To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?

[Crunchy Cat]

Some people claim to have physical sensations of an objectively existing energy in their bodies,...

I happen to be one of those people from an experiential point of view (not the claim).

...but westen science cannot detect anything.

Can 'western science' detect when a person tastes chocolate while dreaming? Clearly a subjective experience doesn't have to have a 1:1 correlation with objective stimulus nor is science at the level of measuring the details of a subjective experience.

Should these people be believed or not?

That they experience something or that they have some sort of exotic energy flowing in their bodies?

Are they just imagining it, or is something which isn't just their imagination objectively taking place?

What about controllable minor hallucination? Muscle contraction?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Soemtimes it goes the other way too. Science shows something that gives evidence of life after death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

In ttis instances the so-called science-minded sceptics dismiss the science. Why? Truth is taking a backseat. I guess cause they like their nice safe worldview where they have the universe completely figured out.

Regardless, what if there is not life after death? What does that do to you?

The truth has not been settled as fundamentalists of all stripes would like to have it. It just isn't that simple, can't be pinned down by humans with their limited intelligence and perceptions. We are merely the smartest monkeys on this planet. Pretty ridiculous for the smartest monkey to think it has everything figured out.

This isn't about knowing everything. This is about values. If science were to prove that all the big questions you derive hope from are stupid questions or that all the answers to those big questions that you hold true are really spectacularly false, what do you do? Do you find ways to protect your hope? Do you place it in something else? Why did you place hope in something to begin with?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It's the opposite, I value the truth as the highest, atheists can't handle the truth so they say "oh well, lets just say there is no God, nothing supernatural is true, religion is all false" "we all know that evidence causes something to become true, nothing is true without evidence"

The purpose of religion is to discover the truth...

So what truth have you uncovered that 'atheists' cannot handle?

 

[VitalOne]

So what truth have you uncovered that 'atheists' cannot handle?

I'm not saying that I have discovered truth that atheists can't handle, I'm saying that atheists do not value the truth, they value preserving the atheistic faith-based belief system over everything else, thats why they say that nothing is true without evidence, they have written books in hopes of converting others into atheists, wish everyone in the world would become atheists, etc...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm not saying that I have discovered truth that atheists can't handle, I'm saying that atheists do not value the truth, they value preserving the atheistic faith-based belief system over everything else, thats why they say that nothing is true without evidence, they have written books in hopes of converting others into atheists, wish everyone in the world would become atheists, etc...

Can you show me any truth that atheists can't handle? Also can you show me where atheists say that nothing is true without evidence? What are the big important questions to you and what answers do you have (if any)?

 

[Tnerb]

Yes I understand. CC is bringing his "anthromorpization of reality" arguement which is of course interesting to me into the religion sub-forum! Profound CC! Let us see how lightgigantic, ... are there any other christians on this board?... or others handle the question. I'm all for it I suppose.

 

[superluminal]

Theists value "hope" more than "truth" because they cower in abject fear at the prospect of death being simple oblivion. No matter what the sophisticated arguments they present for why they believe, the fear of death being oblivion is at the root of religious belief.

The hope or faith (blind acceptance without the need for evidence) in some afterlife is completely unsupported by the investigations of science (from the Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge'). For the frightened and weak it's very easy to accept the claims of con men for an afterlife. It's far more difficult to accept what logic, reason, and evidence (or lack thereof) tell you. This is one reason that many atheists look down on (and they do) many theists.

 

[KennyJC]

Let me get this straight, your looking this new term up on the internet, and think you have enough authority to pronounce it nonsense. Why don't you try doing some actual research on it instead of just assuming you know it all. That's ignorant and arrogant and thoroughly unscientific.

I briefly read through the very thing you told me of, and half of it was supernatural BS. Any rational person will testify to that - there is no 'psychic center' in the body. Any scientific evidence of that?

I'm not saying there's nothing to it: I could go to a Yoga class and learn an awful lot... but the spiritual part of it is the most meaningless part. That is the part that is added on for the sake of people who like religious/supernatural mumbo jumbo.

That's just your opinion. You don't exactly sound like an expert on the subject so with all due respect your opinion doesn't really count for much.

Well with all due respect, there is no expert on the supernatural. I have seen the most 'highly respected' people in this field interviewed by true rationalists, and they literally had nothing - they looked utterly stupid. They sounded as stupid as your average redneck Christian. Take away the 'spiritual' aspect of it, and they are just meditating - at peace - which is something the most atheistic of us can do.

That's no why they get brought up. One of the reasons they get brought up is because eastern religions do not rely on faith.

Does not rely of faith? The very first paragraph I read from whatever it was you stated as an example of 'objectivity' stated that the body has 'psychic centers'. Unless science can state evidence for the existence of these psychic centers in the human body, then I'm afraid it's faith, because there is no such thing. And religions like Hinduism require every bit as much faith as any other ridiculous religion. What's all this bullshit about reincarnation? Don't make me laugh.

Just your opinion. Again, you're no expert so your opinion doesn't count for much. You might as well keep your opinions to yourself. Don't bother googling terms you've heard for the first time and cutting and pasting them on here. It's a waste of your time.

For the last time, you are no expert in the supernatural. People can claim to be expert ghost hunters... but if ghosts don't exist, then they are not experts in the field they claim, are they? Because the field they are 'experts' in is not valid - is made up.

Just your opinion. Based on nothing much. Seriously, what meakes you think you know everything? It's ignorant.

Since I have been an atheist, I have literally heard all the arguments that religious and spiritualist people have made. They are totally void of argument. It's no longer my opinion, but it's pretty much fact that theists do not know what the fuck they're talking about. A person can know everything about Christianity or any other religion... but at the end of the day, Jesus was not the son of god, and wasn't resurrected. Anybody who knows how to think knows this.

If labeling your childish fantasy false makes me ignorant, then so be it... but give evidence of the supernatural then you will win a nobel prize.

 

[KennyJC]

Soemtimes it goes the other way too. Science shows something that gives evidence of life after death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

In ttis instances the so-called science-minded sceptics dismiss the science. Why? Truth is taking a backseat. I guess cause they like their nice safe worldview where they have the universe completely figured out.

Because science minded people have outer body experiences too. It just so happens that people who want to put a religious slant on it get the column inches.

Many times when I fall asleep with the TV switched on, as I'm asleep I swear I can SEE the TV, but my eyes are shut. I can obviously hear the TV in my sleep, and associate images in my head based on my situation and what I'm hearing. And this is when I am merely asleep. When I'd be in a near death experience, Imagine what the brain is doing when it is fighting to live... it shuts down components and and no doubt will give you a trippy ride, and you don't even have to pay to experience it. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people report outer body experiences when almost dead.

Just go in something that spins you around so fast that you pass out due to lack of blood to the brain. People have reported apparent outer body experiences in these extreme physical circumstances. The simplest most obvious explanation to this phenomena is that the brain is under stress and gives you dream-like experiences.

The truth has not been settled as fundamentalists of all stripes would like to have it. It just isn't that simple, can't be pinned down by humans with their limited intelligence and perceptions. We are merely the smartest monkeys on this planet. Pretty ridiculous for the smartest monkey to think it has everything figured out.

Well don't go making supernatural claims as they are logically the last thing that is likely to be the truth.

 

[Exhumed]

Some atheists do the same thing. There are things I want to be true, but I can't be sure if they are. I act is if they are true because even if I'm wrong I don't view myself as any worse off for trying.

 

[lightgigantic]

Where's the implication that these were given as indicators of god's non-existence.

Crunchy Cat was asked for examples of what he means when he defines "truth" as "what objectively is", and he gave 4 examples.

thats okay but then its hard to understand why he uses these 4 examples to somehow exclude God from the category of objectivity

At no point does he state, or even imply, that these are evidence of God's non-existence.

he does however seem to use them as sufficient to establish a dichotomy between god (an apparent substance of hope) and apples, etc (an apparent substance of truth)

It is certainly not implied from the thread title...

it certainly is

as in this thread he has merely asked theists why they value hope more than truth.

yes yes, but working from the foundation that god is not objective (like apples etc are)

So please do not feel you need to jump to the defensive quite so soon.

its only possible to defend or assault a coherent argument

until its ascertained how something is deemed objective

at the moment we are still trying to determine how something is deemed as objective or not (outside of the whim of atheists)

 

[lightgigantic]

What if apples, water, rediation, and plamsa definitively proved that all specific or generic 'God's don't exist? What would that do to you and why?

I guess it would prove to me that god does not exist - what else? - just the same as if you encountered apples, water, rediation, and plamsa that definitively proved that God does exist, it would prove to you that god does exist - the problem at the moment is that I can't fathom why someone would call upon these things to determine how god does not exist .....

 

[lightgigantic]

Theists value "hope" more than "truth" because they cower in abject fear at the prospect of death being simple oblivion. No matter what the sophisticated arguments they present for why they believe, the fear of death being oblivion is at the root of religious belief.

fear of death is a sign of sanity

The hope or faith (blind acceptance without the need for evidence) in some afterlife is completely unsupported by the investigations of science (from the Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge').

, that
so its obvious that you have faith in classical empirical investigation, that's all

given that the senses are subject to these four imperfections

1. imperfect senses.... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2. tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
3. tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4. a cheating propensity .... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

we can drive the equivalent of freight trains through your apparently impeachable belief system

For the frightened and weak it's very easy to accept the claims of con men for an afterlife.

for the frightened and weak its very easy to accept the claims of anyone - for instance the prospect of serving a superior god in loving submission has inherent calls of ultimate responsibility that make an atheist frightened and weak

It's far more difficult to accept what logic, reason, and evidence (or lack thereof) tell you. This is one reason that many atheists look down on (and they do) many theists.

thats because the object of faith of the atheist (classical empiricism) is different than the object of faith of the theist

 

[grover]

I happen to be one of those people from an experiential point of view (not the claim).



Can 'western science' detect when a person tastes chocolate while dreaming? Clearly a subjective experience doesn't have to have a 1:1 correlation with objective stimulus nor is science at the level of measuring the details of a subjective experience.

Right, so there are some subjective claims that are not necessarily verifiable. That doens't mean they don't exist.

That they experience something or that they have some sort of exotic energy flowing in their bodies?

That it's possible.

What about controllable minor hallucination? Muscle contraction?

People that have this know that it is not recognized by western science. They know that they have these uniques and distinct physical effects and that western science does not recognize their existence. At the same time this phenomenon is accounted for in eastern religions. The fact that this disctinct phenomenon exists is more or less undeniable (in my opinion) I just wonder why it is has never been touched upon by western science (even if it is just to prove that nothing objective is happening, if thats the case).

 

[grover]

Regardless, what if there is not life after death? What does that do to you?

Nothing. I still have to die.

This isn't about knowing everything. This is about values. If science were to prove that all the big questions you derive hope from are stupid questions or that all the answers to those big questions that you hold true are really spectacularly false, what do you do?

Well, you should abandon them.

Do you find ways to protect your hope? Do you place it in something else? Why did you place hope in something to begin with?

From a certain perspective shit looks pretty bleak. Living in a meaningless universe where nothing you do matters because ultimately you are just a chance creation in an infinte void where the only thing that is certain is your eventual death is pretty bleak. Thats why many people need hope.

 

[superluminal]

so its obvious that you have faith in classical empirical investigation, that's all

This again? So you think that my requirement for verifiable facts is some sort of faith. Hmmm...

I have a bridge for sale with your name on it my friend...

You should purchase a decent dictionary.

 

[lightgigantic]

This again? So you think that my requirement for verifiable facts is some sort of faith. Hmmm...

no

I think your requirement for fact to fall within the perimeters of your powers of sense perception, or alternatively the perimeters of the powers of sense perception of persons you have faith in, is some sort of faith

 

[grover]

I briefly read through the very thing you told me of, and half of it was supernatural BS.

Opinion

Any rational person will testify to that - there is no 'psychic center' in the body.

Opinion

Any scientific evidence of that?

Western science is only beginning to recognize that this is a distinct phenomenon.

I'm not saying there's nothing to it: I could go to a Yoga class and learn an awful lot... but the spiritual part of it is the most meaningless part. That is the part that is added on for the sake of people who like religious/supernatural mumbo jumbo.

You know I've seen alot of anecdotal accounts of really tight-laced super rational people taking up yoga or meditation for relaxation and the end up having their minds changed. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're not doing yoga or meditating everyday right? Yet you think you can intelligently comment on what the mental effects of these practices are...that is just a tad arrogant isn't it.

Well with all due respect, there is no expert on the supernatural. I have seen the most 'highly respected' people in this field interviewed by true rationalists, and they literally had nothing - they looked utterly stupid. They sounded as stupid as your average redneck Christian.

Who did you see? And stupid is your subjective opinion of how they looked.

Take away the 'spiritual' aspect of it, and they are just meditating - at peace - which is something the most atheistic of us can do.

Meditation is a spiritual practice. You can't take away the spiritual aspect of it. Sure, it'll calm you down, just don't flip the fuck out when you have some insights into reality or realize that the ego is an illusion.

Does not rely of faith? The very first paragraph I read from whatever it was you stated as an example of 'objectivity'

Did I really state that? Or did I just say you should make snap judgements about subjects your ignorant about.

stated that the body has 'psychic centers'.

Look, I don't know about energy centers or kundalini all that much. But, these phenomenon are universally recognized in eastern meditative traditions. Meditation is among toher things a method of becoming more aware of ones mind and body, whose to say these people aren't becoming aware of things the rest of us are not aware of?

Unless science can state evidence for the existence of these psychic centers in the human body, then I'm afraid it's faith,

No, people didn't just make up these energy centers or start believing in them. People that spent years in meditation started to experience them. It's not just faith.

because there is no such thing.

Again, just your opinion. Again, you don't have a drop of experience in meditation but act like your some kind of expert.

And religions like Hinduism require every bit as much faith as any other ridiculous religion. What's all this bullshit about reincarnation? Don't make me laugh.

Look up the research by Dr. Ian Stevenson. There is some scientific evidence. Here's what Carl Sagan had to say on the subject: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true."

Proof? No, I guess not. But it's not nothing either.

For the last time, you are no expert in the supernatural. People can claim to be expert ghost hunters... but if ghosts don't exist, then they are not experts in the field they claim, are they? Because the field they are 'experts' in is not valid - is made up.

If they're made up.

Since I have been an atheist, I have literally heard all the arguments that religious and spiritualist people have made. They are totally void of argument. It's no longer my opinion, but it's pretty much fact that theists do not know what the fuck they're talking about.

You take your opinion to be fact. Thats not conducive to truth.

A person can know everything about Christianity or any other religion... but at the end of the day, Jesus was not the son of god, and wasn't resurrected. Anybody who knows how to think knows this.

I don't personally believe this. But are you telling me St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine didn't know how to think.

If labeling your childish fantasy false makes me ignorant, then so be it... but give evidence of the supernatural then you will win a nobel prize.

So be it. The problem is you are certain for the wrong reasons. Christian Fundamentalists are certain for the wrong reasons too.

 

[superluminal]

no

I think your requirement for fact to fall within the perimeters of your powers of sense perception, or alternatively the perimeters of the powers of sense perception of persons you have faith in, is some sort of faith

So by sense perception, you mean ultimately the fundamental human senses? Yes. Ultimately, what you have is a set of senses that you verify by reason and experiment.

I have many, many reported instances of birds flying. I have in fact seen them myself. I could be misinterpreting the entire phenomenon. But I have actually caught one of these things and they really do fly! There is a new science called "aerodynamics" that remarkably predicts this behavior and even allows humans to reproduce it! Consistently!

Not one of the claims you or anyone makes for this god creature stands up to even such simple, rudimentary examination. Why not? Wait. I'll save you the trouble. If only I were trained in theology it would be just as obvious that god exists. Wait! Even children with no training whatsoever can see birds flying... Hmmm....

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Theists value "hope" more than "truth" because they cower in abject fear at the prospect of death being simple oblivion. No matter what the sophisticated arguments they present for why they believe, the fear of death being oblivion is at the root of religious belief.

The hope or faith (blind acceptance without the need for evidence) in some afterlife is completely unsupported by the investigations of science (from the Latin scientia, meaning 'knowledge'). For the frightened and weak it's very easy to accept the claims of con men for an afterlife. It's far more difficult to accept what logic, reason, and evidence (or lack thereof) tell you. This is one reason that many atheists look down on (and they do) many theists.

You might be right and there is value in seeing how a Theist answers the question. As 'strong' as the Atheist might be in embracing truth, from a social standpoint, it is not wise for a minority to look down upon a majority. All groups (no exceptions) judge other groups by one criteria... are the mean... and looking down is probably interpreted as mean.