Or maybe the claim that atheism is scientifically impossible is not a claim that "scientists" make, but rather one that Nuri Vittachi wants to make.
Based on scientific claims.
Can you make a case against it?
No. That's a logical fallacy. Like doesn't have to come from like. It does not follow that the source of a lego person is another lego person, for example. The lego person is made of plastic, but it doesn't follow therefore that the maker of the lego person must be made of plastic.
It does follow, however, that consciousness brings forth consciousness. Why would you entertain the idea that consciousness comes from
your brain?
Perhaps you are inclined to think that way, but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
How would you know?
Wrong again. Damage the brain, for example, and that "I am" of yours also visibly suffers damage. It is logical to infer that the "I" is therefore a product of the brain.
It appears that way from the outside, especially if you identify the physical body as the self. But you do not know what goes on internally. The "I" most likely enters into different dimensions, just like when we are asleep.
The "I" identifies with it's body, and expresses itself according to it's conscious state. For example the "I" acts accordingly, if it's body loses a leg, or arm. You cannot act like you have two legs, if you only have one.
What are you talking about? Your belief is grounded entirely in faith. If it wasn't, you would be able to present clear evidence that your God exists. But you yourself admit that unequivocal evidence of that is nowhere to be found.
Firstly, God Is. But you deny, and or reject it.
Secondly, trying to prove God to an atheist, is a futile task. The atheist is so, because there is no God, as far as the atheist is aware.
The atheists position is to rely on his senses, to understand God.
Accepting that the senses came about through natural forces, there is no way he can comprehend God, other than some material creature, that can be sensually observed.
Until he can let go of the idea that everything came about via natural forces, he is lost, as far as understanding what is God, self, and how they are related.
No one needs faith to belive in God, unless they're atheist. A bit like yourself.
Belief in God is natural, but there can be no belief for those who deny, or reject, God. God allows our desire to live as though there is no God, meaning they aren't bound by their conscience, if they choose not to be.
It appears that one needs faith to not believe in God.
When you don't apply the bullshit filter to ideas that seem to support your own biases, you can be led down all kinds of blind alleys. Your wide-eyed enthusiasm for the article your posted in this thread is a good example of that
"Wide eyed enthusiasm"?
Personally, I think it's a poor article. He's left out the important bits, like not giving any citations, or identities of the scientists. He left out his position with regards atheist, agnostic, or theist.
I would have liked to hear more of the science.
So I'm not exactly enthusiastic about this article, but in it's spirit, I think there are discussion points that can be raised, as the idea could be basically true, if looked at for what it is sactually saying.
As for the bullshit meter, I remember your defence of the whale evolution, a discussion we had years ago.
That sounds a bit like mystical mumbo jumbo to me.
It's quite simple. The conscious decisions we make, aren't the only decisions we make. Yet we are constantly making decisions. Most times we make decisions without thinking about it.
What you view as correct applies only to you, in that moment of time. You cannot really account for anyone, let alone everyone.
Wouldn't it be better to keep an open mind and not accept dualism until there is some evidence in favour of it?
I don't think you're in a position to talk about open-mindedness.
Or course, the same thing could be said about your jumping in to enthusiastically embrace your God belief.
Does your embellishment of theism, give you more confidence in your delusional position? Should I act enthusiastic, so the wishful thinking aspect of your delusion, appears rational, and thought out.
The author states that to go from a belief in some kind of "spiritual" reality (such as might power Reiki practices, for example) to a full-blown belief in an all-powerful God is an unimportant "minor detail". Maybe it's not a stretch for you, but it certainly is for me.
You didn't answer my question.
Let's assume they are pseudoscientificsessions. Why do they participate?
Having said that, however, I recognise that once you open the door to belief in supernatural forces, sliding down the slippery slope to the bottom is by no means an unforeseeable consequence. In opening the door in the first place, you're giving up on critical thinking in favour of adopting the kind of faith-based stance that is common to theists.
What is "supernatural" about Reiki?
Tell me: do you consider all ritual to be a kind of prayer? (Birthday party? New Year's celebrations?)
I consider them rituals.
We all pray, more than we realise.
Praying is natural to humans.
But not all prayers are directly to God.
But, ultimately, the only is God, and everything else is subordinate.
I'm assuming God Just Is, as opposed to your assumption that God may, or may not exist. If that's okay with you.
Here? The old "no atheists in foxholes" myth. It's fairly blatant. But perhaps you believe it (?)
I don't have to believe it.
The consciousness, about to leave the body, with the realisation that it has acted foolishly, out of ignorance, asking for forgiveness. Would come as no surprise to anyone. However it would be foolish, to stick to your delusional guns, when that time comes. Reality can be a bitch!
He is welcome to believe what he likes, just as you are. The question of his bias in the article, however, is one that can be discussed on the basis of the available evidence in the article itself, and that's what I have tried to do.
It's just an article. Why get so het up over it?
Sure they do. Babies don't believe in God. Nobody believes in God until they are introduced to the idea and old enough to understand it.
Typical atheist understanding of God.
Do you think one is theist, because one asserts theism?
Then again, what else can you think.
One is not a theist, because one says so
The same applies to atheists and atheism.
If his (or your) assertion is that atheists are less social than theists, that needs to be supported by appropriate evidence. On the other hand, the evidence is in that religious people, on average, procreate more. But that has to do, at least in part, with lack of contraception, and lack of education.
What?
I have no particular argument with that. Is it your assertion that theists are more likely to be altruistic towards their fellow citizens than atheists, then? And if that is true, what would be the reason? The theism? The threat of punishment that so often goes with theocracy? Or something else? This needs a lot of unpacking, even if it's true.
Theocracy? Theism?
As for the rest of the point, it doesn't really matter.
Now, if that is in fact the case, the next question is: what happens to people who believe in an omni-present, supernatural watcher who might punish them in the afterlife for their transgressions? I have a hypothesis...
What is a supernatural watcher?
Why would someone who believes in God, think they are going to be pinished in the afterlife?
Why do you think people, naturally have a sense of justice?
Why is having a sense of justice, beneficial for human society?
How is it any better than a society with no justice, assuming the human has no sense of justice?
Then it's a pity you haven't posted anything substantive to address my criticisms of the article.
You're entitled to your criticisms .
But aside from the obvious things I mentioned, regarding the article, I think it is a good one. Let's expose atheism for what it actually is. A mental construct.
Jan.
