A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Kittamaru]

Similarities? Are you referring to anthropomorphism?

Sorry, I was a little vague. I will clarify when im at my computer in a few minutes (hard to do on my phone heh)

 

[Trooper]

As an agnostic I am content with this view and if the truth is something altogether different than what theists believe or atheists do not believe, then what?

Well, if we acquire new knowledge, then we either correct or integrate previous knowledge.

 

[Kittamaru]

Sorry, I was a little vague. I will clarify when im at my computer in a few minutes (hard to do on my phone heh)

Alrighty - Trooper, what I meant was how various unconnected civilizations developed such similar views of religion/the world around them. For example, in both Mesopotamia and the China during the time of the Shang Dynasty, animism and spiritual veneration (though different types of spirits therein) were common. Yet, these are two civilizations that, if memory serves, had pretty much zero contact with one another.

Chine during the Zhou Dynasty and the Ancient Greek religions shared beliefs in the "three realms" (heaven, earth, and the Underworld or Spirit World). Both had similar deities in the celestial bodies (though with differing names of course) and even the idea of a "king" or "high" God with other Gods and Goddesses. Admittedly in this case, that is about where the similarities end, so this could be a case of anthropomorphism, as you state, as both acted to give "life" to inanimate objects.

There are other such similarities through time... but yeah, it does seem a large part of it is based on trying to explain unknown phenomena by giving it life... the similarities in how it was done though are striking... perhaps that is just an indication of how similarly wired we (humans) all are, despite cultural and racial differences?

 

[Trooper]

Kittamaru, don’t get me wrong, though, even the rock being inanimate matter is nothing to sneer at. We, too, after all, can be reduced to matter. Reducing the mind to the brain is not derogatory, though.

"I can imagine a religion saying that matter and energy is God. It’s a beautiful thought, but instead of understanding what you are, you want to be what you’re not. It’s because you don’t understand how precious matter is, or how precious you are, and it is sad.

Just because we can understand feelings from a material point of view, people view it as though it somehow demeans our nature, but instead, it tells us how absolutely incredible matter is. It says that we are one with everything else.

What more could you possibly ask for?" – Rodolfo Llinas

 

[Yazata]

But it ISN'T what Tiassa wrote. You know it. Tiassa just trolled atheists in general, trying to generate an emotional response, trying to make all the dogs bark.

He didn't, if you want to know the truth.

The first post in this thread speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur.

And I already know the truth. I know that no Sciforums moderator is willing to criticize Tiassa in any way. Ever.

It needn't be a wholesale condemnation of a friend or anything. Other moderators could just admit that Tiassa was unnecessarily provocative at the beginning of this thread and stepped over the line in this one instance. Stepped over the very same line that should apply equally to everyone, even moderators.

It was a way to get atheists to look at our collective performance and behaviour in this sub-forum.

The reason being is that the extent of dialogue from several atheists posting in this sub-forum was tantamount to 'you're a stoopid head' each time they conversed with a theist.

I think that a few of our louder and stupider atheists do behave that way on occasion.

Responding with loud and stupid attitude of our own is never the best way to handle it. (And in this instance, the attitude was on full display in the very first post of a new thread and didn't seem to be responding to anything. It was simply gratuitous.)

It's especially bad when it's a moderator being the loud and abusive idiot.

That makes all of Sciforums' well-intentioned rules, and all the high-toned rhetoric about civility and respect for others, look like little more than self-serving hypocrisy.

(So does the likelihood that any political conservative foolish enough to post in Sciforums' political fora would be flamed into a smoking lump of charcoal in very short order, with the righteous Tiassa no doubt among those in the lead.)

 

[Kittamaru]

Kittamaru, don’t get me wrong, though, even the rock being inanimate matter is nothing to sneer at. We, too, after all, can be reduced to matter. Reducing the mind to the brain is not derogatory, though.

"I can imagine a religion saying that matter and energy is God. It’s a beautiful thought, but instead of understanding what you are, you want to be what you’re not. It’s because you don’t understand how precious matter is, or how precious you are, and it is sad.

Just because we can understand feelings from a material point of view, people view it as though it somehow demeans our nature, but instead, it tells us how absolutely incredible matter is. It says that we are one with everything else.

What more could you possibly ask for?" – Rodolfo Llinas

I am sorry Trooper - while that is an utterly amazing quote (I am a huge proponent that the human body can do so much more than we give it credit for if only we would stop letting our own preconceived notions get in the way) I'm not entirely sure what you mean. My intention was that it seems odd to me that so many "religions" developed, independent of one another, with so many similarities.

 

[Trooper]

I am sorry Trooper - while that is an utterly amazing quote (I am a huge proponent that the human body can do so much more than we give it credit for if only we would stop letting our own preconceived notions get in the way) I'm not entirely sure what you mean. My intention was that it seems odd to me that so many "religions" developed, independent of one another, with so many similarities.

I was hoping that you would be able to answer your own question regarding the similarities. I believe that when we finally understand our real nature, we'll love each other more. Life is precious, is it not?

Good day to you, Kittamaru.

 

[quinnsong]

(So does the likelihood that any political conservative foolish enough to post in Sciforums' political fora would be flamed into a smoking lump of charcoal in very short order, with the righteous Tiassa no doubt among those in the lead.)

You have mentioned Tiassa and the political threads twice now, you seem very disgruntled about the way the righteous Tiassa and followers express their political views. If you are a political conservative or maybe just in the middle of the political spectrum ,why not jump in? Yazata as intelligent as you are, I doubt anyone could turn you into a smoking lump of coal. you seem to articulate and defend your position calmly and eloquently, always. Tiassa starts many of the political threads and is responsible for keeping it popping, if you or others of different political views do not like his threads or do not wish to participate in them, then start your own and defend your position.

 

[Kittamaru]

I was hoping that you would be able to answer your own question regarding the similarities. I believe that when we finally understand our real nature, we'll love each other more. Life is precious, is it not?

Good day to you, Kittamaru.

Ah, alrighty. Well, as you said, the need to make sense of the unknown is something deeply ingrained in humanity, so there is that. What strikes me is just how similar they are... in a lot of ways, you can just swap the names around, and most major religions through the ages are strikingly similar.

 

[Bells]

The first post in this thread speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur.

The first post proves my point. Instead of looking at our own actions, we all jumped on the self righteous anger bandwagon.

And I already know the truth. I know that no Sciforums moderator is willing to criticize Tiassa in any way. Ever.

Heh..

I have, on many many occasions. I have also butted heads with him, some would say violently, on many more. We all have with each other.

It needn't be a wholesale condemnation of a friend or anything. Other moderators could just admit that Tiassa was unnecessarily provocative at the beginning of this thread and stepped over the line in this one instance. Stepped over the very same line that should apply equally to everyone, even moderators.

Possibly because we knew this was coming in a way?

The writing was on the wall for a very long time. Too many were acting like abusive tools. Reading through some of the posts in religion was embarrassing as an atheist. Because so many of them were just so "you're a fucking stoopid head". That level of anger should not be the extent of our contribution in this sub-forum. And yet it has become that. I did it too. We had taken to acting like rabid angry animals sometimes. And I'm not even touching on the whole 'insult one of us, you insult all of us' thing we had going there (and still do).

I think that a few of our louder and stupider atheists do behave that way on occasion.

It's become endemic to this sub-forum. Theists dare to enter or face our wrath.

Responding with loud and stupid attitude of our own is never the best way to handle it. (And in this instance, the attitude was on full display in the very first post of a new thread and didn't seem to be responding to anything. It was simply gratuitous.)

Would you have preferred if he came hat in hand, head bowed, and said 'pretty please'? The reaction to it would have been the exact same way. In case it has escaped your notice Yazata, we don't like to be criticised for our actions and behaviours as atheists. We think we are above all and better than all.

It's especially bad when it's a moderator being the loud and abusive idiot.

But you are just being defensive when you read it. My first reaction when I read it was 'ermm okay, why does he think I act like that?'.. And then I remembered how I sometimes posted here.

That makes all of Sciforums' well-intentioned rules, and all the high-toned rhetoric about civility and respect for others, look like little more than self-serving hypocrisy.

To be frank, you would only feel insulted if you felt it applied to you. And it doesn't. So why are you insulted by it?

(So does the likelihood that any political conservative foolish enough to post in Sciforums' political fora would be flamed into a smoking lump of charcoal in very short order, with the righteous Tiassa no doubt among those in the lead.)

Firstly, this has nothing to do with this thread and appears to be a gripe you have with Tiassa and possibly the left of the political divide. Secondly, there is no one stopping you or anyone else from opening threads or discussions about conservative levels of politics or to criticise the left of the political divide. Considering both of the moderators of the Politics forum are Conservative, one more than the other (Madanthonywayne is very much a right leaning and very proud Republican who often starts threads to discuss his political interests), I find this complaint to be a bit bizarre.

If you are unable to defend your political position, then that is a completely different matter. So what if Tiassa butts heads with you on your political beliefs? Defend yours back.

 

[brucep]

I am sorry Trooper - while that is an utterly amazing quote (I am a huge proponent that the human body can do so much more than we give it credit for if only we would stop letting our own preconceived notions get in the way) I'm not entirely sure what you mean. My intention was that it seems odd to me that so many "religions" developed, independent of one another, with so many similarities.

The path of all the religions lead to one spot. The place where 'all' believers go to heaven when they 'die' [wink, wink] and get to bask in self righteousness in the meantime.

 

[GeoffP]

The first post proves my point. Instead of looking at our own actions, we all jumped on the self righteous anger bandwagon.

Many have "jumped on this bandwagon" in the past. Why is it not valid in this case?

To be frank, you would only feel insulted if you felt it applied to you. And it doesn't. So why are you insulted by it?

That's a bit hypocritical. It doesn't matter whether one is insulted or not as part of the group under attack. It matters whether posters and moderators are following SF regulations.

If you are unable to defend your political position, then that is a completely different matter. So what if Tiassa butts heads with you on your political beliefs? Defend yours back.

The issue is rather whether moderators are permitted to break such rules as we have in place. I recall moderators threatening me with dire consequences for not even approaching such a breach of ethics. Why did not these moderators simply 'defend back' their beliefs at that time instead of threatening sanctions beyond even SF regulations; outright banning instead even of the normal infraction system. These rules seem to be applied in a... fluid manner.

The case is very simple: the OP is very obviously a breach of ethics and particularly of SF ethics. An infraction needs to be issued to that moderator-poster. Why is there such resistance to this concept? It's not as though this moderator-poster is going to banned from the forum, you know. Let our neighbour learn his lesson - as, indeed, we of the forums have been taught such and such lessons by such and such mods - and move on. Frankly, he'd need - what? Three infraction points to be banned even for 24 hours? Why is there such a panic over this? Simply assign the points, admonish the guilty mod-poster, and move along. We all err from time to time, certes.

Lastly, no one atheist can speak for the rest - I don't know that "we" think "we're" above it all, unless "we" are so homogenous that "we" doesn't include "me".

 

[Kittamaru]

The path of all the religions lead to one spot. The place where 'all' believers go to heaven when they 'die' [wink, wink] and get to bask in self righteousness in the meantime.

See, the part I take issue with is the "bask in self righteousness" part... if anything, the one thing I've taken from everything I've learned from this church is that we are not "superior" to anyone, we are not "above" those of no or other faiths... we have no right to be self righteous; instead, we are on a path of learning, of making mistakes and learning from them and accepting forgiveness for them.

 

[Trooper]

Do you believe in life after death, Kittamaru?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

In other words, it's a methodological and heuristic assumption. You seem to be agreeing with me, while denying that you're doing so.

It is not an assumption. It is a theory, in fact one of the canonical theories that comprise the infrastructure of the scientific method. It is the underlying premise of the scientific method (that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation; because this behavior is not perturbed by fantastic creatures and unbelievable forces that emerge from an illogical, supernatural universe) and like all other other scientific theories, it has been tested and peer reviewed. Virtually every time anyone performs a scientific experiment, this premise is tested yet one more time. And in half a millennium, absolutely zero evidence has been discovered to contradict it.

What science does is assume that natural events have natural explanations. It can't actually know that's always true, rather it's a working assumption. It tells scientists how they should proceed in trying to answer questions in natural science.

All of science is working assumptions. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science, as there is in mathematics, because scientific theories are derived from observation of the natural universe, whereas mathematical theories are derived from abstractions.

There's no way that human beings have observed every event in the universe and conclusively accounted for every one of them in naturalistic terms. What we actually do is observe some very small subset of events, events that are observable from our spatio-temporal perspective to beings with faculties like our own. Many of those events have proven to be consistent with our current understanding of what we believe is the cosmic order, but some events inevitably remain anomalous and/or as yet unexplained.

Of course. Yet science has done a damn good job and the loose ends you refer to are few and far between.

In contrast, what have the supernaturalists come up with to support their own outlandish hypotheses about gods and ghosts and miracles and saviors rising from the dead? An occasional tortilla with a scorch mark stridently claimed to be the likeness of a figure from Biblical days... of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it!

And obviously the cosmic order itself, from natural 'law' through mathematics to logic, remains fundamentally mysterious and unaccounted for.

The multiverse model reminds us that the laws of nature (including arithmetic and logic, thanks for being the first to mention that after I've brought it to the membership's attention several times over the past two or three years) are merely the laws of nature in our universe. There's no good reason to doubt that other universes exist. On the one hand they might be similar to ours, popping up as the result of Big Bangs (which the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows: spatially and/or temporally local reversals of entropy) that occur at intervals of quadrillions of years and googols of light years apart so we can never possibly see each other. On the other hand their natural laws may be so different from ours that we couldn't possibly ever see each other.

It isn't even clear how one would go about explaining those things without circularity.

Clear to whom? Are you a full-time professional scientist with a PhD from a top university and twenty years of experience in cosmology? If not, why do you suppose that the people who do have those qualifications are as flummoxed as you are?

As time goes on our understanding does seem to get better and better, but we are still a long way from omniscience. I question whether we will ever achieve that. I think that there will always be mysteries and that our understanding will always remain an ongoing work-in-progress.

What an unusual person you are. Most people assume innately that we'll eventually figure it all out.

I would merely tweak that a little bit by saying that as we solve the simpler mysteries, the more complex ones will take more time. There will probably always be one more that takes even longer than the last one, and this could certainly extend to infinity. That's a more appropriate statement of the problem--especially here in a place of science and scholarship--than upbraiding the people who come after us for having understanding that's still a work in progress. Even if the nature of the universe is infinite, we will keep nibbling away at it.

So when people start pontificating about what, if anything, exists outside or beyond the observable physical universe, they will need to produce some account of how they know what they claim to know. That applies to those who believe in supernatural beings, but it applies equally to those who insist that the observable physical universe is the only reality there is. Both claims would seem to go way beyond what the existing evidence will support.

Good grief! In which backwater university did you study science??? Are you truly unfamiliar with the rule of science that it is never necessary to prove a negative? The burden of proof always falls on the one who insists that something is true. If it did not, the academy would dissipate its entire annual budget in one week, disproving the claims of the crackpots and the pseudoscientists. The first time someone shows up with evidence that the natural universe is not a closed system, you can be sure that it will be investigated with tremendous enthusiasm.

It's not up to us to prove that Jonah could not have survived more than an hour or two in a whale's stomach because there's no source of fresh air. It's up to the religionists to provide evidence that he could.

So the only people with beliefs are scientists with PhDs? That's ridiculous.

No. The only people with beliefs that merit investigation are those who show us evidence. The scientists will be happy to take it from there.

Most scientists believe that the origin of life occurred naturalistically, despite their inability to fully explain life's origin at this point.

But they're working on it! Tremendous research has been performed into abiogenesis and we have a lot of answers that we didn't have 60 years ago when I first began to understand the questions.

So then, what research have the antiscientists performed in order to gather evidence supporting their own fairytale "theories," to use the term charitably?

Scientists have beliefs about the big-bang and about quantum mechanics, things that remain mysterious. And just about everybody assumes that the universe behaves in accordance with logic, despite their inability to fully explain what logic is and what accounts for it.

But these are not canonical theories because they have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They are just promising hypotheses.

Again, what have the religious crackpots done to make sense out of their own notions? All they tell us is, "Don't ask questions about God. You wouldn't understand the answers, and you might simply be zapped into a pile of ashes for being so faithless."

And all I want to know is, if God really did create the universe, then where the hell did the motherfucking GOD come from? After all, the word "universe" means "everything that exists," and God (at least in their own fairytale mindset) obviously exists, so he must be part of the universe. I'd really like to hear one of these hicks explain how God created himself.

No, never mind. I once dutifully attended a lecture by a so-called creation "scientist." It was clear that he knew he was lying, and expecting not to be challenged by his own co-religionists.

The point that I was making is simply that it's possible to have great understanding of things that we nevertheless don't believe are true. Just as it's possible to believe in the truth of things that we don't as yet fully understand (and maybe never will).

So you know some people who tell you that they have great understanding of the Big Bang, the reason that the laws of nature are the way they are, etc.? Please bring them over for a guest lecture, since I've never met anyone quite so far ahead of the field.

 

[Kittamaru]

Do you believe in life after death, Kittamaru?

To be completely honest... I don't know... and here's why:

On the one hand, a part of me looks at the prospect of "life after death" or even "rebirth/reincarnation" and wonders how such a thing would/could be possible. The biochemical/bio-electric makeup that makes us, well, us, is unique in each person.

At the same time... there IS energy there, and as we all know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes forms.

Additionally, I have had experiences that go beyond my scientific nature to explain... does this necessarily make them paranormal? Not at all... but I have not found any "rational" (by a non-theological standpoint) explanation for some of them.

So, yes, in the end I think there is "life after death"... but I don't know if it would be the "grand white heavens where everything is perfect" that people like to think of.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Then you are saying you would not provide for free will? Self discovery, scientific progress, etc... none of that will exist if everyone just knows everything... to me, that is a horror of incredible proportions equatable to the book "A Brave New World"...

The free-will lie woudnt be necesssary in my heaven sinse ther woudnt be any punishments... everbody woud know that free-will is an illusion... but anybody coud create a program in which they thout they had free will.!!!
Yes everbody woud know everthang... but coud experience "Self discovery, scientific progress, etc..." in programs they choose to create.!!!

An if thats a horror to you... you coud create a program that matches you'r current life an experience that... over an over if you like.!!!

If my heaven still souns like a horror to you... what does you'r ideal heaven consist of.???

 

[Randwolf]

If my heaven still souns like a horror to you... what does you'r ideal heaven consist of.???

Such a simple question...

Omnipotence.
It's like the three wishes from the genie... My first wish is for an unlimited number of additional wishes. What is so hard about this? Seems self evident...

 

[Bells]

Many have "jumped on this bandwagon" in the past. Why is it not valid in this case?

What are you most angry about with the OP? The characterisation? Or the fact that you are being lumped with those who react as if they are lacking in many brain cells? When you read that OP, did you think 'hang on a minute, I don't behave like that and here's proof'? Or did you just miss out on that part altogether because you were too busy being offended?

That's a bit hypocritical. It doesn't matter whether one is insulted or not as part of the group under attack. It matters whether posters and moderators are following SF regulations.

I'll remember those words next time you use the word Muslim or Islam in the negative fashion you are known for on this forum. The irony of your hypocrisy is that you are quick to demand that non-fundamentalist Muslim have to condemn the actions or words of 'Islamists', and to set themselves aside from the fundamentalists you describe as anyone who is a Muslim or Islamist, but you don't hold the same view when it comes to atheists? What? Are you saying I should not speak out against those of my 'brethren' who carry on like buffoons on this site? Are you saying Tiassa, an atheist, should not speak out against it? Or does the expectation of condemnation only go one way? I read that OP and I actually went back and looked at how I spoke to theists. I didn't pick up a torch and pitchfork and get offended. Which did you do? Or are you just offended for the sake of all atheists who post here? As an atheist, I was not offended, nor did I feel attacked by the OP. So why are you offended on my behalf?

The issue is rather whether moderators are permitted to break such rules as we have in place. I recall moderators threatening me with dire consequences for not even approaching such a breach of ethics. Why did not these moderators simply 'defend back' their beliefs at that time instead of threatening sanctions beyond even SF regulations; outright banning instead even of the normal infraction system. These rules seem to be applied in a... fluid manner.

The case is very simple: the OP is very obviously a breach of ethics and particularly of SF ethics. An infraction needs to be issued to that moderator-poster. Why is there such resistance to this concept? It's not as though this moderator-poster is going to banned from the forum, you know. Let our neighbour learn his lesson - as, indeed, we of the forums have been taught such and such lessons by such and such mods - and move on. Frankly, he'd need - what? Three infraction points to be banned even for 24 hours? Why is there such a panic over this? Simply assign the points, admonish the guilty mod-poster, and move along. We all err from time to time, certes.

Yazata was saying that he does not like that Tiassa is all fire and brimstone against political conservatives in the politics forum. You are complaining about something else altogether. So please do not take my response to Yazata's comments about the politics forum out of context in the way that you have.

Lastly, no one atheist can speak for the rest - I don't know that "we" think "we're" above it all, unless "we" are so homogenous that "we" doesn't include "me".

Firstly, last I checked, you aren't an atheist.

Secondly, if you don't think one atheist can speak for the rest, perhaps you should not declare that one speaks for you, while also declaring that many of "us" give him leeway in that regard. Who is this "us" of which you speak?

 

[Kittamaru]

If my heaven still souns like a horror to you... what does you'r ideal heaven consist of.???

A place of grand wonder and discovery perhaps? Or even a place to rest and be reunited with those who passed away. My point is that if I were to be a "mindless drone"... well, I dunno, just doesn't sound... good?