1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

I don’t believe in ghosts (?) Unicorns or Spaghetti monsters either. I guess I belong in this stat.. If we are playing the numbers game, atheists loose hands down.

There are literally 1000's of gods and goddesses (and supernatural beliefs) that have fallen by the wayside over 1000's of years. Why would anyone not expect the same fate of the current crop of deities?

Oh, and I'll save you the trouble of your typical snappy retort: Yes, this is off-topic.

You are off topic with this red herring.

As promised we are starting to discuss this in “Is there evidence for Christianity??” Every subject humans have come up with, has hundreds of views and I am fond of saying scientific conclusions are almost always wrong. It is a logical fallacy to say nothing is therefore right or can be right if there are viewpoints.. Atheism will find no friend here, though you bring it up often. Lets study the history of Atheism and see if we find any changes or viewpoints. We will. However, this is not evidence against atheism is it? It would be if you were consistent with how you applied it to Christianity.

[shadowhawk]

Is this the Atheist position that you need no evidence for? Dawkins

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

[johnross47]

Is this the Atheist position that you need no evidence for? Dawkins

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. It may not be cuddly and warm but it's realistic. The universe neither knows nor cares, and DNA is the same, except that some of the behaviours engendered by it lead to what we call morality.

[DukeNukem]

Is this the Atheist position that you need no evidence for? Dawkins

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

We definitely live in an indifferent universe. Practically 100% of it is dangerous to life as we know it on Earth. It is vast beyond comprehension and if it was designed just for us it is such a waste. If it weren't for a huge space rock smashing into Earth some 65 million years ago, Shadowhawk and the rest of us might be descendants of an intelligent branch of dinosaurs, with Shadowhawk trying to convince us that we are made in god's dino-like image, and that the original Dino sapien, named Adam, was formed from clay, and it's mate was formed from that dino's rib. And he would thoroughly believe it.

Edited by DukeNukem, 11 March 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[sthira]

Is this the Atheist position that you need no evidence for?  Dawkins

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

 

Sounds quite reasonable to me. It may not be cuddly and warm but it's realistic. The universe neither knows nor cares, and DNA is the same, except that some of the behaviours engendered by it lead to what we call morality.

SH's point is that atheism requires faith, and so does theism.  The universe is incomprehensibly huge and tiny, and its laws appear indifferent, but we don't really "know" very much about it, do we?  That is, we cannot conclude that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference..".  These are claims, and they are not solid.

But the relevant point is which knowledge base is progressive?  And (obviously) few propose that theism will offer much assistance in humanity's quests to learn.  Theism  (at its best) may offer us novel reasons for hope or emotional appeals for good will; but in terms of explorative value, religion doesn't give much value.  Especially useless are historical religious dogmas which increase strife, violence, and hatred.  Meanwhile, science has enabled us to kill each other more effectively, and also make our lives better.  What has religion done for us by comparison?  

The widening base of knowledge spread via the internet is killing both theism and atheism.  The progressive stance is agnosticism.  It's what all the cool kids are into, haha.  On a large scale, we are beginning to know what we don't know, and that's very healthy even if it's unsettling to those entrenched in their beliefs.  Agnosticism ("we don't know much") is also a belief; but at least it's honest.  And for now, fashionable.  All of this is subject to change instantly as we gain fresh insights via science.

[shadowhawk]

sthira is correct: How about this honest Atheist blogger?

“[To] all my Atheist friends.
Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, it’s hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.
We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.
We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.
I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

[johnross47]

Is this the Atheist position that you need no evidence for? Dawkins

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. It may not be cuddly and warm but it's realistic. The universe neither knows nor cares, and DNA is the same, except that some of the behaviours engendered by it lead to what we call morality.

SH's point is that atheism requires faith, and so does theism. The universe is incomprehensibly huge and tiny, and its laws appear indifferent, but we don't really "know" very much about it, do we? That is, we cannot conclude that the universe has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference..". These are claims, and they are not solid.

But the relevant point is which knowledge base is progressive? And (obviously) few propose that theism will offer much assistance in humanity's quests to learn. Theism (at its best) may offer us novel reasons for hope or emotional appeals for good will; but in terms of explorative value, religion doesn't give much value. Especially useless are historical religious dogmas which increase strife, violence, and hatred. Meanwhile, science has enabled us to kill each other more effectively, and also make our lives better. What has religion done for us by comparison?

The widening base of knowledge spread via the internet is killing both theism and atheism. The progressive stance is agnosticism. It's what all the cool kids are into, haha. On a large scale, we are beginning to know what we don't know, and that's very healthy even if it's unsettling to those entrenched in their beliefs. Agnosticism ("we don't know much") is also a belief; but at least it's honest. And for now, fashionable. All of this is subject to change instantly as we gain fresh insights via science.

If you check my previous posts, (I certainly wouldn't do anything as tedious), you will find that my basic position is actually agnostic, not atheist, though I do suspect that the odds are in favour of the atheist side of the options. Taking the view that the universe appears to neither know nor care is perfectly compatible with agnosticism. (SH will probably disagree, but I have never conceded to him, the right to define me or my position for the sake of his own arguments, though he has tried many times; such as the post above.) If somebody shows me that the universe does care I will be amazed and excited. What we can see of it is mostly very hostile, unless of course it turns out that suns are intelligent beings, or some such very unpredictable state of affairs.

Edited by johnross47, 11 March 2014 - 08:16 PM.

[platypus]

SH's point is that atheism requires faith, and so does theism.

Do you equate "having an opinion" with "having faith"? Do you mean that since we cannot be certain, we must have "faith"?

[DukeNukem]

There's no faith in atheism, only evidence and logic.

Given everything I know about our universe, atheism makes far more sense than deities. And so far, the majority of deities have fallen by the wayside. And current trends in the USA show that the few remaining deities face a similar fate.

[shadowhawk]

There's no faith in atheism, only evidence and logic.

Given everything I know about our universe, atheism makes far more sense than deities. And so far, the majority of deities have fallen by the wayside. And current trends in the USA show that the few remaining deities face a similar fate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument from Ignorance
Ad Ignorantium
(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biased Sample Fallacy
(also known as: biased statistics, loaded sample, prejudiced statistics, prejudiced sample, loaded statistics, biased induction, biased generalization, unrepresentative sample, unrepresentative generalization)
Description: Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is.
This differs from the hasty generalization fallacy, where the biased sample is specifically chosen from a select group, and the small sample is just a random sample, but too small to get any accurate information.

Logical Form:

Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.

Conclusion C is drawn about population P based on S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasty Generalization
(also known as: argument from small numbers, statistics of small numbers, insufficient statistics, unrepresentative sample [form of], argument by generalization, faulty generalization, hasty conclusion [form of], inductive generalization, insufficient sample, lonely fact fallacy, over generality, over generalization)
Description: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.
Logical Form:

Sample S is taken from population P.

Sample S is a very small part of population P.

Conclusion C is drawn from sample S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If some deity has more evidence than Atheism, which most in here say they are agnostic and don’t know, would you believe in theism as you now claim you believe in Atheism? Can you prove a negative or do you have no evidence. Do you have a burden of prof? Do you have proof? Do you have evidence for Atheism? Let’s see it.

[johnross47]

There's no faith in atheism, only evidence and logic.

Given everything I know about our universe, atheism makes far more sense than deities. And so far, the majority of deities have fallen by the wayside. And current trends in the USA show that the few remaining deities face a similar fate.

Yes. If I'm looking for an explanation of some phenomenon I don't reach for the god concept, because it never works, but science will usually provide an explanation or point the way to where one might lie.

[platypus]

I think that looking at "religious experience" as a natural brain-related phenomenon goes a long way in explaining why religious people and the founders of different religions believe what they believe.

[shadowhawk]

I am waiting for a comment on Atheism not someone elses religion which is a red herring. Here is an example. http://www.longecity...510#entry648887

[shadowhawk]

Atheist Will Provine:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

What do you think of this as well as the above last post??? Darwin's views??? Evidence.

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 March 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[johnross47]

I think that looking at "religious experience" as a natural brain-related phenomenon goes a long way in explaining why religious people and the founders of different religions believe what they believe.

That depends on what you mean by, "a natural brain-related phenomenon". Some people claim there is a special religious area in the brain; they are wrong. (Just as wrong as those who claim there is a god gene) But you might mean that it is possible for the brain to produce religion related experiences just using the usual flexible modules, and that would be pretty much incontestable; it clearly does allow people to have experiences that they label as religious. What would be very much harder to demonstrate is the idea that they represent anything real outside the brain.People in general have uplifting and ecstatic experiences from a variety of events, concerts, art, relationships, scenery etc. and use the same brain modules for them all. Some just get the religion label tagged on, either because of the context or the inner world of the experiencer.

[platypus]

That depends on what you mean by, "a natural brain-related phenomenon". Some people claim there is a special religious area in the brain; they are wrong. (Just as wrong as those who claim there is a god gene) But you might mean that it is possible for the brain to produce religion related experiences just using the usual flexible modules, and that would be pretty much incontestable; it clearly does allow people to have experiences that they label as religious. What would be very much harder to demonstrate is the idea that they represent anything real outside the brain.People in general have uplifting and ecstatic experiences from a variety of events, concerts, art, relationships, scenery etc. and use the same brain modules for them all. Some just get the religion label tagged on, either because of the context or the inner world of the experiencer.

Yes, and it is well known that psychedelic plants and substances can generate real mystical/religious experiences in people. Some people experience these kinds of peak experiences easier than others, and it is reasonable to assume that people label the experiences according to their culture/upbringing etc. Also the connection between epilepsy and hyperreligiosity is quite clear.

[shadowhawk]

That depends on what you mean by, "a natural brain-related phenomenon". Some people claim there is a special religious area in the brain; they are wrong. (Just as wrong as those who claim there is a god gene) But you might mean that it is possible for the brain to produce religion related experiences just using the usual flexible modules, and that would be pretty much incontestable; it clearly does allow people to have experiences that they label as religious. What would be very much harder to demonstrate is the idea that they represent anything real outside the brain.People in general have uplifting and ecstatic experiences from a variety of events, concerts, art, relationships, scenery etc. and use the same brain modules for them all. Some just get the religion label tagged on, either because of the context or the inner world of the experiencer.

Yes, and it is well known that psychedelic plants and substances can generate real mystical/religious experiences in people. Some people experience these kinds of peak experiences easier than others, and it is reasonable to assume that people label the experiences according to their culture/upbringing etc. Also the connection between epilepsy and hyperreligiosity is quite clear.

Dope and disease evidence for Atheism. Interesting. I sure have seen a lot of epilepsy in the church. I wondered why we were there.

[xks201]

I think any religious person should probably read the book "
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and then decide.

[shadowhawk]

I think any religious person should probably read the book "
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and then decide.

Perhaps anyone beside just the religious could enjoy it. Also check out http://genealogyreli...p-julian-jaynes

[xks201]

That link denies his theory. If anyone read the entire book it'd be very hard to deny his theory with that simple of a defense IMO.

I think any religious person should probably read the book "
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and then decide.

Perhaps anyone beside just the religious could enjoy it. Also check out http://genealogyreli...p-julian-jaynes

[shadowhawk]

I think any religious person should probably read the book "
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and then decide.

Perhaps anyone beside just the religious could enjoy it. Also check out http://genealogyreli...p-julian-jaynes
I could give you more.
Do Atheists have mental problems just like the rest of human kind? Do they only have some kinds of problems due to their higher evolved state? Are Theists the most evolved?

[platypus]

Yes, and it is well known that psychedelic plants and substances can generate real mystical/religious experiences in people. Some people experience these kinds of peak experiences easier than others, and it is reasonable to assume that people label the experiences according to their culture/upbringing etc. Also the connection between epilepsy and hyperreligiosity is quite clear.

Dope and disease evidence for Atheism. Interesting. I sure have seen a lot of epilepsy in the church. I wondered why we were there.

The founder of Christianity, Apostle Paul, might have mistaken an epileptic seizure with a meeting with Christ. Modern medications might have prevented this from happening - this should make you think.

"The Bible says that Paul's conversion experience was an encounter with the resurrected Christ. Alternative explanations have been proposed, includingsun stroke and seizure. In 1987, D. Landsborough published an article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,^[10] in which he stated that Paul's conversion experience, with the bright light, loss of normal bodily posture, a message of strong religious content, and his subsequent blindness, suggested "an attack of [temporal lobe epilepsy], perhaps ending in a convulsion ... The blindness which followed may have been post-ictal."<sup>[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle</sup>

[platypus]

Here's a link to the article:

http://jnnp.bmj.com/.../6/659.full.pdf

[johnross47]

http://en.wikipedia....ism_(psychology)

The bicameral notion of the mind seems on this evidence, not worth the effort. It is inconsistent with most modern neuropsychology. It was obviously written in the absence of modern research based knowledge. The date for the change is plucked from his butt.

[platypus]

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

[johnross47]

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

And a lot longer than that. Religion is where old theories go when they die in the real world.

[shadowhawk]

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING.

That link denies his theory. If anyone read the entire book it'd be very hard to deny his theory with that simple of a defense IMO.

I think any religious person should probably read the book "
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and then decide.

Perhaps anyone beside just the religious could enjoy it. Also check out http://genealogyreli...p-julian-jaynes

You didn't answer my questions. http://www.longecity...510#entry649241

[shadowhawk]

I don't think the bicameral stuff makes much sense. We're essentially identical genetically to people who lived 3000 years ago.

And a lot longer than that. Religion is where old theories go when they die in the real world.

This is not about religion, it is an atheist's view of the mind. Don't you think they need tp give evidence for mind and consciousness? Evidence, not assertion.

[platypus]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

[shadowhawk]

So what if Paul experienced what he did in an epileptic fit? Surely you don't think that all religious ideation during a seizure in the brain is valid proof of gods? Without his experience Christianity would not even exist...

No I don't think mental illness is the cause of religious experience. Now let me ask you, do Atheists experience mental illness. Is a seizure proof of Atheism? Without mental illness and problems with father figures, Atheism would not even exist.