Atheism

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are not equal though. Not believing something is the default state. To believe something you need a reason to believe it. The truth is most people also agree with that, but because they hold a certain unfounded belief very dear they try to make exceptions for it.

I agree. The most reasonable thing to say is "I don't know", and since you don't know you obviously wouldn't randomly belief it. Which is incorporated in atheism. You have to make an active choice to be a theist.

Concluding that something doesn't exist is more than saying "I don't know" or even more than just saying "I don't believe"

It's actually much closer to saying "I know", because there's no reason for me to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not all acts of faith are equal. In the absence of evidence, stating God doesn't exist is more reasonable than stating He does.
I would say IDK is the most honest conclusion. As for leaving it at that...it depends. The empirical map does leave wiggle room, and one is free to speculate, devising (IMO) compelling (though hardly convincing) arguments to keep God in the picture. At the very least, think of it as playing devil's advocate with the intent to jostle empiricist complacency.

What exactly would one even constitute as "evidence" that God doesn't or does exist? By definition God is super-natural and exceeds the bounds of things we consider concrete. Too many speak of proving or disproving the existence or God as if it's the same as a conventional means of determining what's "real", like a murder trial with physical evidence. They look at it in their own limited sense which is all that is to be expected.

In the abscene of any evidence(or what is imperfectly interpreted as evidence by human logic), concluding that you don't know will always be the "smartest" or "most reasonable" move. Always. Saying that believing one way or another is more or less reasonable based on absolutely nothing to begin with isn't "logical".

Originally posted by namorsubby
Concluding that something doesn't exist is more than saying "I don't know" or even more than just saying "I don't believe"

It's actually much closer to saying "I know", because there's no reason for me to believe otherwise.

Yes, that is my point. Atheism is "I don't believe" just as much as "I know it doesn't exist". Most atheists don't claim that it can't possibly exist, but that they don't believe cause there's no reason to believe

Originally posted by namorsubby
What exactly would one even constitute as "evidence" that God doesn't or does exist? By definition God is super-natural and exceeds the bounds of things we consider concrete. Too many speak of proving or disproving the existence or God as if it's the same as a conventional means of determining what's "real", like a murder trial with physical evidence. They look at it in their own limited sense which is all that is to be expected.

This "negative" evidence is really just a mathematical possibility, I don't think it concerns the natural sciences really. Proof that a God exists could be manifold though, say that any of the extraordinary claims in the bible happened, could potentially be proven if they did. For example a worldwide flood killing everyone. However that has never happened. Many Christians however do not take the Bible literally.

Originally posted by namorsubby
In the abscene of any evidence(or what is imperfectly interpreted as evidence by human logic), concluding that you don't know will always be the "smartest" or "most reasonable" move. Always. Saying that believing one way or another is more or less reasonable based on absolutely nothing to begin with isn't "logical".

That's not true. It is quite reasonable to question some tale, if you have no evidence whatsoever.

The "I don't know" is a default state of human existence, we don't know because our ability to know is very limited and always subjective. You might say "I don't know" is a trivial point, not worthy of deep discussion. I know it is a tempting, thing to point out when one first thinks of it, assuming no one else knows of skepticism, but among educated adults, pointing out that we don't know, we can't know, is pointless, as everyone ultimately agrees.

Originally posted by namorsubby
Concluding that something doesn't exist is more than saying "I don't know" or even more than just saying "I don't believe"

It's actually much closer to saying "I know", because there's no reason for me to believe otherwise.

and the position you are arguing for is much less "I don't know" than "I can't know", an statement equally as absolute as "god exists" or "god doesn't"

Originally posted by namorsubby
What exactly would one even constitute as "evidence" that God doesn't or does exist? By definition God is super-natural and exceeds the bounds of things we consider concrete.

IMO, the tools used and the data collected should be consistent with the phenomenon under study. What this means is you don't use, eg, a telescope to look for a nonempirical entity, eg, "God" or even the meanings of these sentences you are reading. Rather, if one is looking to discover or have a direct experience of "God," one needs to use the proper tool. Historically, traditionally, this has been meditation.

The other problem is operationally defining "God," so that when certain meditative experiences occur, we know how to interpret them (though supposedly, some are self-evident). Historically, traditionally, this has been the domain of mysticism.

Now basically, the scientific method is applied common sense: you do something, you see what happens, then have others repeat what you did and see if the same thing happens again. As such, one can theoretically construct a transcendent science following the same procedural rules as empirical science (indeed some mystical schools are very procedure-oriented and less interested in theory and interpretation, eg, Zen Buddhism). If a bunch of meditation masters experience the same insights and apply them with equal and positive results in the real world, then one could conclude that these insights reflect something real and valuable.

However, is this "God?" By definition, "God" is not only transcendent but ultimately undefinable (this is something all the mystical literature agrees on). Even if a mountain floats in the air, this at best can only empirically hint of a "God's" existence.

Ultimately, it may be that "God" is a deeply personal experience, and the only way "He" can be brought into the empirical world is through the benevolent actions of those claiming to have experienced "Him" (eg, the Bodhisattva). Supernatural/divine "powers" would be nice, but it would appear that this is not the way the world is set up. As Bruce Lee put it, if enlightenment were easy, it wouldn't be worth much.

In a nutshell, then, while I agree with what you're saying regarding God and empirical evidence, that doesn't put the theist's faith that God exists on equal ground with the atheist's faith that He doesn't.

**stepping off soap box**

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting view and less morbid than some atheists I've spoken to.

I do have one problem here -
How the hell can a particle disappear into nothingness?

to me something as infinitesimally small, like the parts of a particle, exists in a subplane that cannot be naturally percieved by humans. technologically yes, but not naturally. and this subplane is nothingness.

How can a particle disappear into nothingness? just by breaking down into smaller parts and entering into this zone automatically belonging to a demension nothingness. into a zone where objects, with no meaning, no purpose and no life, are immeasurably or incalculably small.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
to me something as infinitesimally small, like the parts of a particle, exists in a subplane that cannot be naturally percieved by humans. technologically yes, but not naturally. and this subplane is nothingness.

How can a particle disappear into nothingness? just by breaking down into smaller parts and entering into this zone automatically belonging to a demension nothingness. into a zone where objects, with no meaning, no purpose and no life, are immeasurably or incalculably small.

That sounds like New Age quantum technobabble.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

How can a particle disappear into nothingness? just by breaking down into smaller parts and entering into this zone automatically belonging to a demension nothingness. into a zone where objects, with no meaning, no purpose and no life, are immeasurably or incalculably small.

?
Particle cannot break down into nothingness otherwise, it never existed. Nothing cannot make up something.
It must transfer into something if it breaks down. Like Symmetric Chaos said, perhaps different type energy, but it cannot just disappear.

Even if it carries on into a different dimension, time or universe, it still exists, but elsewhere.

For all intents and purposes that would amount to the particle disapearing into nothingness. We're simply too used to the daily manisfestations of the law of mass conservation to picture things appearing and disappearing.

There is a theory that protons decay (on average) on the order of 10^36 years. That's about 100 trillion trillion times the present age of the universe. It was also thought that eventually dark energy will tear everything apart (in about 20 billion years) -- including subatomic particles -- but scientists aren't so sure about this anymore.

The simplest thing perhaps is to think of spacetime as a field of energy (not a "filler" of spacetime, like the aether), and particles as knots in the field (or if string theory is correct, the strings as twists of spacetime). Given enough time, the knots or twists unkink, and the cosmos eventually settles down to a near featureless field populated by the subtlest of quantum fluctuations.

Originally posted by 753
For all intents and purposes that would amount to the particle disapearing into nothingness. We're simply too used to the daily manisfestations of the law of mass conservation to picture things appearing and disappearing.

It's very easy to imagine things vanishing into nothingness. But intellectually we know that doesn't happen, even if it turns completely into energy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's very easy to imagine things vanishing into nothingness. But intellectually we know that doesn't happen, even if it turns completely into energy.

Originally posted by inimalist
what a stupid standard of evidence though. I can't disprove you wont get shot walking out of your door, are you going to stay inside forever?

well, not that I think it matters or anything, but I am also a professional scientist. Not a phd yet, but I can link you to some of my published work or to the cognitive neuroscience lab I managed if you really need proof.

I can't say for sure, but compared to fellow scientists and students I have met, I am much more interested in philosophy of scientific method than most are, so I wouldn't say no.

yes, but nothing in history has been disproved. Nobody "disproved" phrenology or eugenics, they just did better research and found better explanations.

Something not being disproved is not a very good measure of its truth

I think you missed the point I was trying to make though. I wasn’t actually saying that I thought you were conclusively wrong the point I was making is that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re both professional scientists how on earth do I deduce whos correct or not? I listened to what you said and I didn’t agree, however that could be due to ignorance on the methods of scientific experimentation.

Originally posted by inimalist

what points did lil make? do you honestly think I'm being dismissive? I read the freaking articles you posted. I specifically cited the parts that were controversial. You cannot accuse me of being close minded here.

I thought the point she was making was that the criticisms you made could be made about any scientific experiment and that would not necessarily be a problem.

Originally posted by inimalist

nope, my argument is that there are no conclusive results about psy, other than a pattern that is almost exactly what we would predict to see if there were no phenomenon.

I’m quite sure you asked me about how psi works and stated that if I didn’t have a good idea of what the mechanism was then it casts serious doubt on the experiment.

Originally posted by inimalist

ok, but here is where the mechanism question becomes important. You don't know how it works, so you can't say that concentrating on something can or can't make it easier, because we have no idea whether concentration, however it is operationally defined, is even involved in the viewing.

Are you saying that a person needs to attend to an object to view it? Like, through attentional systems? Do you see why questioning the mechanism is important? If you can't say how it works, you can't say what evidence actually proves what you are saying. By leaving it ambigious, you let anything that can be seen as "weird" be evidence for this ambigious thing.

Originally posted by inimalist

which theory do you think was given a less rigorous vetting process than psy?

I can’t think of anything off the top of my head but the problem is scientists have actually stated that science has proven psi to exist but we need more stringent experiments you know …..extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof blah blah. This is something that Richard Wiseman stated I would assume that there were reasons why he said that, but sorry I’d have to look into it.

Originally posted by inimalist

that would be fine, but that isn't the part I'm saying is really wrong. I'm saying there are taking results that could easily just be chance and claiming they prove psy. The problem is that these werent the predicted results, so largely, it is like cherry-picking.

I'm not the one making this up, this is a very minimum requirement of experimental design.

no, you haven't. In no way have you described an actual mechanism by which data could get from a remotely viewed object into a person's mind. You have also not provided an operational definition of any of the things you have claimed to be a mechanism.

Ok I’m going to have to apologise here. I went overboard in calling you a hypocrite all you were simply doing was telling me what you think. Here’s my problem though if what you say is true why is it that people think that psi has been proven? I don’t think I want to go through all the examples but lets take a look at the mechanism. I doubt that Jessica Utts can give you a much better description of the mechanism of psi, but I’m assuming some assumptions were made eg you need to concentrate to make psi work. If you’re asked to look at a picture you would have difficulty in describing it if you couldn’t concentrate. Obvoulsy psi uses the brain and in order to do any task properly you need to concentrate (the better you get the less concentration you need), why would psi be any different? That would also explain difficulty in moving objects.

Originally posted by inimalist

Well, if the answer is, "as the brain dies, weird things happen", then sure, if the answer is "the soul goes to heaven", then I'll grant you its paranormal. LOL, I don't see why you think me calling something natural would be an argument against it.

Especially for the psy thing, I want you to show me it is natural. ffs.

Fair enough but some people do try that tactic. *coughs* Nah can’t really give you a detailed explanation.

Originally posted by inimalist

We went over this in PM and you completely dismissed anything I had to say on the matter. The fact is, if doctors were performing the tests necessary to determine brain function on a person who was dying, they would be guilty of gross malpractice.

I don’t know if I dismissed everything you said. C’mon man, but I do remember cringing at one point I made. Good point though however other points can be added not sure if I made them via PM. You can post it here if you want (unless its going to make me look like a retard). So I'll being expecting a PM shortly. 😛

Originally posted by inimalist

ok, so we assume they were dead, and then they came back to life. Then what. Because they saw something we are to suppose that God exists and there is a soul in us?

dude, like, do I really have to spell out how huge of a jump in logic that is?

Assuming that current science indicates they were dead, yes. It doesn’t specifically prove God but yeah it would prove we have a soul. Yes there are other arguments that can be made but I bet you any money if it didn’t have any religious connatations nobody would really give a ****.

Originally posted by inimalist

If the experimenters knew which subjects were producing which drawings it would bias the way they evaluated them.

Sorry could you elaborate a bit more.

Originally posted by inimalist

straw man what? Historically you will find that science done outside of academia and without proper peer review is of a dramatically worse quality. Think Tripple A vs the majors.

Ok I was just saying scientists have stated that there is bias and some people maybe afraid due to prejuidice.

lol, I'm not ignoring you deadline, just a lot of philosophy of science stuff in there.

probably going to give you a couple of tl;dr responses, hopefully soon

I appologize to Digi for the previous and future wanking all over his thread. Wrangle us in whenever you want, however, I'll do my best to apply whatever I'm saying to religion and my own atheism (it is actually very closely related)

They are not equal though. Not believing something is the default state. To believe something you need a reason to believe it. The truth is most people also agree with that, but because they hold a certain unfounded belief very dear they try to make exceptions for it. I agree. The most reasonable thing to say is "I don't know", and since you don't know you obviously wouldn't randomly belief it. Which is incorporated in atheism. You have to make an active choice to be a theist.

How can you definitely define the "default" state. You are born hard wired with certain genetic predispositions that likely influence you one way or another.

Epigenetics and a strong contingent of psychiatric researchers attribute some mental illnesses to traumas that occur in the formative years. Likewise positive,well-adjusted behavior is likewise attributed to a positive, somewhat spiritual outlook on life in general

Their is also the fact that your culture will influence a tremendous portion of your thoughts on God and life after death by the time your 10 years of age and their is one other important fact: we are hard wired for spiritual experience.

Spiritual experience can have a biological basis and still be a "real" thing depending on how you perceive the role of the human brain. I personally see the brain as a modem, allowing us access to the 3-d world we live in and filtering out experiences or sensory perceptions that our minds cannot handle. Faults in this process; such as an excess of information which the mind cannot filter out, are mental illnesses like schizophrenia.

In my view I see the brain protecting us from too much information. This is my first post here so i'm going to slowly introduce my ideas (which are very spiritual and oriented towards life after death and the like)

Our hard wiring is located in the right occipital lobe. Researchers call it "the God spot." The fact that we are born with this indicates to me that we are meant to have a relationship with a non-reductionist world. Spiritual experience is one of, if the not the most, defining question and relationship of human existence.

It's sort of like sex - you can't avoid it. If you avoid sex, you are celibate. You have chosen to not engage in a basic human function. In relation to your own existence, relationship to the divine and the unknown, you are defining a huge portion of your life in terms of meaning and significance. Their is no escaping it because the need to know is there. We are mortal, we need to make decisions on our lives in relation to our mortal lives and the mortality of others around us.

I don't know doesn't cut the mustard. Everyone has an opinion. Genetics, experience and culture all contribute to it and who knows what else

just throwing it out there, but our "god spot" is almost certainly in the temporal lobe, unless you can show the research? Occipital lobe is also called the visual cortex, and most functions are well understood. I could be wrong, but I think its temporal.

temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with feelings of spiritual significance and often serious cases make people feel they are god.

I'd also argue 1) "spirituality" is not a positive for kids, in the same way "religion" is not, however a positive social environment with clear rules and one-on-one attention is (something normally associated with religion and spirituality) and 2) the brain isn't hard-wired to have spiritual experiences, it is that our systems of logic and reasoning come to conclusions that are better set for an organism surviving in the wild than in a modern city. We see this with spirituality and the way ambigious information is interpreted, but we also see this with basic cognitive things like memory, which is much better in settings where humans would have evolved than it is in cities.

EDIT: to default states though, even if it can be argued that humans have a bioilogical predisposition to see an actor where there is none, or to find disproportionate amounts of significance in coincidence, that is NOT the same as religion or a belief in god being the default. As far as declarative memory is concerned, there is no reason to believe that children are born with any such opinion, and as you claim, culture will inform this. An atheistic culture would still have to deal with people finding patterns in randomness, however, they would likely have a non-god related explanation.

Originally posted by inimalist
As far as declarative memory is concerned, there is no reason to believe that children are born with any such opinion, and as you claim, culture will inform this.

Well Sam Parnia and other have spoken about 3 year olds having NDEs. Not saying NDEs are real as a point just saying this could be an indication of being born with spirituality.

Oh I invited safado over from Herochat your going to like him. This is good for me as well to have two educated well-informed people having this discussion. At Herochat it goes nowhere because people don't want to debate they just want to win arguments. Hate to say this but sometimes I think im out of my depth when I get into discussions with you. 😮

Originally posted by Deadline
Well Sam Parnia and other have spoken about 3 year olds having NDEs. Not saying NDEs are real as a point just saying this could be an indication of being born with spirituality.

only if we assume, a priori, that an NDE is by definition a spiritual experience. I would argue it is not, and that it is only our cultural interpretation of the event that imbues it with "supernatural". If the majority of people in our culture did not believe in a transcendant soul or in life after death, there would be no need for such an interpretation.

I think this also gets into the dangerous area of trying to describe what is spiritual as what is supernatural or religious. I would consider myself highly spiritual at times, but it never has anything to do with the supernatural or paranormal. "spirituality" can be so individually defined that it almost becomes inherent to humans themselves. its a tricky word.

Originally posted by Deadline
Oh I invited safado over from Herochat your going to like him. This is good for me as well to have two educated well-informed people having this discussion. At Herochat it goes nowhere because people don't want to debate they just want to win arguments. Hate to say this but sometimes I think im out of my depth when I get into discussions with you. 😮

na, ive just been schooled in stuff few people know. it just looks impressive

Originally posted by inimalist
only if we assume, a priori, that an NDE is by definition a spiritual experience. I would argue it is not, and that it is only our cultural interpretation of the event that imbues it with "supernatural". If the majority of people in our culture did not believe in a transcendant soul or in life after death, there would be no need for such an interpretation.

Well if the afterlife isn't spiritual I don't know what is. I don't know, if everybody believed in the soul I don't think it would be considered spiritual. Dying would be just seen as changing your location.

Originally posted by inimalist

I think this also gets into the dangerous area of trying to describe what is spiritual as what is supernatural or religious. I would consider myself highly spiritual at times, but it never has anything to do with the supernatural or paranormal. "spirituality" can be so individually defined that it almost becomes inherent to humans themselves. its a tricky word.

I kinda see what you mean but the soul and the afterlife is pretty much as spiritual as it gets.

Originally posted by inimalist

na, ive just been schooled in stuff few people know. it just looks impressive

Yea thats what I mean, for starters I don't really know what makes a well constructed experiment.

Originally posted by safado
[B]How can you definitely define the "default" state. You are born hard wired with certain genetic predispositions that likely influence you one way or another.

Our hard wiring is located in the right occipital lobe. Researchers call it "the God spot." The fact that we are born with this indicates to me that we are meant to have a relationship with a non-reductionist world. Spiritual experience is one of, if the not the most, defining question and relationship of human existence.

not really, it just means that we, or at least a good portion of us, have the inherent capacity to create and believe in concepts like god and life after death. It doesnt mean we will necessarilly do so or that we are inclined to do it by default. We obviously also have the capacity to be naturally skeptical or to reject belief in anything we can't experience directly with our senses. None is more 'meant to be' than the other. Even adaptationist explanations for the emergence of these traits are unnecessary

While I share your antipathy towards reductionism and am skeptical of its capacity for producing understanding and accurate discriptions of the world, that has nothing to do with acceptance of metaphysics or supernatural entities

It's sort of like sex - you can't avoid it. If you avoid sex, you are celibate. You have chosen to not engage in a basic human function. In relation to your own existence, relationship to the divine and the unknown, you are defining a huge portion of your life in terms of meaning and significance. Their is no escaping it because the need to know is there. We are mortal, we need to make decisions on our lives in relation to our mortal lives and the mortality of others around us.

Spirituality, as I interpet the term, means deep emotional experiences and intelectual comprehension relating to myself and the world arround me. It is entirelly consistant with a materialistc view of the world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That sounds like New Age quantum technobabble.

well, it's not.