Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

Errr... moving swiftly on from the fascinating topic of whether Atheist Agnostics should attend Kindergarten... :confused:

Godless said:
Consider what it would take to try to prove that there is no such thing as a supernatural realm. What evidence would you cite to prove that proposition? Which pieces of data are necessary to establish such proof?

Actually, such data does not exist and cannot exist. If there is no such thing as a supernatural realm, there will be no evidence of its existence. So to establish the nonexistence of the supernatural, the only thing we can point to is a lack of evidence in its favor.
Click to expand...

I think we've been through all this at length Godless. Watch my lips: :bugeye:

The evidence (certainly for God) is subjective - in the realm of personal experience. It is NOT available objectively. The only objective evidence is the experience, related anecdotally, of people who have experienced "God" or the transcendent, e.g. collated as in "Varieties of Religious Experience"

e.g. (from Wikiquote on William James)
The characteristics of the affective experience which, to avoid ambiguity, should, I think, be called the state of assurance rather than the faith-state, can be easily enumerated, though it is probably difficult to realize their intensity, unless one has been through the experience one's self.

The central one is the loss of all the worry, the sense that all is ultimately well with one, the peace, the harmony, the willingness to be, even though the outer conditions should remain the same. The certainty of God's 'grace,' of 'justification,' 'salvation,' is an objective belief that usually accompanies the change in Christians; but this may be entirely lacking and yet the affective peace remain the same--you will recollect the case of the Oxford graduate: and many might be given where the assurance of personal salvation was only a later result. A passion of willingness, of acquiescence, of admiration, is the glowing centre of this state of mind.

The second feature is the sense of perceiving truths not known before. The mysteries of life become lucid, as Professor Leuba says; and often, nay usually, the solution is more or less unutterable in words. But these more intellectual phenomena may be postponed until we treat of mysticism.

A third peculiarity of the assurance state is the objective change which the world often appears to undergo. 'An appearance of newness beautifies every object,' the precise opposite of that other sort of newness, that dreadful unreality and strangeness in the appearance of the world, which is experienced by melancholy patients, and of which you may recall my relating some examples. This sense of clean and beautiful newness within and without one is one of the commonest entries in conversion records....
Click to expand...

Whether you think such people are deluded, or lying - or revealing truths about realities not many of us have regular access to, determines and may be determined by your theistic/atheistic viewpoint.

My position is; that I don't condone, nor adhire to any variant of mysiticism.
Click to expand...

1) Do you deny the possibility of the existence of a reality beyond what is objectively provable?
2) Can you say why, or is it just your personal belief?

Godless said:
Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate, evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs, emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create reality rather than to identify and integrate reality.Neo-Tech Orientation & Defenitions.
Click to expand...

Neo-Tech is not what you would call an "unbiased source" - they most certainly have a large axe to grind. I could equally quote from a theist site something like:
Mysticism = Reality, witnessed by sages throughout the ages, but beyond the scope of dull headed atheists who only believe in what they can hit you or themselves over the head with.
Click to expand...

However, a neutral dictionary e.g.
Answers.com defines uses of the term mysticism as:

1) Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
2) The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
3) A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
4) Vague, groundless speculation.

I guess you'll define "mysticism" as (4), and I will mean (1),(2) & (3). ;)
 
Cool Skill:

I have yet to see how you could consider my posts about atheism to be anywhere near that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster when Flying Spaghetti Monsters are nowhere near as fanatical.
Who doesn't have a point?
Click to expand...

So it all depends how popular an idea is? For example Christianity, it being so popular and all... Your criticism towards me (an atheist) is that I have no proof to merit being an unbeleiver?

I am still missing your point...
 
cool skill said:
Yes. You're an idiot. I never criticized anybody for believing that there is no such thing as god you blithering moron. Even their fanaticism is not so bad. It's the refusal to acknowledge their own fanaticism that makes atheists delusional fatnatical self-righteous numbtards. If you are too dumb to get that point, you belong with any dunce that believes the term "agnostic atheist" holds any legitimacy for anybody that can count past the fingers on their hands.

I would like for you to show me where I ever said the reason atheists are morons was because they believe that god does not exist. Otherwise, I would assume you were completely overcome by your own stupidity for claiming I ever said that or even implied that.
Click to expand...
Hey skill maybe thats your problem. You just cant your mind wrapped around the concept :rolleyes: You have yet to provide any decent arguement as to why the term is idiotic. So unless you have an arguement as to why it is idiotic please stop ranting.
 
It's the refusal to acknowledge their own fanaticism that makes atheists delusional fatnatical self-righteous numbtards
Click to expand...

Care to mention what atheists on this forum are delusional & fanatical? I can't think of any.

Perhaps this is why I have failed to understand your point. However it would be hard to notice a valid point amongst all of your locked threads, insults, and continuously avoiding valid points made by atheists directed at yourself.
 
eveyone says religion is a cultural thing that is derived from a persons culture.
could we prove religion if we prove it was not culturally derived?
for example what if a person was by themselves on an island?
sounds like an experiment for the military doesn't it?
 
Yours. As the conveyor of the point, it is your responsibility to get it across clearly. If everyone here is too much of a moron to understand your words, that's your failing as a communicator.
 
I see. Either way, it was not I who locked my thread. What exactly is it that you do not understand?
 
I guess you'll define "mysticism" as (4), and I will mean (1),(2) & (3).
Click to expand...

Yup!! got that right. LOL


Do you deny the possibility of the existence of a reality beyond what is objectively provable?
Click to expand...

I don't deny it, metaphysics in it's proper respect does.

There's no such thing as beyond reality. Reality as it is is all that there is, no heaven, no hell exists. And to justify that such realms do exists, it's to deny this reality.

Godless.
 
Godless said:
There's no such thing as beyond reality. Reality as it is is all that there is, no heaven, no hell exists. And to justify that such realms do exists, it's to deny this reality.
Click to expand...
Although I am a monist, and therefore I believe that there is only one realm of existence, and that no various levels of that realm exist, I will have to say that there is no proof either way to say that I am right. I only say this because all of my personal experiences have not forced me to accept the existence of any other realms or of various levels of existence in this realm.

However, that doesn't mean that it is silly to believe in such things, simply because some of the experiences that (sane) people have are not consistent with what they know of the world around them. All I say is that to make such judgments shows a complete lack of patience.
 
No patience is needed for those who want to look beyond reality. That what if, is not reality, that what if is only a false promise, with a threat no less. If one does not abide by some dieity's rules or what not. Sounds pretty pathetic way to live.

Godless
 
Godless said:
No patience is needed for those who want to look beyond reality. That what if, is not reality, that what if is only a false promise, with a threat no less. If one does not abide by some dieity's rules or what not. Sounds pretty pathetic way to live.
Click to expand...

It sounds as if you are not interesting in understanding the position of those who believe in such things, but rather that you've decided that those beliefs are stupid with little or no reason to think that those beliefs are stupid. You don't believe because you have not experienced the same things that they have experienced, and so you assume that your experience encompasses all that is "real". The point I am trying to make is that your position was come to in the same fashion as theirs, by personal experience alone, and that you are falling into the same mindset that many theists fall into by assuming that their experiences are self-evidently true and that anyone who does not hold the same beliefs as them are silly, delusional, blind, or stupid.

Also, you seem to have little understanding of the ideas of relgion at the core but rather that you are deciding by the misinterpretation of those who have not experienced themselves, but rather, who simply believe because that's what they were taught. Not everyone who believes falls into this category.
 
I am finding the inability of different psyches (in many threads here) to be able to even grasp the viepoint of the other, quite interesting. The two broad camps seem to be (as usual) mystics and pragmatists.

The mystics insist (correctly) that you can't prove that god, supernatural realms of existence, etc, don't exist. The mystics then proceed, in varying degrees, to discuss the fascinating properties/implications of said unprovable gods and alternate realms, while dissassembling the ramblings of the pragmatists.

The pragmatists insist (correctly) that without evidence, you can't say that god, supernatural realms of existence, etc, do exist. The pragmatists then proceed, in varying degrees, to try to educate the mystics in the ways of pragmatic thought, while dissassembling the ramblings of the mystics.

The mystics by-and-large think the pragmatists are narrow minded, amoral, stupid, unimaginative, blind robots.

The pragmatists by-and-large think the mystics are weak-minded, deluded, stupid, dull-witted, blind robots.

Fascinating. Let's all continue...
 
Jaster Mereel said:
You don't believe because you have not experienced the same things that they have experienced, and so you assume that your experience encompasses all that is "real". The point I am trying to make is that your position was come to in the same fashion as theirs, by personal experience alone, and that you are falling into the same mindset that many theists fall into by assuming that their experiences are self-evidently true and that anyone who does not hold the same beliefs as them are silly, delusional, blind, or stupid.
Click to expand...
JM, this almost makes me mad. I almost don't know where to begin with this one. You are comparing the conclusions of faith-bound theists, who openly admit that their "beliefs" are not subject to objective proof, with those of us who base ours on the best available objective evidence of the day. This is actually pretty insulting. Your subjective experiences are yours alone, as are mine. When discussing the relative merits and objectivity of my "beliefs" as opposed to the theists "beliefs", you must judge mine to be at least verifiably and testably reasonable as they relate to the cosmos. The theist's are also testable and verifiable and they fail. Completely.

The theist lives in a world of subjective feelings about the validity of things based on subjective experience and therefore has no say in the obvjective nature of reality.

The pragmatist lives in a world of testable provisional truth based on objective evidence.
 
Godless said:
No patience is needed for those who want to look beyond reality. That what if, is not reality, that what if is only a false promise, with a threat no less. If one does not abide by some dieity's rules or what not. Sounds pretty pathetic way to live.

Godless
Click to expand...
For the common, garden variety christian/muslim/jew/whatever I completely agree. It really is pathetic and a waste of billions of years of evolved mental complexity and capability.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
Although I am a monist, and therefore I believe that there is only one realm of existence, and that no various levels of that realm exist, I will have to say that there is no proof either way to say that I am right. I only say this because all of my personal experiences have not forced me to accept the existence of any other realms or of various levels of existence in this realm.

However, that doesn't mean that it is silly to believe in such things, simply because some of the experiences that (sane) people have are not consistent with what they know of the world around them. All I say is that to make such judgments shows a complete lack of patience.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but what in the flying blue fuck does personal experience have to do with making judgements about objective reality? Ever been in a court? Do you know how much weight is given to most "eyewitness" testimony? It's virtually useless due to it's subjective nature. Science gives even less weight to it, namely ZERO since people are better at deluding themselves (proven) than they are at most things.

If all we're talking about here is how nice it is to have fantasies and such, then I agree. Mental constructs without basis in observable reality are called fantasies. Religious belief is functionally equivalent to a fantasy. If not, then I'm sure someone here will show me evidence to the contrary.

Now, JM, if you tell me I'm missing the point, then you need to beef up your position presentation skills.
 
The pragmatist lives in a world of testable provisional truth based on objective evidence.
Click to expand...
Minor correction: this is the world of the empiricist. A pragmatist will accept any idea he finds useful, which may include untestable beliefs. Dualism, for example, is a philosophy that a pragmatist may find attractive and useful, even though there is no verifiable evidence for an actual separation between mental and physical into different planes of existence.

Dualism actually brings up an interesting point. Even though there is no way to conclusively verify dual reality, it is commonly accepted that thoughts and feelings themselves do not generally interfere with matter. On the other hand, no apparent evidence can be offered either to give monism (of which materialism, the most secular and "down-to-earth" of philosophies, is a kind) authority among world views. They both offer "true" visions of the universe, yet neither seems to have any special consequences rooted in observable reality. We can't test these ideas; they're not theories. We use them and trust them as accurate representations of the universe anyway. I'm just rambling at this point, but perhaps this relates to what Jaster was trying to get at.
 
baumgarten said:
Minor correction: this is the world of the empiricist. A pragmatist will accept any idea he finds useful, which may include untestable beliefs. Dualism, for example, is a philosophy that a pragmatist may find attractive and useful, even though there is no verifiable evidence for an actual separation between mental and physical into different planes of existence.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Dualism actually brings up an interesting point. Even though there is no way to conclusively verify dual reality, it is commonly accepted that thoughts and feelings themselves do not generally interfere with matter. On the other hand, no apparent evidence can be offered either to give monism (of which materialism, the most secular and "down-to-earth" of philosophies, is a kind) authority among world views. They both offer "true" visions of the universe, yet neither seems to have any special consequences rooted in observable reality. We can't test these ideas; they're not theories. We use them and trust them as accurate representations of the universe anyway. I'm just rambling at this point, but perhaps this relates to what Jaster was trying to get at.
Click to expand...

1) This is the "ghost in the machine" mentality. "Mind" is something seperate from "brain". There is a "me" somewhere in there that is observing and in control. I believe this is a fallacy brought about by the self-referential nature of the brain. The loftiest concept is still just a physical pattern of neural activity. The thinking that thoughts and ideas occupy some different "space" is understandable, but misguided nonetheless.

2) Possibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top