I know. I'm just giving him a hard time. If he wants to make his point correctly, I'll address it.
Reason To be athiest?
- Thread starter RoadmapsToThere
- Start date
I know. I'm just giving him a hard time. If he wants to make his point correctly, I'll address it.
It would help if he paid attention. He also switches back and forth a lot between knowing that preaching goes nowhere and still doing it. Two parts of the mind at war? Emotion vs rational?
…
“Isn’t complexity a much higher product
Of combination upon combination,
And thus not lower than simplicity itself?”
“Yes, it would seem so; that’s a near empty shelf.”
“Then I suppose You’re some Great Alien Scientist, odd,
Highly evolved from somewhere, but not really God.”
“True, and you, Austin, as a scientist,
Should seek what underlies the all,
Not some Great Complexity who oversees it,
For that’s for what the theory calls.”
“Wise thoughts.”
“The best that can’t be bought.”
“Well, whatever on the alien thing of it,
But the creationists are not keen on scientists,
For scientists regard the honest seeking after truth
As as supreme virtue beyond all reproof.
“If they ever found out…”
“Yikes, they know not what they have made Me.
As a Scientist Myself, I truly value honesty
And skepticism over the dishonestly faked beliefs,
Those that only seem to bring Rolaid’s relief.”
to be con't
“Isn’t complexity a much higher product
Of combination upon combination,
And thus not lower than simplicity itself?”
“Yes, it would seem so; that’s a near empty shelf.”
“Then I suppose You’re some Great Alien Scientist, odd,
Highly evolved from somewhere, but not really God.”
“True, and you, Austin, as a scientist,
Should seek what underlies the all,
Not some Great Complexity who oversees it,
For that’s for what the theory calls.”
“Wise thoughts.”
“The best that can’t be bought.”
“Well, whatever on the alien thing of it,
But the creationists are not keen on scientists,
For scientists regard the honest seeking after truth
As as supreme virtue beyond all reproof.
“If they ever found out…”
“Yikes, they know not what they have made Me.
As a Scientist Myself, I truly value honesty
And skepticism over the dishonestly faked beliefs,
Those that only seem to bring Rolaid’s relief.”
to be con't
Jan Ardena:
Setting a standard of evidence is not a conclusion. It is part of a process of investigation.
In particular, it seems to me that the main difference between what scientists accept as evidence and what theists accept as evidence is that scientists demand objective evidence, while theists are willing to accept subjective evidence such as proclamations of gurus or prophets, personal testimony of believers, proclaimed "holy" texts and the like.
Another difference is that scientific experiences, unlike religious ones, are reliably repeatable. It doesn't matter who you are - without too much effort you can confirm for yourself that the Earth is round rather than flat. You don't need to take a guru's word for it. You don't need to read it in a "holy" Science book. And you don't have to accept the testimony of the scientist who knocks on your door on Sunday morning trying to convert you to the Faith of Science. O wait, there aren't any of those, are there?
No.
Consider a different belief I hold - my belief in the planet Venus. Why do I believe in it? Is it because I read about the goddess Venus in a book of Roman Mythology? Is it because I read about the planet in a holy science book? Is it because my school teacher told me there is a planet called Venus? Is it because I can see the planet Venus directly quite often in the night sky (and sometimes during the day)?
Is the evidence I have for the existence of Venus merely a validation of my pre-existing belief that I actually hold for no reason at all? I don't think so.
Now, what of the planet Vulcan - you know, the twin Earth that is on the other side of the Sun? I don't believe in Vulcan. Am I a Vulcan atheist because I "just am", do you think? Or do you think that, maybe, I might not believe in it because I have reasons not to believe in it? Could it even be the case, perhaps, that some of my reasons for not believing in Vulcan are the same reasons that I do believe in Venus?
Something to think about, Jan.
There are a lot of kinds of evidence that would make me inclined to believe in God. If you'd like me to make a list of some of the kinds of things for you, I can, but maybe you can work out a few of the kinds of things yourself.
Oh, I'm not at all sure there's no evidence for God. The best I can say is that I've personally never seen any convincing evidence for God. If you have some, please present it; I'm all ears.
Having said that, I still don't believe in God. Can you see why? Perhaps not, since you apparently believe in pixies at the bottom of your garden.
I don't think you could ever convince everyone. There'd always be some nutty people, like people who insist that the Earth is flat.
Setting a standard of evidence is not a conclusion. It is part of a process of investigation.
In particular, it seems to me that the main difference between what scientists accept as evidence and what theists accept as evidence is that scientists demand objective evidence, while theists are willing to accept subjective evidence such as proclamations of gurus or prophets, personal testimony of believers, proclaimed "holy" texts and the like.
Another difference is that scientific experiences, unlike religious ones, are reliably repeatable. It doesn't matter who you are - without too much effort you can confirm for yourself that the Earth is round rather than flat. You don't need to take a guru's word for it. You don't need to read it in a "holy" Science book. And you don't have to accept the testimony of the scientist who knocks on your door on Sunday morning trying to convert you to the Faith of Science. O wait, there aren't any of those, are there?
No.
Consider a different belief I hold - my belief in the planet Venus. Why do I believe in it? Is it because I read about the goddess Venus in a book of Roman Mythology? Is it because I read about the planet in a holy science book? Is it because my school teacher told me there is a planet called Venus? Is it because I can see the planet Venus directly quite often in the night sky (and sometimes during the day)?
Is the evidence I have for the existence of Venus merely a validation of my pre-existing belief that I actually hold for no reason at all? I don't think so.
Now, what of the planet Vulcan - you know, the twin Earth that is on the other side of the Sun? I don't believe in Vulcan. Am I a Vulcan atheist because I "just am", do you think? Or do you think that, maybe, I might not believe in it because I have reasons not to believe in it? Could it even be the case, perhaps, that some of my reasons for not believing in Vulcan are the same reasons that I do believe in Venus?
Something to think about, Jan.
There are a lot of kinds of evidence that would make me inclined to believe in God. If you'd like me to make a list of some of the kinds of things for you, I can, but maybe you can work out a few of the kinds of things yourself.
Oh, I'm not at all sure there's no evidence for God. The best I can say is that I've personally never seen any convincing evidence for God. If you have some, please present it; I'm all ears.
Having said that, I still don't believe in God. Can you see why? Perhaps not, since you apparently believe in pixies at the bottom of your garden.
I don't think you could ever convince everyone. There'd always be some nutty people, like people who insist that the Earth is flat.
I doubt anyone believes in God on the grounds of evidence.
I also doubt anyone lacks belief in God on the grounds of evidence.
I think that talking about evidence (whether it be talking about evidence for or against belief in God) is primarily a matter of self-image, a matter of how one presents oneself to other people and a matter of whom one wishes to convince of one's rightness or worthiness.
IOW, from the perspective of psychological defense mechanisms, talking about evidence (whether it be talking about evidence for or against belief in God) would be an example of rationalization and intellectualization.
I also doubt anyone lacks belief in God on the grounds of evidence.
I think that talking about evidence (whether it be talking about evidence for or against belief in God) is primarily a matter of self-image, a matter of how one presents oneself to other people and a matter of whom one wishes to convince of one's rightness or worthiness.
IOW, from the perspective of psychological defense mechanisms, talking about evidence (whether it be talking about evidence for or against belief in God) would be an example of rationalization and intellectualization.
A different request; one that is actionable.
I don't see it that way.
One doesn't have to gamble as to whether one is going to die, although there are folks who will invest in technology in the hope they can be resurected.
In the same way I don't have to gamble as to whether or not God exists, I leave that to the atheists,
who need to feel that God either doesn't exist, or has nothing to do with us.
jan.
I don't think that's true. Many recovering addicts believe that faith is what helped them get clean, and they view that as evidence of God's existence. Most believers will tell you that they see evidence for God's work everywhere, and there's no doubt that they do. Coincidence and random happenstance can be viewed as having order and meaning if that's what you're looking for, sort of like how one sees shapes and faces in the clouds.
It's not empirical evidence, of course, but that's not the question.
Yes, the people behind ID and Creation Science are wittingly attempting to trick people into believing that God can be proven through science, but I don't think they're doing it for self-esteem reasons as you seem to suggest. Rather, I think these scam artists are using science as a Trojan Horse to get into the school curriculum while also discrediting science in general. I'm sure, though, that there are people who genuinely believe that ID is legitimate. Is that why they believe? Well, that's a good question.
The only person here who "needs" anything is you. Your insistence upon mischaracterizing atheists only demonstrates your own need to shield yourself intellectually from the truth. Apparently, you are afraid that your faith is not strong enough to accept that atheism is merely a reaction to evidence.
You go with the evidence arguments; which suggests that you have accepted the premises that the atheists work with.
And if you believe in God "because you have evidence that leads you to believe in God," then this is an example of the gambling mindset, as explained earlier.
It turns out there is more to it. I narrowed the scope to ideas / notions in your brain matching actual reality (i.e. truth is a state of correspondence between the information represented in your mind and reality); however, any system that is capable of representing information is applicable to the state of truth. For example, a digitized photo of a person being represented on a computer that is unmodified would match reality. If it was modified then it would not match reality (hence the famous term... "that looks photoshopped").
I don't have any objections to that.
I agree with some of what you said and disagree with other parts. I'll paraphrase it all for clarity:
* Reality is everything ("equality relationship"). I agree.
* Reality has people ("has-a" relationship). I agree.
* Reality contains everything ("has-a" relationship). I disagree. The reason is that it breaks the "reality is everything" equality relationship by making reality the superclass of everything. A term in an equality relationship cannot be a superclass of the other term.
* Reality has properties that make people conscious / intelligent ("has-a" relationship). I disagree. The reason is that properties alone don't give rise to consciousness and intelligence. It is at least the full combination of a large brain and nervous system that does.
* Reality is a person ("is-a" relationship). I disagree. The reason is that there is no superclass that makes a person anything that is not a person. A term in an is-a relationship cannot jump to a superclass in another tree without a bridge (ex. as long as a person cannot be a super-nova, an iridium particle, or a duck fart then it cannot be a superclass of reality -or an equality of reality for that matter in case you wanted to change the context-).
I think you're wrong. For myself, I didn't reject the existence of god until I read about the evidence and arguments in favor of god.
But do you remember (or can re-live) what reading those arguments felt like to you, to your sense of self?
Does that make you feel better?
Go learn about real religion, try and understand who and what is God, then get back to me.
jan.
You know, at this point, an instruction like the one you give above, is likely to trigger just the opposite reaction (and the fight will continue).
(And btw, someone who would really do as you instruct and who would then understand God and religion - I doubt they'd still want to come talk to you.
)You keep telling people to "go read stuff" and "go learn about real religion," but you never explain what it is you mean by such a thing, or where someone could go and find the information you speak of. If your words were anything more than an evasion from an conversation you can't handle, you couldn't prove it by me.
Atheists have already done this as much or more than theists.
Time to show something, anything, even a claim that sensations of the central nervous system are more than sensations, and why and how.
One time I let myself believe in the 'Pali' ghost in Hawaii, said to be a specter of a woman in white at the top of the mountain near the Pali Highway. When up there it thus felt 'scary'. Think about something and then you begin to feel it, but that is only natural.
I don't know about other's motives, thoughts or reasons but I am am Atheist because it is impossible(given my current knowledge)to accept the concept of a supernatural being. It just isn't credible to me, never has been. Supernatural concepts are, in my opinion, an artifact of our ignorant past, most of which are in their death throws in the educated portions of the world. Religions are being boiled down to only the most "conservative" and fundamentalist elements flailing around in an increasingly secular world, losing adherents and not gaining new ones. And that is a good thing.
Grumpy
Grumpy