoritarian concerning the experience of those
that do believe in god.
And all I'm saying is that belief in god is not rational.  It's a matter of faith, not a matter of logic.  If you admit that you have no rational basis for your belief, that's fine, I can't touch you, and nor would I want to.  That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong either.  I could believe there's a guy named Ted Jessica Thermopolis that exists right now in the world somewhere.  I have no rational reason to believe this, but I could be right.  My problem is with religious people who actually think they have an airtight basis for their opinions; they don't.  Personal experience is no basis whatsoever for any belief because human observation methods are so prone to bias.
A court-case on the existence of god ? Well more believe in god than not, so depending on the jury
your certainty of the outcome is unfounded. Some very influential speakers for both sides could exist. And court cases also cater for "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is subjective to those who would be in the
jury.
My point more or less was that the facts are not on the side of the religious.  They're not on the side of the non-religious either.
I am not getting my quantum mechanics from what the bleep do we know, if you believe in mainstream scientists view of such things however your of the flaw similar to what you accused me of (that i believe in what intelligent people believe, which I dont, and later you mentioned mainstream scientists believe that that movie is ridiculous "because it is" - these are subjective opinions not authoritarian opinions)
There's a difference between the two.  When you claim you should believe x because y says so, that's called an argument from authority.  Intelligent people are not an "authority" on everything, so you committed a logical fallacy.  Scientists are... obviously an authority on science, thus there is no logical fallacy in my statement.
If you beleive that the observer does not define outcomes in quantum mechanics than it is you who I doubt has read that much into the subject - it seems we are both passionate about our doubt of the others education on this matter. We can let it rest - or spin off another thread
The notion that the frame of reference of the observer determines our interpretations of physics is a pre-Relativistic idea.  It actually has more to do with measurements of values in respect to each other and not in terms of the subjective nature of reality.  There's nothing in Quantum Mechanics which states that reality is subjective however; it's a matter of probability not subjectivity.  We can argue this on another thread I guess, but it's a favorite of people arguing for religion to use false interpretations of quantum physics to justify their religious beliefs; I see it all the time.
Remember I am not claiming to represent reality from your perspective nor others which are "devout" atheists
:)
Reality does not change depending on the position of the observer unless you believe in a completely relativistic universe, in which case there's really no point in discussing the notion of "truth" at all.  That basically nullifies any purpose whatsoever for discourse.
- Substantive reason to believe ? IS there substantive reason not to ?
There are plenty of reasons not to believe that people have discussed, but that doesn't matter anyway.  I can't disprove that there's a goblin in my bathroom right now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just assume that there is a goblin in my bathroom because I can't disprove it.  That's not how logic works.  Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and someone who says they don't believe in god is not making a claim.  Now if they said that they believed god does not exist, that's a claim.
IS others experience explained by the physical ? ghost experiences religious experiences or even drug induced hallucinations or emotions are not failures of human observation - nor failures in analysis if they are considered legitimate experiences. Failures to reproduce these experiences via emulation of suspected physical conditions triggers some to believe in mystical influences.
Easily explained in terms of confirmation bias, errors in human observation, and the complexities of human existence.  The problem is, people often encounter things that they can't explain and automatically attribute it to something supernatural instead of searching for other explanations.  When you observe something you can't explain, if you assume that means it was supernatural, you're making a gigantic error in logic.  Something being unexplained means it's unexplained, that's all.

As for ghost stories, did you realize there are haunted hotels throughout the country where people go all the time to have an experience with meeting a ghost?  Interesting, huh.  Reproducible, full of anecdotal evidence, numerous independent reports, but it's most likely nonsense anyway.  Why?  Because people who have worked there for years and years claim they've never seen anything.  Human beings have an incredible power to notice patterns, concepts, and ideas even when they're not there.  The placebo effect, confirmation bias, self-delusion; people trust their senses far too much--even memory is fallible.
Will some of these phenomena become reproducible by science ? likely.
Will some previously explained phenomena become shown to be false ? likely.

"blatantly false signals". Falsely triggered neurons you mean ? We dont understand the mind enough to know when nurons are supposed to fire concerning religious experiences. Some diseases can be attributed to nerves firing inappropriately true, but an experience can change perspectives. "Should it have happened" - or shouldnt it ? If you believe in "grand unfathomable plan" then it should have happened, if you see everything as causational or probabilistic - then it also "SHould have happened". From a probabilistic perspective everything "should". When does statistics stop including new experiences to change its own probability landscape ? When SHOULD it ignore some readings (assuming the error is in detection methods not a trait of the media under scrutiny is dangerous - discoveries can come from what seems to be reading errors.
You don't have to search deep into the brain to understand why people come to false conclusions.  Go to a magic show, watch as people are convinced that a guy who's simply good at sleight of hand summoned brightly colored tissue into existence out of no where.  Penn and Teller do awesome tricks where they literally fire live ammunition at each other and supposedly catch the bullet between their teeth.  Human observation is incredibly fallible.

"Blatantly false signals" implies "an authoritarian landscape of "should"". If true this would effect atheists also - perhaps also at times concerning their formation of religious or non-religious views, the atheist isnt "more immune" to such things or nor the god-believer more prone.. this is of course if a "authoritarian landscape of should" that reality sometimes find itself in conflict with exists (which your statements seem to imply a beleif of)
The difference is, most atheists don't base their beliefs on incredibly experiences or subjective feelings and situations.  They reason out that a god doesn't exist in a rational, sober way.  Sure, some of them come to think that god isn't real via emotional ways, and some of them hold opinions that aren't rational.  My point is, if someone asks you if god exists, the only way you can possibly respond with perfect accuracy, is by saying that you don't know.  Everything other response is someone being far too certain of an opinion without any solid basis.
All truth is subjective.
True objectively ? observer less ? independent of observer reference frames ?
You should read up on philosophy.  Every nearly religion in existence is a form of absolutist philosophy.  If you ascribe to any particular, established viewpoint you don't believe that truth is subjective.  Subjectivity deals with perspectives and truth deals with conditions; they're fundamentally different things.
This comes over as faith in an objective perspective exists that spans all aspects of experience of all perspectives (which is a knowable and godless one) despite many of these perspectives claiming different "truths" than yours describe theirs.
Many would see this as evidence your wrong. Some would claim that is evidence that they are delusional.
Both opinions are correct... subjectively.
Two ideas which are competing cannot be correct unless neither of them is.  That may mean that the ideas in play are not subject to the idea of correctness, i.e. an opinion.  But if two ideas which conflict with each other must either be true or false, then one of them is false (and perhaps both of them are).  If not, you're basically saying that x = 2, and x = 3, and somehow those "facts" can be consistent.
Science is exploitable "workable" - yes I do agree. Mechanical clocks are impressive- I am not staying that science is delusional in its endeavors, I am claiming that belief also is exploitably workable and related.
Note the Placebo effect in hospitals (it is believe triggered - which causes the body to react differently)
the placebo effect is a case where the patient gets better by belief alone.
Hypnosis to "tell the body to get better" also has cases of success. Science and beleif or "faith" are exploitable tools that are not mutally exclusive.
That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect, only a part of it.  Animals and children who aren't capable of complex beliefs can also undergo a placebo effect.  Belief of the person experiencing it is a component, but not all of it.  Also the placebo effect isn't going to save you from anything serious.  Certainly not a heart attack or cancer.
TRy dividing by zero a few times accidentally. Oh there is a rule to state you have to avoid doing so as the math has flaws ? - Hmm... limitations ? Weaknesses ... some all powerful genie you are algebra :)
Inability to divide by zero isn't a flaw, it's part of the definition of how that operation works.  Saying you can't divide by 0 is a flaw is like saying that because I can't add multiply two even numbers together and get an odd number mathematics is flawed.  There are some things you cannot do in math.
Also they have presumptions. if 1 + 1 = 2 and this and this then ... This is true while the "if's" remain true and unmutable in the landscape math is applied. If in its own landscape then its "circular logic" (which is useful eg factorials, fractals etc). Finding landscapes suitable for certain math to be applied (ie real world - reality) is an art.
Yes, I mentioned the presumptions, they're called axioms.  Math is not based entirely on logic, Bertrand Russel came to that conclusion in the Principia Mathematica a hundred years ago.  Faith in math and faith in religion however, are hardly comparable.  No one who does math honestly believes that they are understanding the secrets of the universe or coming to moral principles through what they're doing.  math is a tool.  Religion is answer that encompasses insanely complicated questions like, "where do we go when we die" or "why do I exist."  Believe me, if people were trying to use math in the same I'd be calling them out there too.

I lost steam in the middle, don't think I'm gonna finish this post.  Quite frankly I can't follow your logic at all at this point, so I think I we should just agree to disagree.

EDIT:  By the way factorials are "recursive operations" not circular logic.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 06:19:09 PM by Jude »

Offline Kotah

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2010, 08:01:44 AM »
Quote
What I dont get Kotah is that you find it hard to understand that some believe parts of the bible. Why not ? its just a book - a resource to me (not to some), there are some historical references which are useful ? - as a cross reference, not as an authoritarian view - ie when did so-and-so live ? Where did these things report to take place, who was emperor or Rome at the time etc.

Why is that so hard to believe? If you base your faith off a book, why wouldn't you base your faith off -the book-? Even if you simply use it as a resource, it's the book you are building your faith off of. I mean, really, the only thing in the world that claims god exists as a fact- is the bible.  You can claim all you want, but that's the fact of the matter. The bible is what tells people that god exists. Everything else in the world, has by now, been more or less explained. Christians claim there is other 'prof' but, unfortunately, none of them have been proven. It's all kinda... here and there really. Has the Ark really been found? If so, why isn't there a mass movement to go and see it? I mean, honestly, people are grasping at random straws, pointing at the bible, and calling it proven.

The bible is what tells you there is a god. The whole bible, not the parts that you like. Certainly not the parts you don't like. The bible is _the bible_ I don't take my nursing book, and pick out the parts that I like and say "this is what I shall follow". I have to know the whole book, and practice the -whole book-.

In my mind, someone tearing apart the bible to prove that their faith is good and right, is a person disproving their own faith. Blatantly so.

Offline Leonis

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2010, 10:02:17 PM »
Why not make a wager, all right? There either is a God or there is no God, and you can choose to either become a believer or not become a believer. So there are four possible outcomes to this:

If there is a God, and you are a believer, you will have a happy afterlife in Heaven, and all is well.

If there is no God, and you are a believer, then, well, there's nothing after death, but at least you lived your life with purpose.

If there is a God but you are not a believer, then you are damned to an unhappy afterlife in Hell, suffering agonizing torture for all eternity. The thought of it keeps me up at night.

If there is no God and you are not a believer, then nothing happens when you die, and life is meaningless either way.

You can't control whether there's a God or not, but you CAN control whether you are a believer or not. Living a life as a believer will give you either a positive outcome (Heaven) or no outcome. Living as a non-believer will give you either a negative outcome (Hell) or no outcome. Which of those two choices sounds better, now?

Offline Jude

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2010, 10:12:06 PM »
Why not make a wager, all right? There either is a God or there is no God, and you can choose to either become a believer or not become a believer. So there are four possible outcomes to this:

If there is a God, and you are a believer, you will have a happy afterlife in Heaven, and all is well.

If there is no God, and you are a believer, then, well, there's nothing after death, but at least you lived your life with purpose.

If there is a God but you are not a believer, then you are damned to an unhappy afterlife in Hell, suffering agonizing torture for all eternity. The thought of it keeps me up at night.

If there is no God and you are not a believer, then nothing happens when you die, and life is meaningless either way.

You can't control whether there's a God or not, but you CAN control whether you are a believer or not. Living a life as a believer will give you either a positive outcome (Heaven) or no outcome. Living as a non-believer will give you either a negative outcome (Hell) or no outcome. Which of those two choices sounds better, now?
False choice, there are more than 4 outcomes, in fact there are infinitely many.

It could be god is completely Draconian and was actually trying to weed out people who are gullible, and thus will punish people who believed in his existence without proper evidence.

It could be god will only reward people who took no stance on the issue since that's the only way you can't possibly be wrong.

It could be god does exist but did not create an afterlife.

The presumptions on which you base that logic are horribly flawed.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2010, 11:14:00 PM »
If you're going to rebut a point, please put forth some discussion of your own.

Take a stance, or don't post. To do otherwise - to simply tear down someone else's post without actually adding to the discussion - is quite rude.

Thank you.

Offline Kane Gunlock

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2010, 11:15:56 PM »
look I'm not all that religious (agnostic) no one has ever disproved there was a god (I worship Cthulhu and Ormagoden In the same way alan moore worships Glycon) but really who is to say what is real or not? the late bill hicks stated that the world is just a ride we can make in to what ever we want, an old Assassin (of all people ) put it "nothing is true and everything is permitted " we make our own reality if some thing is real it is because we accept this or some one wants us to accept it.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 11:16:58 PM by Kane Gunlock »

Offline Kate

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2010, 05:41:57 AM »
Trieste was your comment directed at me ?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2010, 09:02:49 AM »
It was directed at all, although it was Jude's post specifically that precipitated it.

Offline Kotah

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2010, 07:31:32 PM »
Why does life only have a purpose if you believe in god?

Couldn't my life purpose to be to take care of all those sick people that come through the doors where I work, and to raise two children the best I possibly can?

Offline Kane Gunlock

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2010, 07:34:31 PM »
did any one see my post ?

Offline Kate

Re: Atheism and God (Was: Re: Ask an Atheist Anything)
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2010, 01:29:40 AM »
Kotah, it is not the bible or any book I base my faith on, I believe it because i do and see evidence of my belief everywhere.
To me everyone believes in things because they do (due to experience or education or just are of a nature with strong views on a subject - a apathy on certain subjects they are not interested in.) - but do see justification for their stance everywhere. I do believe in god but I do not believe in the god of mainstream Christianity. A Judgmental god who punishes anyone is no god of mine.


This subject is very interesting. Passionate views on it is expected.

Some here claim my understanding of the placebo effect is a false one. (The placebo effect is faith in a cure usually being told it is adrug that will heal them although it really is only sugar tablets or something that is neutral  - and some recieve benefits from it ).  The effect of prayer also has studies for and against its relevance (however this is different to the raw placebo effect but it is related. Prayer does imply a wish for another to grant, Placebo is a belief it is being granted)

Has there been cases where placebo effects or raw beleif / faith or indeed a spiritual influence have cured people of serious illnesses ? .  There are cases were people have spontaneously recovered from illnesses stumping the medical community.
For those beleiving in faith - yes.
For those believing in it as something of delusional power ? No, it must have been something else that was overlooked or not known separate to their faith / beliefs

Judge you mention that "Scientists are... obviously an authority on science, thus there is no logical fallacy in my statement."
I can see where we are getting frustrated now with each others stance. I do not believe that there is such a thing as objective authority. Mainstream science and scientists views of reality or science is not authoritarian as every year something new is discovered which invalidates existing stances, and scientific stances of these subjects evolve. This is the great benefit of science, but at no one time would a scientists be authoritarian on reality, nor would science itself be so. This may change, it may be a grand unified theory of everything is found and explains all phenomena in a predictable way elegantly, without exception. I believe if one was to exist the observers belief and intention would be a factor in changing outcomes - from quantum effects to macro scale stuff. This is my belief.

Gunlock - your summary reflects my stance on this issue very well (even though we are of very different faith landscapes)
This is why both people can interpret things in ways that are in line with their current beliefs, we all look for things that we already agree with and give what we agree with more credence than things we disagree with.

We dont trust what we dont agree with, its hard to have faith in such things.

If your a scientists and certain results come out that you agree with - you believe its proof your test harness is working ok.
IF your a scientists and certain results come out that you do not agree with ... most do not accept them - most try to repeat the experiment, assuming something went wrong - errors etc.

If 10 studies on "on visualization changing probability outcomes for random events" was conducted. 5 confirmed, 5 didn't.
The ones most take more seriously or quote are the ones that side with your beliefs ( generally - many who are apathetic on the issue would likely behave differently. Many who are interested in a subject are already bias, it is likely they have an intention. Eg ... lets study water for i believe there is more to it ... or "lets study water to put this motion that its magical to rest once and for all. Most scientific endeavor would have passionate people that have intentions which colour their interpretation as well as their approach to their work, thank "god" they do. Many good things come of them doing so.

I guess both atheists and theists are sick of those of the other camp assuming authoritarian views.

Faith and perspectives and what is sacred and magnificent or even true is a very subjective thing to ME it is (to you jude you have made it clear you believe otherwise - your entitled to your view). Separating the state and religion is very important because of this. I believe 100 percent religion should not influence any laws or views on life such as abortion etc.

Do I have belief that jude's view of logic and authoritarian is logical and authoritarian ? No
Do I NEED others to believe in what I do ? No.
Does experience, science and math all logically imply the lack of a god ? Subjectively true, subjectively false

Is the statement that "god exists" more extraordinary than "god doesn't ?" and the former needs more proof to justify it than the later ? Or the later has more compelling proof than the former ?  Does experience, science and math lean towards the later ?

Subjectively true, subjectively false.... both camps are true because they are "Real" (ie perspectives exist believing both) at the same time.

The concept that a belief should be imposed on others is something that does not sit well with me.
Yes some must exist while the society is at a low of maturity (eg try not to kill other citizens, try not to beat them up etc).
Ideally there are no rule but everyone is cared for by society, and we all act in harmony such that none would likely ever want to, until that is true some beliefs have to be "imposed". This should be very minimalistic at the behavioral level or use level only, but not at the conceptual level or expression or creation level

Jude both your notion of reality and truth are very different to mind. It may be best if we stop addressing each other comments as to me our disagreements with the strength of each others view is driven by more fundamental notions than the subject of this thread.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 01:57:59 AM by Kate »