Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Mobyseven]

Thesyntaxera:

Just to clarify, should I assume that the fact that you're unable to produce a counter-argument or criticism of my position is a tacit admission that you're wrong? Do you understand what the terms 'theist', 'atheist', 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' mean yet? And have you ever heard of 'burden of proof' or 'Occam's Razor'?

 

[articulett]

Thesyntaxera:

You said: You assume as fact that there is not anything of greater intelligence that humans might consider mystical. There is no proof of this. There can probably be no proof of this, and as a result you conclude without evidence that the notion is false. You have no idea 'why' things are here or anywhere in the universe...just an inkling of the how. It's a question that doesn't mix well with purely left brain analytical thinking because it forces you to engage the undernourished right side of your brain for a minute. I understand why it makes you feel uncomfortable, I just don't understand what you have against speculating on such things.

Those aren't facts not in evidence! I'm not assuming that there's nothing greater than human intelligence anymore than I'm not assuming that I have Thetans attached to my body... there is NO evidence (NO facts in evidence) in support of such a proposition of either, that's all. Are you assuming there is no such thing as body thetans... angels? Sprites? Demons? They are all as evidentiary as god.

If any of you guys ever had actual evidence (remember, you can't prove a negative so I never can prove that fairies nor gods don't exist)... instead of fallacious semantic arguments where you seem sort of uneducated, then maybe we could look at it. Oh, and I do have an inkling of why and how we are here... I understand quite a bit of science (not that you asked)...but nothing appears "intelligently designed " when you actually study the facts, but even if I had NO inkling, that certainly doesn't mean that any guru or priest or person having a "revelation" does either--nor the person who gave you whatever notion you have of the invisible overlord who gives reasons for human existence! I have no reason to see your assertions and excuses as anything more than what a Moonie would say to me.

All believers of all woo are sure they know something or other "divine" or mystical... but there is no evidence than any of them know anything at all... and I was a believer for years so don't give me left brain/right brain psuedoscience babble. I don't have problems speculating things... there's just a myriad of things to speculate... and I choose to speculate things that have some evidence in their favor... not things that people that sound like you and Beth are all googly about without saying anything. I wasted a childhood trying to believe and make sense of that nothingness. To me you are the same as Radrook or Tom Cruise or all the the other believers or semi believers of speculative nothingness that they never really define but it makes them feel special. To me I look at all believers and they all look equally unreliable for my tastes... and I know I'd find their sources unreliable... people seem wildly clueless about what is and isn't evidence.

BTW, you seem great at hearing yourself and convincing yourself, but you sure aren't hearing others. An atheist does not believe that a supernatural thing (or whatever you imagine god as) is impossible-- we just note there is no evidence for it... and that all the things once attributed to supernatural phenomena that we have explained-- was explained by science and the natural world. There's no reason to think that someone else is clued into divine secrets... There is no more reason for me to believe in gods than there are for me to believe in demons or astrology or anything else supernatural... there is no more arrogance in not believing in whatever nebulous meaning god has to you--some creator or designer or whatever it is you believe in more than demons or astrology or feel "agnostic" about.

Plug in the word demons or Xenu or Astrology into your phrases when you are talking about god and see how you sound to an atheist. Why does this god desire or wishful thinking or whatever get more respect than those things? Wouldn't you feel like someone was trying to manipulate you or convince themselves of some belief if they were using your words but speaking of some woo you didn't believe in... because god has no more evidence going for it than all the other woo, and no skeptic seems to think it's a big deal not to believe in that other woo.

If your argument could be made equally well to support demons (and I'm sure everything you say in support of god can be used in the same way), then why in the world would you think it's convincing enough to be on the fence about? Are you on the fence about demons too? How about ESP? Bigfoot? How many things are you "agnostic" about with the same fervor or excuse proffering or semantics? I imagine Tom Cruise could use your exact fallacious nothingness argument for Xenu. As such, it sucks--not just as an argument-- but it's fallacious all around. And you would know it was if he was talking about Xenu and not your imaginary friend you've been indoctrinated to believer in.

Oh, and contrary to your inanities, I CAN perceive of things beyond human understanding... I just wouldn't suspect you or other humans to understand them! Hence the phrase "beyond human understanding".... Should they be understood, it will be by science... because they are the only people who have given verifiable useful and truthful information about our world to the world. Moreover, they amass and refine useful verifiable information and correct mistakes because it's based on the very opposite of faith! Faith just seems to be a way to fool yourself. Where is the evidence that faith has EVER lead to verifiable truths??! And the thing you keep not hearing is that there is no way to determine if one faith based notion is truer than any other because they all rely on the supernatural-- invisible entities that can't or won't be detected and can't or won't be tested! That makes all gods indistinguishable from delusions of god, right? And yet you keep your mind open enough that you think someone's delusion might not be a delusion after all --even as you know tons are and you know there is nothing that they can offer that distinguishes the stories they tell you from the stories a delusional person tells you.

You spin and spin words like Beth to prop up belief for yourself by putting down non-believers and playing semantic games. And you'd recognize it someone was talking about a version of god or gods or reincarnation etc. that you did not believe in. But you never answer the question. And I think you know that every woo could answer the question about their woo with the same answers you give.

And your insults sound like you are projecting. You're the one who seems to need validating by some god... and your the one being condescending and pretending to know stuff you do not know! I wish someone would throw your words back at you but be talking about something you don't believe in so you can see how much more obnoxious you sound than you imagine in your head. Of course, when you don't have facts-- what else are you going to do. I thought you were just being honest when you said that you believe because it makes you feel good... but I guess the honesty doesn't prop up the faith as much as vilifying those who don't believe it, eh... DOC?

BTW, your understanding of logical arguments is about as good as your understanding of neurology and the brain. You could learn, but your need to protect your purported "agnosticism" is getting in the way. And you guys are notorious for hearing things people are not saying so you can spin your story. Believing in one invisible immeasurable thing with powers is not more rational than the belief in all other things that fit that category and it's a LOT LESS RATIONAL than not believing in such things until or unless the evidence warrants such belief.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

articulett,

Why do you repeat the same arguments over and over again?

Oh. Wait I minute. I get it.

Carry on.

And still no answer to the OP I see.

 

[articulett]

articulett,

Why do you repeat the same arguments over and over again?

Oh. Wait I minute. I get it.

Carry on.

And still no answer to the OP I see.

I'm forced to be nice to the self-important dingbats all day... in the evening I like to blow off steam. They do tend to repeat the same old silliness...(lots of words used, nothing really said)-- and they'd recognize their inanity if someone else was posting the same nothing drivel about Xenu or demons.

I wonder if they look at the other forum members that are "apologists" like them and see themselves. Or do each of them think they are smarter than the other woo and supposed "agnostics" or whatever? But at least the brilliant people think like me!

ETA--for the fence sitters and believers

Believing in god and not believing in god are NOT equally delusional any more than believing in fairies and not believing in fairies is equally delusional...

It is more rational not to believe in invisible forms of consciousness than to believe in them, because none of have shown to exist... and humans have believed in tons of them over the eons. Even if god or thetans or Zeus was true... we'd have no way of know which one is or isn't--nor would any priest, clergyman, guru, or self proclaimed prophet. Anyone's version of god is as true as any other so long as they can't be tested and remain indistinguishable from a delusion.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I chose to believe in a possibility. I don't assume my point of view to be fact.

What, in effect, does that do for you? Is there anything of value that you get from entertaining that notion? I’ve always been interesting in this belief- (in and of itself) part of religion.

 

[cyborg]

We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life.

Which is why when one wants to more beyond mere ad hoc pontification to something more concrete one can chuck "personal evidence" on the junk-heap of unhelpfulness.

Correct. Similarities across different cultures may indicate that there may be some underlying common stimulus that has evoked the experiences that people report but by no means establish it as fact.

It may indicate anything at all one can conjure up.

My recollection, though I may be mistaken as it's been a while since I read about the history of mathematics, is that the concept of zero was only developed independently once.

Wikipedia's history of zero indicates otherwise and you may take it or leave it.

As far as a muse whispering it in someone's ear, I'm unaware of any such claim having been made for that particular concept.

"Similarities across different cultures may indicate that there may be some underlying common stimulus that has evoked the experiences that people report but by no means establish it as fact"

Hmmm...

Okay. My point was only that the similarity does provide some support to the claim.

Does the independent invention of zero provide some support to the claim that there is "some underlying common stimulus that has evoked," the invention of zero?

I think of supernatural as that which lies beyond or outside of our 4-dimensional space-time continuum, which also makes string theory supernatural.

String theory proposes that "our 4-dimensional space-time continuum," isn't four dimensional.

Hmmm - you do realize that modern science is an outcropping of religion don't you?

In the same way that Drum & Bass is an outcropping of Jazz.

And you are also excluding new knowledge produced by an individual about that individual (a reasonable delineation, btw).

Eh?

However, apart from that, that isn't how I define unproductive. I think of unproductive as not producing anything of value. Since there are things other than new knowledge that have value, I would have disagreed with your original statement but when you define productive as narrowly as you have above, I'll not quibble with the statement.

Sure, one could say, "religion is productive because look! Here's some cultural product it's inspired!" But that doesn't make religious ideas anything special in that case and it certainly doesn't entail any relationship to understanding the nature of how the world works.

Correct. The 'more' that separates a house from a pile of bricks and cement is not a tangible material substance, just as the 'more' that separates an individual from a pile of cells is not a tangible material substance. But that has been what we were discussing - intangible immaterial things.

It is quite tangible though - it's a tangible behavioural difference.

Put simply we have a physical configuration and we have future potential physical configurations and their relationships to other physical configurations.

E.g. a pile of bricks and a house have similar future potential physical configurations in that they tend to remain the same over time but their different initial physical configurations mean they have a different relationship to the physical configuration of "weather" meaning that a house has the property of "shelter" which a pile of bricks does not.

I have no idea what you mean by this, so no, I don't think I'm proposing that.

Then what exactly is it you're proposing?

 

[Beth]

[

We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life.

Which is why when one wants to more beyond mere ad hoc pontification to something more concrete one can chuck "personal evidence" on the junk-heap of unhelpfulness.

One can. Not everyone does. Either seem like a reasonable choice to me. While I understand your point of view, I’m not sure why you don’t see the other one as reasonable for other people. People, including you I’m sure, take personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously for everything else that they don’t consider scientific data to be conclusive. Even if you consider it conclusive in this case, can’t you understand that not everyone does?

Correct. Similarities across different cultures may indicate that there may be some underlying common stimulus that has evoked the experiences that people report but by no means establish it as fact.

It may indicate anything at all one can conjure up.

I don’t think so. Why do you feel that is the case?

My recollection, though I may be mistaken as it's been a while since I read about the history of mathematics, is that the concept of zero was only developed independently once.

Wikipedia's history of zero indicates otherwise and you may take it or leave it.

As far as a muse whispering it in someone's ear, I'm unaware of any such claim having been made for that particular concept.

"Similarities across different cultures may indicate that there may be some underlying common stimulus that has evoked the experiences that people report but by no means establish it as fact"

Hmmm...

Okay. My point was only that the similarity does provide some support to the claim.

Does the independent invention of zero provide some support to the claim that there is "some underlying common stimulus that has evoked," the invention of zero?

Yes. There is indeed an underlying common stimulus to it: mathematics. I’m not surprised I’m wrong about the repeated independent discovery of zero. Math, despite being nothing more than another intangible, a concise representation of relationships, is often considered to be discovered and explored rather than invented. Repeated discovery of concepts like zero lend credence to that viewpoint. Mathematics, incidently, has been considered a tool for exploring the nature of god for countless mathematicians throughout the ages, including Isaac Newton.

I think of supernatural as that which lies beyond or outside of our 4-dimensional space-time continuum, which also makes string theory supernatural.

String theory proposes that "our 4-dimensional space-time continuum," isn't four dimensional.

Yes. I understand that. I consider it ‘supernatural’ in the same way that I consider the god(s), if any exists ‘supernatural’. If any god exists, do you not think that it/they would occupy some dimension(s) we cannot access? The idea that gods reside in another dimension is one of those similarities that I see in religions/spiritual beliefs across different cultures.

And you are also excluding new knowledge produced by an individual about that individual (a reasonable delineation, btw).

Eh?

Meditation, reflection, prayer – another similarity of religious beliefs across cultures. They encourage and facilitate self-knowledge – new knowledge about the self can be produced as a result of religious beliefs which are pretty closely tied to god beliefs. You are excluding that when you said that god-belief did not produce new knowledge. It’s okay. You can exclude it if you want. Such knowledge is not objectively verifiable. Since you desire to exclude all personal experience as valid evidence, personal revelation doesn’t quality as ‘new knowledge’ even if it’s accurate. Given how you have defined your terms, it’s consistent and I won’t quibble with it.

However, apart from that, that isn't how I define unproductive. I think of unproductive as not producing anything of value. Since there are things other than new knowledge that have value, I would have disagreed with your original statement but when you define ‘productive’ as you have above, I'll not quibble with the statement.

Sure, one could say, "religion is productive because look! Here's some cultural product it's inspired!" But that doesn't make religious ideas anything special in that case and it certainly doesn't entail any relationship to understanding the nature of how the world works.

I can't disagree with any of this, but I must point out that many spiritual leaders (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) claimed to be searching for truth and understanding. You can scorn their approach if you want, but you are in a minority when you do so.

Correct. The 'more' that separates a house from a pile of bricks and cement is not a tangible material substance, just as the 'more' that separates an individual from a pile of cells is not a tangible material substance. But that has been what we were discussing - intangible immaterial things.

It is quite tangible though - it's a tangible behavioural difference.

Put simply we have a physical configuration and we have future potential physical configurations and their relationships to other physical configurations.

E.g. a pile of bricks and a house have similar future potential physical configurations in that they tend to remain the same over time but their different initial physical configurations mean they have a different relationship to the physical configuration of "weather" meaning that a house has the property of "shelter" which a pile of bricks does not.

I’m sorry, I’ve completely lost tract of this part of the conversation and I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make. (A tangible behavioral difference? could you give an example of what you mean by that?)

At any rate, do you understand what I mean by “more” than bricks and cement now? If so, I think we can drop this analogy.

I have no idea what you mean by this, so no, I don't think I'm proposing that.

Then what exactly is it you're proposing?

I’m not proposing anything in particular. I'm just having a conversation and trying to understand more about other people’s point of view. Thank you for your participation.

 

[Mobyseven]

Wow. Beth is so much more incredibly woo than I thought she was...

 

[Beth]

What, in effect, does that do for you? Is there anything of value that you get from entertaining that notion? I’ve always been interesting in this belief- (in and of itself) part of religion.

Remaining open to different possibilities keeps me from becoming a dogmatic believer

 

[cyborg]

While I understand your point of view, I’m not sure why you don’t see the other one as reasonable for other people.

Well some people think it's reasonable that they are channelling spirits from Venus.

People, including you I’m sure, take personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously for everything else that they don’t consider scientific data to be conclusive.

I don't take personal testimony seriously for anything other than trivia.

Sure, when I am at work, say, I have to rely on other people's knowledge. I would, however, be quite screwed if I took what was said on face value because whilst there is a wealth of knowledge I also work in a highly dynamic and shifting environment where such knowledge becomes out of date quickly. If I didn't verify for myself then I'd be liable to implement some sort of screw up. So, at best, it is a starting point.

It is certainly not an end point.

Even if you consider it conclusive in this case, can’t you understand that not everyone does?

Oh sure, I understand this.

This isn't exactly an argument for your position though.

Yes. There is indeed an underlying common stimulus to it: mathematics.

Mathematics is a stimulus now?

Math, despite being nothing more than another intangible, a concise representation of relationships, is often considered to be discovered and explored rather than invented.

It is both.

All of mathematics can be said to be contained within the concepts of the natural numbers and the logical conjunctives - so it's all ready all "there" waiting to be "discovered".

But you can't make use of any mathematical relationships until you find out what they are - that's where "invention" comes in.

Mathematics, incidently, has been considered a tool for exploring the nature of god for countless mathematicians throughout the ages, including Isaac Newton.

So?

It's also been used as a tool in Numerology, but that doesn't make the mathematical exploration of arbitrary numerical relationships to arbitrary events a sound way of gaining knowledge about reality.

Yes. I understand that. I consider it ‘supernatural’ in the same way that I consider the god(s), if any exists ‘supernatural’. If any god exists, do you not think that it/they would occupy some dimension(s) we cannot access?

A dimension is just a concept - so saying "shouldn't god be in some other dimension," doesn't really mean anything.

If you don't solidify and consequentialise then you're just jabbing arbitrary words together and attaining nothing of any real meaning.

The idea that gods reside in another dimension is one of those similarities that I see in religions/spiritual beliefs across different cultures.

So is the idea that gods reside atop mountains.

Zeus must be hiding somewhere on Olympus...

Meditation, reflection, prayer – another similarity of religious beliefs across cultures.

Unless you consider the differences in their stated purpose.

They encourage and facilitate self-knowledge – new knowledge about the self can be produced as a result of religious beliefs which are pretty closely tied to god beliefs.

Prayer doesn't necessarily entail self-knowledge for one - sometimes it's just a way to communicate desires or subservience to the divine.

You are excluding that when you said that god-belief did not produce new knowledge. It’s okay. You can exclude it if you want. Such knowledge is not objectively verifiable.

What exactly makes you think that merely sitting about and pondering will actually garner any self-knowledge?

I mean, sitting about and pondering didn't give people any self-knowledge about basic things like the construct of the human body. You actually have to cut people open to see what the guts look like - just sitting about and pondering what's inside won't give you that.

Why do you think it's any different as far as the processes of the grey spongy organ sitting in the cranium? Hell, some cultures didn't even believe that behaviour originated from there!

Since you desire to exclude all personal experience as valid evidence, personal revelation doesn’t quality as ‘new knowledge’ even if it’s accurate.

No it doesn't. A random guess that is right is still a random guess.

I can't disagree with any of this, but I must point out that many spiritual leaders (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) claimed to be searching for truth and understanding. You can scorn their approach if you want, but you are in a minority when you do so.

Anyone can claim anything they want. It's easy.

And no, an argument from popularity will not sway me.

It's whether or not you actually find "truth and understanding" that matters, not whether or not you say you're looking for it.

I’m sorry, I’ve completely lost tract of this part of the conversation and I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make. (A tangible behavioral difference? could you give an example of what you mean by that?)

If you take a lump of plasticine and mould it into a ball it will sink in water. If you mould it into a bowl it will float.

There is a tangible behavioural difference - the material is the same.

At any rate, do you understand what I mean by “more” than bricks and cement now? If so, I think we can drop this analogy.

The problem is that although I say "more" function there really isn't any "more". All the individual parts function in the same way.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Remaining open to different possibilities keeps me from becoming a dogmatic believer

So, to borrow a similitude from Walt Whitman:
If there turns out to be a supernatural reality, I sit content.
If there turns out to be no supernatural reality, I sit content.

 

[Beth]

So, to borrow a similitude from Walt Whitman:
If there turns out to be a supernatural reality, I sit content.
If there turns out to be no supernatural reality, I sit content.

Yes.

 

[Beth]

While I understand your point of view, I’m not sure why you don’t see the other one as reasonable for other people.

Well some people think it's reasonable that they are channelling spirits from Venus.

This doesn’t answer my question. Going back a few posts, my comment was “We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life. “ Why do you see people taking personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive?

It is certainly not an end point.

I didn’t suggest it was an end point. I suggested it was reasonable in cases where scientific data does not yield a firm conclusion.

Even if you consider it conclusive in this case, can’t you understand that not everyone does?

Oh sure, I understand this.
This isn't exactly an argument for your position though.

I wasn't arguing for a position. I'm simply trying to understand yours. If you understand that plenty of people don't consider the scientific evidence sufficient to justify a conclusion of athiesm, why do you consider unreasonable that other people consider non-scientific evidence in coming to their own conclusions?

Yes. There is indeed an underlying common stimulus to it: mathematics.

Mathematics is a stimulus now?

Absolutely. I find it quite stimulating. More seriously, if mathematics is something that is discovered rather than invented, then it qualifies as a stimulus.

The idea that gods reside in another dimension is one of those similarities that I see in religions/spiritual beliefs across different cultures.

So is the idea that gods reside atop mountains.

Zeus must be hiding somewhere on Olympus...

Or, it could be interpreted as a metaphor for a place that humans did not have access to – such as something outside of the 4-dimensional reality we inhabit. The similarity I see is that the gods always reside somewhere that humans cannot access.

Meditation, reflection, prayer – another similarity of religious beliefs across cultures.

Unless you consider the differences in their stated purpose.

There are many different stated purposes to those activities. Gaining knowledge and understanding of the self is common to all of them.

What exactly makes you think that merely sitting about and pondering will actually garner any self-knowledge?

I have direct personal experience that it can be helpful in that way.

I mean, sitting about and pondering didn't give people any self-knowledge about basic things like the construct of the human body. You actually have to cut people open to see what the guts look like - just sitting about and pondering what's inside won't give you that.

I meant it can facilitate knowledge and understanding of the non-material aspects of one’s self, such as desires and motivations, not that it would suffice to understand bodily functions such as digestion.

Why do you think it's any different as far as the processes of the grey spongy organ sitting in the cranium? Hell, some cultures didn't even believe that behaviour originated from there!

Do you think that you can understand desires and motivations by cutting people’s brains open to see what’s there? I think it is different because our brains process thoughts which are intangible, making them considerably different than blood or guts.

I can't disagree with any of this, but I must point out that many spiritual leaders (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) claimed to be searching for truth and understanding. You can scorn their approach if you want, but you are in a minority when you do so.

Anyone can claim anything they want. It's easy.

And no, an argument from popularity will not sway me.

How do you go about distinguishing between those who are searching for truth and understanding and those who merely claim to? Is it possible that you rely on your own personal experiences and other people's testimony to make such a delineation?

It's whether or not you actually find "truth and understanding" that matters, not whether or not you say you're looking for it.

How do you go about distinguishing between those who have found truth and understanding and those who merely claim to? Is it possible that you rely on your own personal experiences and other people's testimony to make such a delineation?

I’m sorry, I’ve completely lost tract of this part of the conversation and I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make. (A tangible behavioral difference? could you give an example of what you mean by that?)

If you take a lump of plasticine and mould it into a ball it will sink in water. If you mould it into a bowl it will float.

There is a tangible behavioural difference - the material is the same.

How is floating versus sinking tangible? Both are verbs not nouns. You cannot pack either one up and mail it to me. Did you mean observable rather than tangible perhaps?

The problem is that although I say "more" function there really isn't any "more". All the individual parts function in the same way.

Are you saying that all the bits and pieces of plasticine function the same way whether they are in the form of a ball or a bowl. How are you defining ‘function’ if that is the case. Obviously, you aren't meaning 'function' as floats in water versus sinks in water.

 

[cyborg]

This doesn’t answer my question. Going back a few posts, my comment was “We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life. “ Why do you see people taking personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive?

I explained this. You don't want to listen.

I suggested it was reasonable in cases where scientific data does not yield a firm conclusion.

Then what is unreasonable about my assertion:

"People are channelling spirits from Venus?"

?

If you understand that plenty of people don't consider the scientific evidence sufficient to justify a conclusion of athiesm,

Where did atheism come into it?

Absolutely. I find it quite stimulating.

I see you desire to use words to mean everything and nothing.

More seriously, if mathematics is something that is discovered rather than invented, then it qualifies as a stimulus.

No.

Or, it could be interpreted as a metaphor for a place that humans did not have access to – such as something outside of the 4-dimensional reality we inhabit. The similarity I see is that the gods always reside somewhere that humans cannot access.

Except when it's accessible.

Like Moses going up a mountain to wrestle Yahweh.

Or Zeus ****ing mortals.

Your assertion is just plain wrong.

There are many different stated purposes to those activities. Gaining knowledge and understanding of the self is common to all of them.

Your assertion is not borne out by the wide variety of religious beliefs where this is not a commonality.

I meant it can facilitate knowledge and understanding of the non-material aspects of one’s self, such as desires and motivations, not that it would suffice to understand bodily functions such as digestion.

And it attains that how exactly?

Desires and motivations are, I'm afraid, bodily functions like digestion.

Do you think that you can understand desires and motivations by cutting people’s brains open to see what’s there?

Yes.

(Especially since we've already made considerable progress in understanding how the brain formulates desire and motivation by doing this).

I think it is different because our brains process thoughts which are intangible, making them considerably different than blood or guts.

No.

They're tangible. Their physical basis can be observed.

How do you go about distinguishing between those who are searching for truth and understanding and those who merely claim to?

That's your problem, not mine.

I tend to worry about results, not personalities.

You cannot pack either one up and mail it to me. Did you mean observable rather than tangible perhaps?

Whatever you prefer.

Are you saying that all the bits and pieces of plasticine function the same way whether they are in the form of a ball or a bowl. How are you defining ‘function’ if that is the case. Obviously, you aren't meaning 'function' as floats in water versus sinks in water.

That is a holistic behaviour. The individual constituents never changed.

 

[thesyntaxera]

If any of you guys ever had actual evidence (remember, you can't prove a negative so I never can prove that fairies nor gods don't exist)... instead of fallacious semantic arguments where you seem sort of uneducated, then maybe we could look at it.

How are they much different than your arguments? I would be curious to know. As far as I can tell, you assume to hold the truth when all you hold are facts about reality. Can you make the separation between the two?

Oh, and I do have an inkling of why and how we are here... I understand quite a bit of science (not that you asked)...but nothing appears "intelligently designed " when you actually study the facts, but even if I had NO inkling, that certainly doesn't mean that any guru or priest or person having a "revelation" does either--nor the person who gave you whatever notion you have of the invisible overlord who gives reasons for human existence! I have no reason to see your assertions and excuses as anything more than what a Moonie would say to me.

I didn't know I needed to ask. I sort of assumed you probably had some level of knowledge regarding science. No one here said that anything had to be intelligently designed. I think if I were to propose anything, what I think of as god could be an emergent phenomena from the universe. Maybe not. There is no way to find out.

I don't have to prove anything to you, so you lumping me together with cults and organized religious concepts means nothing to me. Thats how you want to perceive anything that isn't in line with that you think about this topic...I understand. I'm sorry you feel everyone should agree with you.

All believers of all woo are sure they know something or other "divine" or mystical... but there is no evidence than any of them know anything at all... and I was a believer for years so don't give me left brain/right brain psuedoscience babble.

No. Their not. You don't think being left brain oriented or right brain oriented affects how you think and perceive the world?

I don't have problems speculating things... there's just a myriad of things to speculate... and I choose to speculate things that have some evidence in their favor... not things that people that sound like you and Beth are all googly about without saying nything. I wasted a childhood trying to believe and make sense of that nothingness.

I am sorry you feel you wasted your childhood. The fact that you were a believer and are now not means nothing here. I have never been a 'believer' like you prefer to think of them...so in that sense I have never been in your shoes. I will say that in my childhood my parents wanted me to go to confirmation, and when asked by the pastor what I thought about jesus my answer was that I didn't think he was god, and that I didn't see how in light of the universe's existence he could be. Later that day he gave me a copy of "The Portable Nietzsche". Your point of view on all other peoples beliefs is based on the idea that they must have been as duped as you were, which in many cases is not true.

BTW, you seem great at hearing yourself and convincing yourself, but you sure aren't hearing others.

Thats funny, it seems like you are the one who hears what they want to.

An atheist does not believe that a supernatural thing (or whatever you imagine god as) is impossible-- we just note there is no evidence for it... and that all the things once attributed to supernatural phenomena that we have explained-- was explained by science and the natural world. There's no reason to think that someone else is clued into divine secrets... There is no more reason for me to believe in gods than there are for me to believe in demons or astrology or anything else supernatural... there is no more arrogance in not believing in whatever nebulous meaning god has to you--some creator or designer or whatever it is you believe in more than demons or astrology or feel "agnostic" about.

Sure. Thats your position, and I respect it. Why can't you respect mine?

Plug in the word demons or Xenu or Astrology into your phrases when you are talking about god and see how you sound to an atheist. Why does this god desire or wishful thinking or whatever get more respect than those things?

I don't know how to answer that since I do not believe there is a god in the sense that you think I do. You keep offering questions based on the way you think about things, not on what you are being told.

If your argument could be made equally well to support demons (and I'm sure everything you say in support of god can be used in the same way), then why in the world would you think it's convincing enough to be on the fence about?

How can you be so sure? By your interpretation of what I have said so far or your own predisposition?

Are you on the fence about demons too? How about ESP? Bigfoot? How many things are you "agnostic" about with the same fervor or excuse proffering or semantics? I imagine Tom Cruise could use your exact fallacious nothingness argument for Xenu. As such, it sucks--not just as an argument-- but it's fallacious all around. And you would know it was if he was talking about Xenu and not your imaginary friend you've been indoctrinated to believer in.

Why not write cogent questions if you want cogent answers. I don't have any imaginary friends. Nor was I indoctrinated as you were as a child. I came to the conclusion that I can't know, and that not being able to know doesn't eliminate the possibility that there might be some aspect to reality that people have called god.

Oh, and contrary to your inanities, I CAN perceive of things beyond human understanding... I just wouldn't suspect you or other humans to understand them!

Try me.

Hence the phrase "beyond human understanding".... Should they be understood, it will be by science... because they are the only people who have given verifiable useful and truthful information about our world to the world.

What do scientists say about the problem of infinite regress? It all came from some where right? Where? What was there before that, and that, and that, and that?

Moreover, they amass and refine useful verifiable information and correct mistakes because it's based on the very opposite of faith! Faith just seems to be a way to fool yourself. Where is the evidence that faith has EVER lead to verifiable truths??!

Who here is professing to have faith in anything, but you?

And the thing you keep not hearing is that there is no way to determine if one faith based notion is truer than any other because they all rely on the supernatural-- invisible entities that can't or won't be detected and can't or won't be tested!

I think I said something similar in my last post, so you must not be reading closely.

That makes all gods indistinguishable from delusions of god, right?

Potentially. You might think so. I might not...whats your point?

And yet you keep your mind open enough that you think someone's delusion might not be a delusion after all --even as you know tons are and you know there is nothing that they can offer that distinguishes the stories they tell you from the stories a delusional person tells you.

I think I stated earlier that any human conception of god is probably just a human creation. Your really only deluding yourself if your not also open to the idea that there isn't a 'god'...

You spin and spin words like Beth to prop up belief for yourself by putting down non-believers and playing semantic games. And you'd recognize it someone was talking about a version of god or gods or reincarnation etc. that you did not believe in. But you never answer the question. And I think you know that every woo could answer the question about their woo with the same answers you give.

No, not really. There is no question for me to answer since I don't have concrete beliefs about this like you do.

And your insults sound like you are projecting. You're the one who seems to need validating by some god...

What belief do I need to validate? I am open to a possibility, either way.

and your the one being condescending and pretending to know stuff you do not know!

Like what?

I wish someone would throw your words back at you but be talking about something you don't believe in so you can see how much more obnoxious you sound than you imagine in your head. Of course, when you don't have facts-- what else are you going to do. I thought you were just being honest when you said that you believe because it makes you feel good... but I guess the honesty doesn't prop up the faith as much as vilifying those who don't believe it, eh... DOC?

I was being honest. I believe in a possibility because entertaining the possibility that there might be more out there gives me a sense of wonder, and yes...makes me feel good.

BTW, your understanding of logical arguments is about as good as your understanding of neurology and the brain. You could learn, but your need to protect your purported "agnosticism" is getting in the way.

I doubt my understanding of these things is much different that yours. I don't really feel the need to protect anything, in fact I stated earlier that I was open to having the big questions answered in a way that was not in line with my notions about them because then I would know for sure...even though I don't think that to be explicitly possible(the discovery of those answers that is)...

And you guys are notorious for hearing things people are not saying so you can spin your story. Believing in one invisible immeasurable thing with powers is not more rational than the belief in all other things that fit that category and it's a LOT LESS RATIONAL than not believing in such things until or unless the evidence warrants such belief.

You guys! You people! You believers!

Could you be anymore biased? You hate people who don't agree with you don't you?

Rationally speaking, being open to a potential answer is just a logical as not. You have no proof, and I don't either, it's just how we look at these things that divides us. You think you are closer to truth, because you mistake fact for truth(in the divine sense). I don't claim to know anything of the truth, I just claim to to profess a belief that things like a universal intelligence are possible because there is so much left to be understood.

So as soon as you can tell me where everything came from, I am all ears.

Remaining open to different possibilities keeps me from becoming a dogmatic believer...

Exactly.

 

[Beth]

This doesn’t answer my question. Going back a few posts, my comment was “We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life. “ Why do you see people taking personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive?

I explained this. You don't want to listen.

I listen. I hear. I do not understand. I'm sorry, but I don't even feel like attempting to restate your reasoning yet. Could you at least point me to the post you feel you addressed this in?

I suggested it was reasonable in cases where scientific data does not yield a firm conclusion.

Then what is unreasonable about my assertion:

"People are channelling spirits from Venus?"

I didn't say is was unreasonable. I said it didn't answer my question. You tell me, what do you consider to be unreasonable about your assertion?

Absolutely. I find it quite stimulating.

I see you desire to use words to mean everything and nothing.[/quote] Just my attempt at whimsy. Sorry. I'll try to stay dead serious from now on.

More seriously, if mathematics is something that is discovered rather than invented, then it qualifies as a stimulus.

No.

Why not? How are you defining stimulus such that math cannot be considered a stimulus?

Or, it could be interpreted as a metaphor for a place that humans did not have access to – such as something outside of the 4-dimensional reality we inhabit. The similarity I see is that the gods always reside somewhere that humans cannot access.

Except when it's accessible.

Like Moses going up a mountain to wrestle Yahweh.

Or Zeus ****ing mortals.

Your assertion is just plain wrong.

Perhaps. I'm often wrong. But when I consider the metaphorical interpretations of various religions, I am not as sure about that as you are. Why do you thing that it isn't appropriate to interpret that particular religious belief in that manner?

There are many different stated purposes to those activities. Gaining knowledge and understanding of the self is common to all of them.

Your assertion is not borne out by the wide variety of religious beliefs where this is not a commonality.

If that is true, could you do me the service of enumerating a few of those?

I meant it can facilitate knowledge and understanding of the non-material aspects of one’s self, such as desires and motivations, not that it would suffice to understand bodily functions such as digestion.

And it attains that how exactly?

Desires and motivations are, I'm afraid, bodily functions like digestion.

Do you think that you can understand desires and motivations by cutting people’s brains open to see what’s there?

Yes.

(Especially since we've already made considerable progress in understanding how the brain formulates desire and motivation by doing this).

I think it is different because our brains process thoughts which are intangible, making them considerably different than blood or guts.

No.

They're tangible. Their physical basis can be observed.

You are stating hypotheses as if they were known facts. Certainly, thoughts have bodily correlates, neurological equivalents. It's a fascinating area of research. But the interplay of our thoughts and the material aspects of our body are not yet well understood. My husband once put it thus - how does my dick know to get hard when I'm thinking dirty thoughts? Your certainty seems to me to be born of faith as well as current scientific knowledge.

At any rate, such knowledge, while fascinating in it's own right, is not typically useful to the individual who is seeking to understand their unique self.

You cannot pack either one up and mail it to me. Did you mean observable rather than tangible perhaps?

Whatever you prefer.

Those words mean very different things to me. Tangible means something that is composed of of molecules. It has material substance. Your plasticine is tangible. Everything tangible is going to be observable in some way. But not everything observable is also tangible. Ideas and thoughts can be observed, as you are right now by reading the words that I am typing. But you cannot touch the ideas I am communicating, you can only touch the computer screen or some other media that encodes a representation of those ideas. We can sit in a courtroom any time, but we can only observe justice in that courtroom when court is in session.

Which one do you mean?

Are you saying that all the bits and pieces of plasticine function the same way whether they are in the form of a ball or a bowl. How are you defining ‘function’ if that is the case. Obviously, you aren't meaning 'function' as floats in water versus sinks in water.

That is a holistic behaviour. The individual constituents never changed.[/QUOTE]

I think I am beginning to glimpse our disconnect. You are saying the physical constituents don't change. Are you so sure of that?

 

[Mobyseven]

This doesn’t answer my question. Going back a few posts, my comment was “We simply don't have scientific caliber evidence for most of the conclusions we reach in normal life. “ Why do you see people taking personal testimony and their own personal experiences seriously to be unreasonable for areas where scientific data is not conclusive?

A hypothetical situation:

Person A walks into work, where you are the boss. He is fifteen minutes late. He says, "Sorry I'm late, my car broke down."

Person B walks into work shortly after, sixteen minutes late. He says, "Sorry I'm late, my unicorn was speared by a centaur while I was riding it to work."

Are either of those stories more believable, or is one more likely to be true than the other? They are both personal testimonials, and you haven't personally witnessed either the broken down car, or the injured unicorn, so by your reasoning both stories are acceptable on face value.

Also - the question you seem to be ignoring, but which I feel would certainly be useful for those of us (trying to be) in a discussion with you: Are you an atheist or a theist?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Are you an atheist or a theist?

Why does one have to be either. There are obviously some folks who would label themselves as such, perhaps because they like being defined by narrow parameters. There are also those people who reject labeling themselves because it just doesn't make sense to decide on something you can never really know for sure with any measure of certainty.

 

[schlitt]

Why does one have to be either. There are obviously some folks who would label themselves as such, perhaps because they like being defined by narrow parameters. There are also those people who reject labeling themselves because it just doesn't make sense to decide on something you can never really know for sure with any measure of certainty.

Agnostic?

 

[articulett]

Signs of woo trying to convince themselves they are applying skepticism to their woo:

Tend not to state what they actually believe, instead refer to atheists as dogmatic and themselves as open minded.

Hears words you do not say in order to vilify you and distract self from examining belief.

Uses arguments that could readily be used by any woo...from believers of Xenu to believers in psychics to believers in demons.

Thinks that if science can't explain something, whomever they picked up their beliefs from can.

Thinks a solution to a mystery is even a bigger mystery... thinks a god is actually an answer to an infinite regress rather than another infinite regress.

Implies that they have access to divine knowledge without saying what they believe exactly because they know it's wacky.

Equates faith with lack of it... pretends that atheism is a dogma... cannot comprehend how atheist lack of belief is identical to their lack of belief in certain woo.

Never really answers questions... talks in inferences and straw men without really saying much. Hard to follow what exactly they are saying or to nail them down.

Sounds like an apologist but avoids giving away information as to what belief they are protecting with their straw men and mischaracterization of others and avoidance of key points.

Can't really seem to stay on topic; often seems to be having a different conversation than the majority...

secretly think their woo is true, but can't say why it's more likely to be true so they pretend that others are arrogant not to consider such woo though there is never any evidence for their vaguely implied woo.

Says statements that are the equivalent nonsense of: "until scientists explain evil, I think it's open minded to believe in demons"... of course, they never see their own similar statements as that fallacious... but they are identical in form and substance.

I just shake my head, and realize how impossible it his to have a rational dialogue with someone who needs to have a certain belief-- you will become the bad guy, not because of anything you actually say or do, but because it's easier to dislike you than to examine their cherished belief to see if it's as much of an illusion as all those other beliefs that they don't "keep their mind open for" or aren't "agnostic" about. They don't just want to hang on to their beliefs--they feel morally superior for having such beliefs in the first place, and they need to prop up that illusion along with their pet delusion.