Theism vs. Atheism - Experience or Interpretation?

[KennyJC]

Not quite what I'm arguing... common acceptance doesn't make something true! I'm saying that many people describe profound beneficial changes in their life as a result of conversion to e.g. christianity. There are books full of them! This is evidence that some effect is taking place. It may be 'just psychology'

You just answered that for me.

or it may be because they are invoking something that actually exists.

Highly unlikely since there is nothing external to match their beliefs.

I'm leaving aside the much rarer kinds of 'direct experience' people have, but which are also well documented.

You mean like a 'vision' of gawd appearing before a person? Such descriptions can ususally be dismissed without much effort. They already have a particular doctrine instilled within their mind... then something unusual happens, they claim it to be Jesus etc... It's like believers in Aliens visiting Earth, they see something unusual in the sky and to justify their beliefs, it is aliens. Just hear your average theists account of why they believe in God, usually they will overblow chance events that take place at a particular time. A good example of this was when shortly before my grandads death, he went to the front door at 3am because he thought he heard his daughter shouting through the door... A few days later he died, and alas my family were all saying it was a 'call from heaven' and other bullshit.

Does that mean you KNOW??!
Knowledge is justified, true, belief. As far as I can see you have given no justification, we don't know if it's true - so it is really just your belief that God does not effectively exist. You wouldn't be mistaking your beliefs for knowledge by any chance!?

Of course I know. Even theists - the so-called experts in God - can not give evidence for their beliefs, so resort to the "you wouldn't understand" or "you have to experience it for yourself"... So not only can theists not produce anything to verify their beliefs, but scientists can't find anything to allow I.D. be moved from philosophy to science. The conclusion is that God effectively does not exist. I am not saying God doesn't exist, just that it effectively doesn't... which means it probably doesn't exist at all.

To experience God requires a suspension of disbelief, and Kierkegaard's famous 'leap of faith'.

I am not denying that.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You just answered that for me.

LOL. How unexpected! Psychological forces are as real as physical forces to those affected by them. "Conversion" may activate a previously dormant part of our mind - but then who's to say that isn't also a manifesation of something transpersonal i.e. what people call God.

Highly unlikely since there is nothing external to match their beliefs.

Ahhh.... Your foundational assumption! So, how do you know? What if it was not 'external', but 'inherent' to our minds, to matter, to the universe etc? That is the modern concept of God.

You mean like a 'vision' of gawd appearing before a person? Such descriptions can ususally be dismissed without much effort. They already have a particular doctrine instilled within their mind... then something unusual happens, they claim it to be Jesus etc... It's like believers in Aliens visiting Earth, they see something unusual in the sky and to justify their beliefs, it is aliens. Just hear your average theists account of why they believe in God, usually they will overblow chance events that take place at a particular time. A good example of this was when shortly before my grandads death, he went to the front door at 3am because he thought he heard his daughter shouting through the door... A few days later he died, and alas my family were all saying it was a 'call from heaven' and other bullshit.

I think you have raised a difficult question... how is a 'hallucination' different from a genuine mystical experience? Perhaps it all comes down to interpretation, but some people do seem to have 'experiences' that dramatically change their attitudes, values and life. I believe there is a difference and the genuine article always has a profound long-term beneficial effect. Here's Wiki on Christian Mysticism:

While such phenomena are associated with mysticism in general, including the Christian variety, for Christians the major emphasis concerns a spiritual transformation of the self, such that they become more fully realized human persons, "created in the Image and Likeness of God" and in harmonious communion with God, the rest of humanity and all creation, and oneself. [...] The Eastern Christian tradition speaks of this transformation in terms of theosis or divinization, perhaps best summed up by an ancient aphorism usually attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria: "God became human so that humans might become God."

Of course I know. Even theists - the so-called experts in God - can not give evidence for their beliefs, so resort to the "you wouldn't understand" or "you have to experience it for yourself"... So not only can theists not produce anything to verify their beliefs, but scientists can't find anything to allow I.D. be moved from philosophy to science. The conclusion is that God effectively does not exist. I am not saying God doesn't exist, just that it effectively doesn't... which means it probably doesn't exist at all.

No, there is no 'objective' evidence, but that is not the only kind of evidence that exists... How do you know if a certain wine tastes good? You can do a spectrascopic analysis, and/or ask someone else, but ultimately to really know 1st hand you have to experience it yourself - 'Suck it and see'!

I am not denying that.

Good!

 

[KennyJC]

LOL. How unexpected! Psychological forces are as real as physical forces to those affected by them. "Conversion" may activate a previously dormant part of our mind - but then who's to say that isn't also a manifesation of something transpersonal i.e. what people call God.

Saying that part of your brain is dormant is misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but religion/belief in God stimulates the same parts of the brain and produces similar emotions to many things in daily life.

Ahhh.... Your foundational assumption! So, how do you know? What if it was not 'external', but 'inherent' to our minds, to matter, to the universe etc? That is the modern concept of God.

Since God is so far entirely manmade, the likelihood of something existing that matches our baseless guess, would be highly unlikely. I think this is a reasonable assumption.

I think you have raised a difficult question... how is a 'hallucination' different from a genuine mystical experience?

What is a genuine mystical experience?

No, there is no 'objective' evidence, but that is not the only kind of evidence that exists... How do you know if a certain wine tastes good? You can do a spectrascopic analysis, and/or ask someone else, but ultimately to really know 1st hand you have to experience it yourself - 'Suck it and see'!

Well if someone says a particular wine tastes good when that wine can't be shown to exist, how can you then taste it?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Saying that part of your brain is dormant is misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but religion/belief in God stimulates the same parts of the brain and produces similar emotions to many things in daily life.

No - MIND not brain. Brain is biological hardware and no part is dormant (usually). Mind is what we are, and includes parts that are unconscious, hidden or dormant (e.g. forgotten memories, archetypes, repressed emotions).

Since God is so far entirely manmade, the likelihood of something existing that matches our baseless guess, would be highly unlikely. I think this is a reasonable assumption.

Religion is as old as man. It's unlikely God therefore is 'entirely manmade' like Nylon, CFCs or GM crops. It could be like art (equally old), reflecting an innate part of our being though.

What is a genuine mystical experience?

A moment of lucidity (Pulp Fiction)? Enlightenment? A transformative encounter with a greater reality, more especially God?

Well if someone says a particular wine tastes good when that wine can't be shown to exist, how can you then taste it?

'Someone' found it, so go looking in the same place... but then do you really want to go to all that trouble?

 

[Raithere]

In the meta-review paper I quoted 56% of studies show a significant correlation – that is positive evidence!

This would depend on the quality of the studies they reviewed.

I think that there was always going to be controversy, given the historical antagonism between science and religion. Studies making claims for the effectiveness of prayer are going to come under intense scrutiny because of the challenging nature of those claims.

They should. Remember, they're studying miracles here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I agree, though there are ramifications of even a small effect way beyond the health field.

The thing is that even if there is an effect, if the effect is too small or too unpredictable then it's simply a waste of effort. I can pray for god to feed the hungry or I can volunteer at a soup kitchen. Since it's been over 2000 years since manna has fallen from heaven I find the latter solution more productive.

However, people of all religions still do pray for things they want. I'm sure many atheists hope that such research will discredit the claims of religion and thereby promote their own view.

Generally speaking I don't think atheists are particularly concerned about the results. I know I would be very interested if I saw a study that I really felt was significant. And if there was strong evidence I wouldn't have any difficult accepting it as true. I'd be excited more than anything else.

Honestly, I think theists would have a much more difficult time with a positive result than atheists because they are already committed to certain beliefs about god. For instance, what would it mean to most religions and most theists to find out it didn't matter who was praying, what their beliefs were, or how and to whom they prayed?

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, such a finding would probably be the single greatest thing that could ever happen to religion. "Hey, guess what? God really does exist. But he treats everyone equally and all your quarreling and bloodshed over differences in dogma are completely unfounded and irrelevant."

More importantly, there are a set of questions about the claims of religions that may be testable scientifically

Well yes. But questions 1 - 4 are significantly different from 5.

There seem to be a lot of books coming out by prominent atheists asserting that science has already ‘disproved’ religion.

Personally, I find that religion disproves itself. If one starts from a neutral position it becomes self-defeating. It is only by way of creative interpretation and apologetics that a rational inquiry can successfully resolve for religion. At least that is my experience. I was irreligious long before I became an atheist.

It should not be a necessity to know the mechanism of action to see if something works.

No, it's not. However, one needs to have a hypothesis to test. The way most of these studies have been set up they don't even know what they're testing for. There are too many unaccounted for variables and alternative hypotheses.

The ongoing score is 5 to 4 (~56%) - yet the game is done and the losing team won!??

My contention is that some of those games were fixed. Additionally, they're adding baseball and football games together.

I think perhaps we must agree to differ! Perhaps (to invoke the title of this thread) it all comes down to interpretation

Indeed. It was, after all, my answer in the poll.

~Raithere

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The thing is that even if there is an effect, if the effect is too small or too unpredictable then it's simply a waste of effort. I can pray for god to feed the hungry or I can volunteer at a soup kitchen. Since it's been over 2000 years since manna has fallen from heaven I find the latter solution more productive.

Hopefully one would do both... they are complimentary, rather than mutually exclusive. If prayer does have an effect, I would expect sincerity and motive to be a factor in its effectiveness.

Generally speaking I don't think atheists are particularly concerned about the results. I know I would be very interested if I saw a study that I really felt was significant. And if there was strong evidence I wouldn't have any difficult accepting it as true. I'd be excited more than anything else.

I'd like to agree with you, however I have seen two atheist sources selectively cite negative results from research on prayer in support of their view. One is a paper quoted on this very forum here

There is also a very good interview with Dan Dennett on ABC where he (again rather selectively I think) cites divorce rates among 'born again christians' as a sign of lack of a moral effect through christianity.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, such a finding would probably be the single greatest thing that could ever happen to religion. "Hey, guess what? God really does exist. But he treats everyone equally and all your quarreling and bloodshed over differences in dogma are completely unfounded and irrelevant."

Proof of an impartial God!? I shall pray hard for such a finding!

Personally, I find that religion disproves itself. If one starts from a neutral position it becomes self-defeating. It is only by way of creative interpretation and apologetics that a rational inquiry can successfully resolve for religion. At least that is my experience. I was irreligious long before I became an atheist.

Atheism is a much easier position to defend - God complicates the worldview, and raises many difficult-to-answer questions. However, I don't accept that religion disproves itself. One merely has to accept that there are some questions that we do not know the answers to - but then there are in science too!

The pay-off I believe is in the question 'which worldview is preferable'. A transcendant universe created by a benign God exhorting us to love one another is more appealing than a universe of blind forces where we compete for existence. It also best satisfies what I believe is a basic human drive to believe in something other than ourself - be that a corporation, cause, party, nation, or race (all of which make flawed 'gods'). For me, a worldview based on atheistic materialism is not a recipe for human happiness!

My contention is that some of those games were fixed. Additionally, they're adding baseball and football games together.

LOL! Perhaps it is the best possible outcome for 'free will', where each side can feel justified in upholding their view!

 

[(Q)]

Don't just take my word for it, lots of people's experiences have been documented. It doesn't qualify as objective evidence, but it is evidence and it is empirical!

Uh, I certainly wouldn't take your word for it, as it would appear from your statement that your word has no value.

It doesn't qualify as objective evidence, empirical evidence or even circumstantial evidence. It is, at best, imaginative evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

Atheism is a much easier position to defend - God complicates the worldview, and raises many difficult-to-answer questions.

Of course atheism is the easist position to defend since it makes no claims, but how does God complicate things? If anything God is used to simplify things. If there are gaps in our knowledge, then God is often applied as a bandaid.

However, I don't accept that religion disproves itself. One merely has to accept that there are some questions that we do not know the answers to - but then there are in science too!

Making impossible claims like the thousands found in the bible means that it disproves itself by default if it has motives to be embraced as fact.

The pay-off I believe is in the question 'which worldview is preferable'. A transcendant universe created by a benign God exhorting us to love one another is more appealing than a universe of blind forces where we compete for existence.

You are openly admitting that you are delusional. You embrace this superstition because it makes you feel happier. That's fair enough, but it means that debate is useless as the actual existence of the subject of your belief is irrelevant.

If I may borrow a quote from Sam Harris: I would find the notion of a diamond the size of a fridge burried in my garden a 'preferable worldview'. In fact I wouldn't want to live in a universe were there wasn't a diamond the size of a fridge burried in my garden.

For me, a worldview based on atheistic materialism is not a recipe for human happiness!

Wrong. That's a contractiction since 'human happiness' is materialistic in itself. May I also remind you that materialism includes family, friends, cuddly kittens, fluffy clouds, culture, sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and even beliefs (including belief in God).

Since you have demonized materialism like a professional theist, it sounds also like you don't understand the 'worldview' of an atheist. To believe in an intelligent creator would effectively put an end to many questions... where is the sense of mystery in that? To be alive and and marvel at the nature of life and the universe without the notion of 'Oh... God done it', fills a person with that lreligious feeling' you and LG like to post by Einstein.

An atheist discovers as they go along, withour pressuming answers that can't be found anywhere.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Of course atheism is the easist position to defend since it makes no claims, but how does God complicate things? If anything God is used to simplify things. If there are gaps in our knowledge, then God is often applied as a bandaid.

Questions like "if God is good and omnipotent, why is there suffering", and "why did God choose an imperfect method of creation such as evolution" are 'complications'. As you know, I don't support using God as an easy substitute for scientific enquiry e.g. 'how did life on earth start'. Some things we just don't know!

Making impossible claims like the thousands found in the bible means that it disproves itself by default if it has motives to be embraced as fact.

The Bible is NOT literally true (I believe). However, most literature is also not literally true - yet it's value lies in the human truths expressed within it's themes. The Bible's value is similar - it is not found in it's literal truth!

You are openly admitting that you are delusional. You embrace this superstition because it makes you feel happier. That's fair enough, but it means that debate is useless as the actual existence of the subject of your belief is irrelevant.

This must be some strange personal useage of the term delusional!
I'm saying that atheism is an inadequate worldview, not because it doesn't fit the bare facts, but because the bare facts are the least interesting form of truth - they are not what engage us as humans. At the heart of atheism is a pessimism that results from it's incompleteness and which I believe it would be irrational to adopt.

If I may borrow a quote from Sam Harris: I would find the notion of a diamond the size of a fridge burried in my garden a 'preferable worldview'. In fact I wouldn't want to live in a universe were there wasn't a diamond the size of a fridge burried in my garden.

If you found several accounts of people having seen a diamond buried in your back garden - it might make sense to start an exploratory dig!? Perhaps the Bible is one such account - other people another?

Wrong. That's a contractiction since 'human happiness' is materialistic in itself. May I also remind you that materialism includes family, friends, cuddly kittens, fluffy clouds, culture, sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and even beliefs (including belief in God).

Eh?? Materialism is the belief that the stuff of physical existence is all there is, contrasted with dualism and idealism! I'm saying that this belief, admixed with atheism is not a recipe for human happiness.

Since you have demonized materialism like a professional theist, it sounds also like you don't understand the 'worldview' of an atheist. To believe in an intelligent creator would effectively put an end to many questions... where is the sense of mystery in that? To be alive and and marvel at the nature of life and the universe without the notion of 'Oh... God done it', fills a person with that lreligious feeling' you and LG like to post by Einstein.

I think you almost answer your first question with the second. Marvelling at the universe for a theist is appreciating the intelligence and imagination of the mind creating it.

 

[KennyJC]

Questions like "if God is good and omnipotent, why is there suffering", and "why did God choose an imperfect method of creation such as evolution" are 'complications'. As you know, I don't support using God as an easy substitute for scientific enquiry e.g. 'how did life on earth start'. Some things we just don't know!

God exists purely to simplify the lives of humans. Using god and religion as a way to find answers is something many people think is legitimate. That along with prayer, eternal life after death, heaven, hell... Simplicity is the key success of religion.

The Bible is NOT literally true (I believe). However, most literature is also not literally true - yet it's value lies in the human truths expressed within it's themes. The Bible's value is similar - it is not found in it's literal truth!

Where in the Bible does it say the stories are merely allegory guides? I can guarantee you that the preachers who ended up writing the Bible wanted you to take it at face value. Many people still do. Varying interpretations of fiction doesn't lead you anywhere.

This must be some strange personal useage of the term delusional!

You admit believing because it gives you emotional benefit and aren't put off at the zero evidence... I don't think my use of the word delusional was strange at all.

I'm saying that atheism is an inadequate worldview, not because it doesn't fit the bare facts...

The bare facts are the God effectively doesn't not exist, so why then is atheism inadequate?

but because the bare facts are the least interesting form of truth

There are just so many innaccuracies in your definitions here, this is why I am having to answer line by line...

The bare facts are the only 'truths'... Delusions and superstitions are just that. It's really dishonest of you to continue using words like 'truth' and 'experience' when describing your delusions.

At the heart of atheism is a pessimism that results from it's incompleteness and which I believe it would be irrational to adopt.

Fucking hell! You're on fire today aren't you? Atheism pessimistic? Incomplete? Irrational? You will have to explain further why it is 'incomplete' and 'irrational'. I'm guessing you call it pessimistic because we don't invent fantasies which are obviously false and delusional, but this gloomy picture you brush atheists with doesn't reflect reality I'm afraid. Aren't atheists continually being told off by religious fundies for having too much fun?

If you found several accounts of people having seen a diamond buried in your back garden - it might make sense to start an exploratory dig!? Perhaps the Bible is one such account - other people another?

If indeed people were actually finding fridge-sized diamonds in their back garden, then yes I would dig. If however, people were simply inventing these claims and no fridge-sized diamonds were shown to be found, I wouldn't be so quick to dig up my garden...

Eh?? Materialism is the belief that the stuff of physical existence is all there is, contrasted with dualism and idealism! I'm saying that this belief, admixed with atheism is not a recipe for human happiness.

Again, simply untrue. Most atheists are directly inspired by the material nature of life and the universe. Much more so than your average theist who pays more attention to manmade fantasy. Your (false) descriptions of atheism reflect the nature of your ignorance in that you must create delusions for youself to be happy, which is why you are under the mistaken impression that atheism means the person can't be inspired or happy.

I can understand where you are coming from. I get a kick out of believing that as I am listening to my favourite songs, that it was me that wrote and performed them. The difference is that although this does give me an emotional benefit, I conceed this as a delusional fantasy. Theists conceeding the same thing is rare for some reason.

I think you almost answer your first question with the second. Marvelling at the universe for a theist is appreciating the intelligence and imagination of the mind creating it.

Yes and the fact people feel the need to put a sentient being into the picture is when they have stepped into superstitious territory.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

God exists purely to simplify the lives of humans. Using god and religion as a way to find answers is something many people think is legitimate. That along with prayer, eternal life after death, heaven, hell... Simplicity is the key success of religion.

I don't know what church you've been going to Kenny, but in my experience belief in God raises many more theoretical questions than it answers. It would be much simpler to apply Occums razor to everything - however, it would also be very dull.

Where in the Bible does it say the stories are merely allegory guides? I can guarantee you that the preachers who ended up writing the Bible wanted you to take it at face value. Many people still do. Varying interpretations of fiction doesn't lead you anywhere.

Where in the Bible does it say every word is literally true?
I should perhaps qualify my earlier comment, and say that it is a mixture of poetic, proverbial, allegorical, mythical, mystical and literal truth. The gospel accounts are meant to be taken as literal truth, the story of Job is an allegory, Revelations is a vision containing mystical (and maybe encrypted) truths, Proverbs are proverbs and the Psalms are song lyrics. OK?

You admit believing because it gives you emotional benefit and aren't put off at the zero evidence... I don't think my use of the word delusional was strange at all.

LOL. I don't think you've been listening Kenny - there isn't 'zero evidence'. How many times....? (sigh)

The bare facts are the God effectively doesn't not exist, so why then is atheism inadequate?

I think God's existence is what we are debating isn't it? It's not a fact... Ahhh of course - this is another of your peculiar personal definitions!

The bare facts are the only 'truths'... Delusions and superstitions are just that. It's really dishonest of you to continue using words like 'truth' and 'experience' when describing your delusions.

There are many types of truth (some I listed earlier). 'Facts' are only one type (see Wiki on truth). Of course I realise your private definition of "delusion" means anything you don't personally believe in just as your definition of superstition is any belief you don't subscribe to!

Fucking hell! You're on fire today aren't you? Atheism pessimistic? Incomplete? Irrational? You will have to explain further why it is 'incomplete' and 'irrational'. I'm guessing you call it pessimistic because we don't invent fantasies which are obviously false and delusional, but this gloomy picture you brush atheists with doesn't reflect reality I'm afraid. Aren't atheists continually being told off by religious fundies for having too much fun?

My concern is primarily with those ‘evangelical atheists’ who see religion as evolutionary baggage to be dropped ASAP, but who lack a viable alternative. The atheist view is pessimistic – because it believes in nothing but our physical existence. Unfortunately, our physical existence beyond a certain age is an inexorable decline into physical decay, disease and death (if we don't die violently first), while for the powerless, poor or unlucky - life is a traumatic struggle for existence ending in an often violent, painful and early death.

I say atheism is ‘incomplete’ because it is empty as a ‘way of life’. Religions remain popular because they provide a context for living a ‘good life’. Often they contain inherent guidance e.g. how to face death, how to face difficulties, how to deal with people you dislike, how to react to aggression etc. This is why religious people have been shown to survive traumas much better (e.g. among Auschwitz survivors). They have a well developed framework when life gets shitty! Houses built on rock vs. sand etc.

To desire the predominance of a worldview that is both pessimistic and incomplete is (I think) irrational. Anyone can have fun and distract themselves when times are good. Much of our societies goals seem to be directed at distracting ourselves from the inevitable. On the other hand – you could enjoy the pessimism “We’re awl doooomed”.

If indeed people were actually finding fridge-sized diamonds in their back garden, then yes I would dig. If however, people were simply inventing these claims and no fridge-sized diamonds were shown to be found, I wouldn't be so quick to dig up my garden...

Well that’s where you have to make your mind up… are they lying, or is there something worth digging for? Of course it could be an allegorical diamond (Matt 13:44)!

I can understand where you are coming from. I get a kick out of believing that as I am listening to my favourite songs, that it was me that wrote and performed them. The difference is that although this does give me an emotional benefit, I conceed this as a delusional fantasy. Theists conceeding the same thing is rare for some reason.

For me it’s more like seeing a painting by someone like Jackson Pollack. Knowing that it was created by an intelligent being makes it interesting. I can wonder at the mind that created a work – a mind like mine. Otherwise - an accidental collection of random splotches would be of little interest. In appreciating the ingenuity of nature, I’m appreciating the ‘mind’ expressing it. It is hard to appreciate the product of random accidents in quite the same way!

 

[KennyJC]

Where in the Bible does it say every word is literally true?
I should perhaps qualify my earlier comment, and say that it is a mixture of poetic, proverbial, allegorical, mythical, mystical and literal truth. The gospel accounts are meant to be taken as literal truth, the story of Job is an allegory, Revelations is a vision containing mystical (and maybe encrypted) truths, Proverbs are proverbs and the Psalms are song lyrics. OK?

Interesting you mention that the Gospels are 'meant' to be taken literally. Most christians go along with this since it doesn't have as many quotes about God killing people, and it describes their saviour afterall. Do you think the Gospels are historic fact? You said you believe in the resurrection, so I'm not sure what bounds your gullability knows.

LOL. I don't think you've been listening Kenny - there isn't 'zero evidence'. How many times....? (sigh)

Well as I said to LG, the Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

I think God's existence is what we are debating isn't it? It's not a fact... Ahhh of course - this is another of your peculiar personal definitions!

We have been through this before: God effectively does not exist. You know, like how something that can not be measured effectively does not exist? I am not using peculiar definitions.

Of course I realise your private definition of "delusion" means anything you don't personally believe in just as your definition of superstition is any belief you don't subscribe to!

If I am using warped definitions then lets see what the dictionary has to say about it:

delusion:-
something a person believes to be true because they want it to be true, when it is actually not true.

Superstition:-
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

My concern is primarily with those ‘evangelical atheists’ who see religion as evolutionary baggage to be dropped ASAP, but who lack a viable alternative.

Religion has been dropping over the last few hundred years quite significantly. Haven't you heard of secularism?

The atheist view is pessimistic – because it believes in nothing but our physical existence. Unfortunately, our physical existence beyond a certain age is an inexorable decline into physical decay, disease and death (if we don't die violently first), while for the powerless, poor or unlucky - life is a traumatic struggle for existence ending in an often violent, painful and early death.

Yes, t'is sad, I'll give you that. But living forever would get boring. And to simply invent a non-physical reality means you're sure to be deluding yourself. I couldn't live my one life deluding myself.

I say atheism is ‘incomplete’ because it is empty as a ‘way of life’.

We all have a way of life. Even theists live in a society with prisons and consequences. It's no sky fairy, but we have a developed society which we are part of.

Religions remain popular because they provide a context for living a ‘good life’. Often they contain inherent guidance e.g. how to face death, how to face difficulties, how to deal with people you dislike, how to react to aggression etc. This is why religious people have been shown to survive traumas much better (e.g. among Auschwitz survivors). They have a well developed framework when life gets shitty! Houses built on rock vs. sand etc.

People will always use something to get them through hard times wether they are theist or atheist. The atheist will use the same emotional tools at their disposal as the theist... all without inventing a sky fairy.

To desire the predominance of a worldview that is both pessimistic and incomplete is (I think) irrational.

Except atheists themselves are not pessimistic, you only see yourself this way minus your delusion. Just listen to Dawkins being interviewed, he doesn't sound very pessimistic to me.

Well that’s where you have to make your mind up… are they lying, or is there something worth digging for? Of course it could be an allegorical diamond (Matt 13:44)!

Well in the real world, an outbreak of such a unique claim could be traced to something physical. Other such claims that play on our brains can't, like the belief in someone being out there... the boogey man in the wardrobe, the hand that moves the sun around the earth, the relative who is still somewhere to be found even after death. These are all primal and fundamental to our evolutionary development. Animals including ourselves are always concerned with someone or something being somewhere.

For me it’s more like seeing a painting by someone like Jackson Pollack. Knowing that it was created by an intelligent being makes it interesting. I can wonder at the mind that created a work – a mind like mine. Otherwise - an accidental collection of random splotches would be of little interest. In appreciating the ingenuity of nature, I’m appreciating the ‘mind’ expressing it. It is hard to appreciate the product of random accidents in quite the same way!

A new understanding of what life is would probably be needed. Crediting intelligence for the creation of the universe is more than likely reflecting your inability to think outside of the box. Apparently you think that everything is just an endless cycle of intelligence creating intelligence and we are just one link in the chain.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Interesting you mention that the Gospels are 'meant' to be taken literally. Most christians go along with this since it doesn't have as many quotes about God killing people, and it describes their saviour afterall. Do you think the Gospels are historic fact? You said you believe in the resurrection, so I'm not sure what bounds your gullability knows.

I believe the gospels were written a number of years after the event, but well within living memory, by educated believers (i.e. who could write) trying to record the life of Jesus using existing documents, witness interviews etc. They are not infallible as historical records, but are the nearest we can get to actually being there. Many of the parables and sayings of Jesus I'm sure are mostly accurate - they are the core message. The miracles... who knows? Are they so important?

Well as I said to LG, the Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

Sadly not... I am not the first to use people's accounts or experiences as evidence. It happens every day in court.

We have been through this before: God effectively does not exist. You know, like how something that can not be measured effectively does not exist? I am not using peculiar definitions.

Ahhh... yet another strange word usage. You should start your own dictionary Kenny!

'Effectively' means (according to Answers.com):

1)In an effective way.
2)For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.

and effective meaning:

1)Having an intended or expected effect.
2)Producing a strong impression or response; striking: gave an effective performance as Othello.
3)Operative; in effect: The law is effective immediately.
4)Existing in fact; actual: a decline in the effective demand.
5)Prepared for use or action, especially in warfare.

To say it's a fact that God 'effectively' does not exist, you either mean God has no effect or that for all practical purposes he doesn't exist. I'd say whatever your views on religion, 'God' seems to have a marked effect on people, and this has very practical consequences. If you are a theist, God's 'effect' is to create the universe, sustain it, answer prayers etc. etc. So your statement is inaccurate in every way!

If I am using warped definitions then lets see what the dictionary has to say about it:delusion:-
something a person believes to be true because they want it to be true, when it is actually not true.

This is a good example. The way you use it, if you (Kenny) don't believe something is true - then you presume it's generally accepted as untrue. So, the actual Kenny's dictionary definition of delusion is:

something a person believes to be true because they want it to be true, when it is actually not what I think is true.

It's a very useful definition for proving someone who disagrees with you is deluded!

Religion has been dropping over the last few hundred years quite significantly. Haven't you heard of secularism?

In fact it hasn't - globally religion (especially Islam) is still growing faster than the population increase. I have heard of secularism.

Yes, t'is sad, I'll give you that. But living forever would get boring. And to simply invent a non-physical reality means you're sure to be deluding yourself. I couldn't live my one life deluding myself.

There's that ubiquitously useful word again! Actually, as well as not receiving a Nobel Prize, I can't claim I invented non-physical reality either. Plato possibly, or even earlier thinkers?

We all have a way of life. Even theists live in a society with prisons and consequences. It's no sky fairy, but we have a developed society which we are part of [...] People will always use something to get them through hard times wether they are theist or atheist. The atheist will use the same emotional tools at their disposal as the theist... all without inventing a sky fairy.

It is a 'fact' - theists survive life traumas better.

See for example research by Aaron Antonovsky on holocaust survivors.
There's also an interesting article with an interview with a sociologist (Linda George) here.

Except atheists themselves are not pessimistic, you only see yourself this way minus your delusion. Just listen to Dawkins being interviewed, he doesn't sound very pessimistic to me.

Do you think atheism is optimistic? How?

Delusion, denial or deflection is always an option, not just for atheists. Dawkins is on a mission with his new book - so he's very upbeat. He's successful and respected so his ego is getting plenty of attention, he has a comfortable well paid job at Oxford. He's happy.

That does not mean his beliefs are optimistic, only that he can distract himself from their consequences. Others, in less advantageous circumstances may be more exposed. Sartre said it is when things are going badly for us and the pressure is on that our real character is seen. When life gets really shitty, unsurprisingly is when most people realise their need of a belief.

Do you remember the "Total Perspective Vortex" in HHGG?

A new understanding of what life is would probably be needed. Crediting intelligence for the creation of the universe is more than likely reflecting your inability to think outside of the box. Apparently you think that everything is just an endless cycle of intelligence creating intelligence and we are just one link in the chain.

No, but I do see us as a reflection of a greater intelligence which is all around. What do you see?

 

[KennyJC]

The miracles... who knows? Are they so important?

They are a vital part of the Gospels and play an effective role in its popularity. But since they are without doubt, clearly fictional, it doesn't lend much credability to the rest of the Gospels as a whole. This is why religious text is rarely trustworthy at documenting history as there is an obvious bias to inflate it's own importance.

Ahhh... yet another strange word usage. You should start your own dictionary Kenny!

'Effectively' means (according to Answers.com):

1)In an effective way.
2)For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.

Yes, and for all practical purposes, God does not exist in any effective way. It seems you need an example: Ka of about 10^5 essentially means that the acid effectively doesn't exist in water, only the ions are present to any measurable degree.

To say it's a fact that God 'effectively' does not exist, you either mean God has no effect or that for all practical purposes he doesn't exist. I'd say whatever your views on religion, 'God' seems to have a marked effect on people, and this has very practical consequences. If you are a theist, God's 'effect' is to create the universe, sustain it, answer prayers etc. etc. So your statement is inaccurate in every way!

I mean both if God doesn't exist. If God does exist, then I mean for all practical purposes he doesn't exist as it is not detectable. If God does not exist, yet billions of people believe, then this is parallelled with those who continue to believe the stars have influence in daily human affairs (they don't btw).

This is a good example. The way you use it, if you (Kenny) don't believe something is true - then you presume it's generally accepted as untrue. So, the actual Kenny's dictionary definition of delusion is:

something a person believes to be true because they want it to be true, when it is actually not what I think is true.

Well any 'delusion' could turn out to be true. If a doctor claims a patient is delusional because he is convinced he has been abducted by aliens, it could turn out that the patient actually was being abducted by aliens. But the point is that far-fetched, fanciful (even non-physical) claims can most often be accurately described as a delusion. In particular, the fundamentalists approach to religion is without doubt delusional. Anybody who is sure about the existence of something that is not measurable, is delusional.

Since you seem even reluctant to express doubt in the existence of the subject of your belief in the face of no evidence, I consider you delusional too.

In fact it hasn't - globally religion (especially Islam) is still growing faster than the population increase. I have heard of secularism.

Even if this is true, I was meaning the extent to which our lives revolve around religion. Religion was once in power, and it was once common fact that every word of the Bible and other such books was infallible. Certainly, I think without doubt, people who call themselves atheists and non-religious are growing. In my country (the UK) non-religious/believers are nearly at 50%. And I wonder how much of the other 50% are praciticing. It used to be a deeply religious country. I was born and raised a Catholic, this is still deemed my religious identity... yet I am an atheist. Your judgement at the apparent continue growth of religion is that people are simply born into a particular religious identity, not if they survive the brainwashing during childhood.

There's that ubiquitously useful word again! Actually, as well as not receiving a Nobel Prize, I can't claim I invented non-physical reality either. Plato possibly, or even earlier thinkers?

I see nothing wrong with 'thinkers' or philosophy, but to attatch yourself to a belief system that creates the notion of God, and the motives/attributes of God is creating a non-physical fantasy for yourself.

It is a 'fact' - theists survive life traumas better.

See for example research by Aaron Antonovsky on holocaust survivors.
There's also an interesting article with an interview with a sociologist (Linda George) here.

Can we compare organized religious communities to secular communities that also give structure and meaning, in terms of health benefits for participants?

Her answer is that everything is religion. I skimmed through the article, and I wasn't convinced, she was obviously trying to discredit material or non-religious beliefs whilst promoting her own. If I had time time I would read it properly and judge wether or not this person had a clear bias.

Do you think atheism is optimistic? How?

Dare I say atheists are more optimistic than theists? Theists put too many needless confines in life and the atheist (without these confines) have a much more positive outlook. Many realize that when they are dead, thats it. But I don't think it's pessimistic to accept the truth?

Delusion, denial or deflection is always an option, not just for atheists. Dawkins is on a mission with his new book - so he's very upbeat. He's successful and respected so his ego is getting plenty of attention, he has a comfortable well paid job at Oxford. He's happy.

Sartre said it is when things are going badly for us and the pressure is on that our real character is seen. When life gets really shitty, unsurprisingly is when most people realise their need of a belief.

I think you have this all wrong. As an atheist if something bad were to happen like I get diagnosed with a brain tumour or something, I am pretty sure I will accept the fact that "that is just the way things go". What is the point in moaning about things that life throws at you? We all have to go through shitty times and death. Just have some sense to deal with it. Inventing a fantasy as a distraction isn't something I admire, but if weak people really need to do that, then fair enough.

No, but I do see us as a reflection of a greater intelligence which is all around. What do you see?

An immense bubble for us to explore and make sense of.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

They are a vital part of the Gospels and play an effective role in its popularity. But since they are without doubt, clearly fictional, it doesn't lend much credability to the rest of the Gospels as a whole. This is why religious text is rarely trustworthy at documenting history as there is an obvious bias to inflate it's own importance.

'they are without doubt clearly fictional' - LOL, I love your brazen overconfidence! You have much in common with fundamentalists who have a similar overconfidence in the veracity of their beliefs.

Yes, and for all practical purposes, God does not exist in any effective way. It seems you need an example: Ka of about 10^5 essentially means that the acid effectively doesn't exist in water, only the ions are present to any measurable degree.

The point is the undissociated acid DOES exist, and DOES have an effect even at 1 molecule per 100,000 H+ ions. Remove it (e.g. by solvation) and the H+ ions slowly disappear too. Is this a modern equivalent of Jesus' analogy of the mustard seed ending up the size of a tree I wonder?

I mean both if God doesn't exist. If God does exist, then I mean for all practical purposes he doesn't exist as it is not detectable.

Not by a detector, but ask any theist, and they will tell you that God has an effect in their lives.

Well any 'delusion' could turn out to be true. If a doctor claims a patient is delusional because he is convinced he has been abducted by aliens, it could turn out that the patient actually was being abducted by aliens. But the point is that far-fetched, fanciful (even non-physical) claims can most often be accurately described as a delusion. In particular, the fundamentalists approach to religion is without doubt delusional. Anybody who is sure about the existence of something that is not measurable, is delusional.

Can you measure trust or love or courage, or happiness or charisma or wisdom? What SI units are they measured in? They are not objectively or scientifically measurable, yet many non-deluded people are sure they exist. Indeed they are more relevant to most people’s lives than most scientific measurements!

The hypothesis that something that is not measurable does not exist is clearly false, yet seems to be the basis for most atheism!

Since you seem even reluctant to express doubt in the existence of the subject of your belief in the face of no evidence, I consider you delusional too.

Very kind of you! I’d be alarmed if you considered me anything else, given your definition of ‘delusion’. However, ‘doubt’ is my middle name. My foremost criticism of both atheists (including you) and fundamentalists, is that the presentation of an opinion as a certainty. Born again atheists (to use Jonathan Miller’s description of Richard Dawkins) are very similar to fundamentalists in so many ways.

Dare I say atheists are more optimistic than theists? Theists put too many needless confines in life and the atheist (without these confines) have a much more positive outlook. Many realize that when they are dead, thats it. But I don't think it's pessimistic to accept the truth?

If you mean by ‘confines’ that theists generally have a stronger sense of morality – I would agree with you. However, atheists put ontological confines around what can exist - there can be nothing beyond what we can measure objectively. Even Dawkins has said that ‘Nature is red in tooth and claw’ and any morality derived from an observation of nature (e.g. Social Darwinism) was abhorrent to him. Physical existence as Hobbes observed is “warre of every man against every man” resulting for many in “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To celebrate that as the only possible reality is what I mean by pessimism.

An immense bubble for us to explore and make sense of.

So, what lies outside the bubble’s walls? Delusion!?

 

[euphrosene]

... .. those who continue to believe the stars have influence in daily human affairs (they don't btw).

Who was it said, 'according to your beliefs...'

Our experiences and realities are usually created by our beliefs.

In many circumstances, the beliefs of others also 'have an influence in daily human affairs'... the jihadist terrorists for example.

Or perhaps someone relatively reasonable like Ronald Reagan and his use of astrologers (via his wife)?

The Chinese, a rising economy with an impact on Western prosperity, use astrologers, feng shui and various other esoteric devices.

Belief causes action and those actions do influence daily life - whether your belief is in a football team's superiority or whether you believe in an Infinite Intelligence (as I do).

 

[Enterprise-D]

Belief causes action and those actions do influence daily life - whether your belief is in a football team's superiority or whether you believe in an Infinite Intelligence (as I do).

Unfortunately theisms create people who wallow in mediocrity, simply wading through life until they supposedly meet their maker in an "eternity of bliss".

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Unfortunately theisms create people who wallow in mediocrity, simply wading through life until they supposedly meet their maker in an "eternity of bliss".

You mean people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Whitehead, T.S. Elliot, J.R.R.Tolkein, C.S.Lewis, William Wiberforce, Lord Shaftsbury, Elizabeth Fry, Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday, Samual Morse, Gregor Mendel, Raphael, Michelangelo etc. etc. etc.

....a random selection of people who wallowed in mediocrity, all wading through life, or washed up on the shore of eternity!

 

[euphrosene]

Unfortunately theisms create people who wallow in mediocrity, simply wading through life until they supposedly meet their maker in an "eternity of bliss".

A bit of a sweeping statement, but you may be right about the masses.

What excuse do mass-mind atheists have for their one-note mediocrity?

 

[Enterprise-D]

You mean people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Whitehead, T.S. Elliot, J.R.R.Tolkein, C.S.Lewis, William Wiberforce, ...

See below...

A bit of a sweeping statement, but you may be right about the masses.

Correct it is somewhat of a sweeping statement, and Diogenes' is correct, there were a lot of theists that made a difference in the world. Keep in mind however that every single example that Diogenes' cited are either:

1. dead
2. were all alive before science dispelled the unchallenged planetary hold of the Vatican powerhouse (even the scientists in your list couldn't have known better due to their indoctrinations).

or if not dead,

3. As US presidents (Carter, Clinton) they ideally MUST appear as theists to attain and maintain votes, who knows what their beliefs actually are.
4. Attaining a high TITLE doesn't necessarily mean that the titled person is laudable (look at George W.). Plus Clinton was 'disgraced' for bed-hopping - not a norm for a by the Book theist right? I do agree tho Diogenes, that Clinton was quite the President.


That notwithstanding, Euphrosene, I did mean the general masses. Diogenes' list does not bely the fact that theisms create people who are satisfied with mediocrity, just following rote and calendar of the office, church and sustenance, waiting to die and join their creator.

What excuse do mass-mind atheists have for their one-note mediocrity?

Mass-mind atheism does not exist. This may seem to exist because athiests and agnostics all have the same answer with the same steps; this in no way means that athiests had any meeting or teachings lol this just means that logic works. A common lack of belief or common logic has nothing to do with "mass mind".

A common theism belief however MUST be a mass mind occurence, since theisms are not a natural order or a genetic trait...a belief in god or gods does not naturally occur. Persons are indoctrinated during childhood by their parents or authority figure, and think they believe in god.