Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes our views of the world are all subjective. However that just means reality is filtered on the way to your mind. If someone accept that reality itself is subjective then they can never be convinced of anything, to that person there are no rules that the universe plays by, producing evidence is impossible. It's just a colorful sort of nihilism.

I thought it was as simple as introducing and convincing another of your particular subjective interpretation...which is pretty much what every argument is about: convincing another that your "brand" is better than another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought it was as simple as introducing and convincing another of your particular subjective interpretation...which is pretty much what every argument is about: convincing another that your "brand" is better than another.

When reality is fundamentally subjective it is impossible for one truth to be more accurate. There are an infinite number and all are equally valid.

"A is A" is not any more true than "A is B". The man tripping on LSD that thinks he's flying really is flying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a good point.

If I were hooked up to a PET scanner when I received answers to my prayers, what would activate in my brain? I've received very few answers to prayers but when I did receive answers, the voice was as clear as a conversation and it was a bit startling. But that should easily be seen on a PET scan.

most likely: something in the temporal lobe, likely in or around the superior temporal gurus or sulcus (STG, STS, as they more commonly appear in the literature.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The problem: how are we supposed to detect something like that when it occurs so few and far between?

actually, the problem wouldn't be detection at all. if someone had radically different neuroarchitecture or activations that permitted this data transfer from the divine to the brain, it would stand out like a sore thumb, the way lesions do.

you are right, the low population would make it hard to tests hypotheses on this group, but in terms of just being able to say somethin is very different, that would be fairly straightforward. we are talking about a group of people who supposedly have an additional sensory modality, ffs. this would be like arguing that "in the future, we might eventually realize humans have a third arm"

It's located right under the oft-spotted third nipple.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the problem wouldn't be detection at all. if someone had radically different neuroarchitecture or activations that permitted this data transfer from the divine to the brain, it would stand out like a sore thumb, the way lesions do.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
If you say so.

oh no, don't just take my word for it...

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
All I'm doing is trying to please your curiosity, then if you decide to disassemble it and throw science around is up to you. I know what I believe in, and it makes sense to me. If it doesn't to you, then that's not really my loss, now is it? You can probably explain most things in my world with science, if not all.

Nobody is telling you what you believe. If you don't want your opinions criticized or challenged, making fairly controversial claims on an internet discussion board is not your best idea to date.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
That doesn't mean I'm wrong, just that you maybe aren't.

well, yes, exactly. I haven't made any claim to absolute truth, in fact, I invite and encourage you to disassemble my ideas. God, you have no idea how long I've wanted to debate with someone about the neuroscientific view of dualism, for serious.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I don't get this. Could you elaborate, perhaps?

'god-of-the-gaps' refers to a strategy of debate common among creationists and other critics of evolution. Each time a new fossil or genetic finding is made that provides a more robust view of evolutionary history, it actually just creates more gaps between what we know, so like:

Ape - - - Man: there is only one gap, but, if we find the missing link between these two:

Ape - - - Missing Link - - - Man, we have two gaps. So, there will always be a place for creationists to say, "oh well, you still don't know what came between that missing link and man, so, therefore God".

The argument you are making is the exact same. "Oh, well, we still can't image thoughts, so, therefore [whatever weird thing you support]". All you are doing is pointing to places where we don't totally have a good theory, and using that to say, "well, you never know"

the problem is, us not understanding the materialistic explanation of all human thought really doesn't support any point you are making, and you will only have to continue retracting into less and less significant gaps as scientific knowledge moves forward.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I don't believe the world we see is subjective. I don't believe science is wrong (In this sense). I do however believe that spirituality can be subjective, that faith is subjective. I also believe there's more to this world than what we see, than what we explain.

of course there is. that is not evidence of real spirituality or of a dualistic "soul"

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I'm not sure I get what you mean, or what I meant with that, but perhaps you can make sense of it. Either way, note that I'm not here to convince or be convinced. My mind is set, because I feel the things I feel. Even could it all be proven as science, I probably still would believe.

again, nobody is trying to convince you of anything, least of all, science.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh no, don't just take my word for it...

Nobody is telling you what you believe. If you don't want your opinions criticized or challenged, making fairly controversial claims on an internet discussion board is not your best idea to date.

well, yes, exactly. I haven't made any claim to absolute truth, in fact, I invite and encourage you to disassemble my ideas. God, you have no idea how long I've wanted to debate with someone about the neuroscientific view of dualism, for serious.

'god-of-the-gaps' refers to a strategy of debate common among creationists and other critics of evolution. Each time a new fossil or genetic finding is made that provides a more robust view of evolutionary history, it actually just creates more gaps between what we know, so like:

Ape - - - Man: there is only one gap, but, if we find the missing link between these two:

Ape - - - Missing Link - - - Man, we have two gaps. So, there will always be a place for creationists to say, "oh well, you still don't know what came between that missing link and man, so, therefore God".

The argument you are making is the exact same. "Oh, well, we still can't image thoughts, so, therefore [whatever weird thing you support]". All you are doing is pointing to places where we don't totally have a good theory, and using that to say, "well, you never know"

the problem is, us not understanding the materialistic explanation of all human thought really doesn't support any point you are making, and you will only have to continue retracting into less and less significant gaps as scientific knowledge moves forward.

of course there is. that is not evidence of real spirituality or of a dualistic "soul"

again, nobody is trying to convince you of anything, least of all, science.

What I meant by "if you say so", is that I don't know what you went on about for a bit there. I don't know the things you speak of too well, so I am taking your word for it.

*

Oh, I'm well aware of what happen when you put your belief out there on the Internet. I'm not surprised, offended or in any way in dismay with this discussion. I love a good discussion, and this is one of few. What I meant with what I wrote, was that you've gone beyond my field of knowledge with your talk and that I can not discuss the things you've brought up.

My point is that I'm trying to sate your curiosity, but you're insatiable. My point is that the things you struggle to turn logical, is natural to me. I can't explain it to you, because I can barely define it myself. So what I mean when I say what I did, is that I'm sorry I can't be more insightful.

Reading it now afterhand, I realize it came out very wrong. I apologize for this. I vote we scratch that part, because I'm not quite sure where it came from to begin with, nor its relevance.

*

I'd be delighted to be part of an elaborate debate, but I'm afraid my knowledge on the matter is far more limited than yours.

*

Oh, I know it doesn't support my point. That's not what I've been saying. What I'm saying is that because of our inadequacy in particular fields of science, we don't really know, and because we don't know, it's not impossible. Which is the root of my participation in this thread, the word "impossible"

I understand now what you mean with that, and in a sense I suppose I plead guilty on the matter. I don't say "therefore God", however (That I don't believe in God being irrelevant), but rather "perhaps God?" (Note the questionmark).
I have a very open spirituality, a quite unorthodox faith. I don't believe in God, but I don't deny his existence, because I feel it's not my place to say that he does or doesn't exist.

I believe in an abstract intelligence, which makes all of this very easy to discuss and faults in my belief easy to excuse. I'm probably a very unsatisfying person to discuss faith with in depth, because I can probably be something of a broken record, I suppose. But I digress, quite majorly ...

*

That last thing was just a general statement. Wouldn't want to waste your time if it turns out you were out to foil my faith. I also didn't want to appear like someone who asks people to think as I do, because "it makes sense", so it was more or less a 'fyi'

Originally posted by Mindship
'Neurostructure' seems different from 'activation', ie, I interpret the former as some sort of lasting, detectable structure (which would stand out like a lesion); the latter as a unique way the brain momentarily 'lights up' when dadudemon is having his experience, and at no other time.

that is correct. and if we were talking about some weird sort of like activation regarding abstract semantic whatever, sure, that is probably true.

if we are talking about an entirely new sensory modality, probably not. that activation would need to be so distinct that it would be unmistakable. akin to activation seen in the visual cortex in trials where eyes are open versus where they are closed.

even if we get into quantum theories, which I'm not a fan of anyways, those quantum effects would would still produce such radically differen patterns of activation in whichever cells are involved in this perception.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the problem wouldn't be detection at all. if someone had radically different neuroarchitecture or activations that permitted this data transfer from the divine to the brain, it would stand out like a sore thumb, the way lesions do.

you are right, the low population would make it hard to tests hypotheses on this group, but in terms of just being able to say somethin is [b]very different, that would be fairly straightforward. we are talking about a group of people who supposedly have an additional sensory modality, ffs. this would be like arguing that "in the future, we might eventually realize humans have a third arm" [/B]

This assumes that only a few people have to ability to "hear the voice of God/s" when most theists believe that everyone is capable of that. It would not stick out at all: it would be something we all have in common.

However, I'm of the belief that it is the spirit that is the commonality, which has yet to be found.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's located right under the oft-spotted third nipple.

lol

You know...things would be so much easier if God actually gave us a very real and measurable "something" that indicated who his mouthpieces were. That would certainly stop a lot of bickering and remove lots of faith from the equation.

Third nipples possessors are all prophets and can be tested in a lab as being able to accurately predict the future or call down destruction in behalf of God...that would make this life so much easier and I'd certainly be a "better" person as would every single ahteist.

Originally posted by inimalist
that is correct. and if we were talking about some weird sort of like activation regarding abstract semantic whatever, sure, that is probably true.

if we are talking about an entirely new sensory modality, probably not. that activation would need to be so distinct that it would be unmistakable. akin to activation seen in the visual cortex in trials where eyes are open versus where they are closed.

even if we get into quantum theories, which I'm not a fan of anyways, those quantum effects would would still produce such radically differen patterns of activation in whichever cells are involved in this perception.

I agree. This is why I would think the activation would be similar to a conversation with sight, sound, and to a lesser extent, memory areas "turning on."

Like we talked about before...that would be hard to measure. Some people claim to have daily conversations with God: I call bullshit. The very very few experiences I've had were very distinct and one of the three reasons I cannot quite switch over to atheism. (That should light up the PET scan.) Well, I guess they COULD, potentially, but I do not believe in a God that interacts very often with his BILLIONS of children. I believe in a "let it be" sort of God.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What you guys fail to realize is that the whole universe is completely relative and everything is a matter of perspective or "a certain point of view", therefore, Q'Anillia is 100% right.

As are all of you.

/thread 313

Originally posted by dadudemon
This assumes that only a few people have to ability to "hear the voice of God/s" when most theists believe that everyone is capable of that. It would not stick out at all: it would be something we all have in common.

However, I'm of the belief that it is the spirit that is the commonality, which has yet to be found.

...

I agree. This is why I would think the activation would be similar to a conversation with sight, sound, and to a lesser extent, memory areas "turning on."

Like we talked about before...that would be hard to measure. Some people claim to have daily conversations with God: I call bullshit. The very very few experiences I've had were very distinct and one of the three reasons I cannot quite switch over to atheism. (That should light up the PET scan.) Well, I guess they COULD, potentially, but I do not believe in a God that interacts very often with his BILLIONS of children. I believe in a "let it be" sort of God.

ok, first off, I was giving evidence against detecting "spirituality" as being an aditional sensory modality, not as god communicating through conventional sensory modalities, which is a little different from what miss Q was saying.

you are sort of correct, yes it would be harder to identify this type of communication, but still trivial if proper controls are used, by standards of modern neuroimaging. detecting a conversation, even distinguishing between a person talking to themselves or engaging in a two way convo, would be simple, if we used tight enough controls. for interest sake, this is something that pet or fmri would be much less useful for, as they have poor temporal resolution, but EEG would work very well for.

the real issue is that there is no way to accurately control when god communicates with someone, and as I tried to show with the optical illusion, we can't trust people's self report.

I think this video makes an interesting point to just throw out there.....

YouTube video

I don't care if people judge me or not, I'm certainly not afraid of it.

Originally posted by willRules
I think this video makes an interesting point to just throw out there.....

Originally posted by inimalist
you are sort of correct, yes it would be harder to identify this type of communication, but still trivial if proper controls are used, by standards of modern neuroimaging. detecting a conversation, even distinguishing between a person talking to themselves or engaging in a two way convo, would be simple, if we used tight enough controls. for interest sake, this is something that pet or fmri would be much less useful for, as they have poor temporal resolution, but EEG would work very well for.

the [b]real issue is that there is no way to accurately control when god communicates with someone, and as I tried to show with the optical illusion, we can't trust people's self report. [/B]

Yeah, that's what I mean.

If I am to use the 3 instances out of 27 years in which I "heard the voice of God", being prepared for that detection moment would be very difficult.

Additionally, if we assume God is intelligent, and he fits the Christian bill of "do not tempt the Lord thy God", then he would not communicate to a person that is being monitored just for his prayer answer.

So, I do not see it as ever happening unless you get a schizo that thinks God is talking to him or her. (I do not know how different the brain "fires" on a schizo that hears voices versus someone having a conversation. I would think it's different...so forgive the poor analogy.)

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I pointed that out like, waaaayyy before you guys. Give me prestige!

lulz

True. And I agree with this.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Some christians may fear hell but not all. A good point is made though about how some that call themselves christians behave as though their actions are 100% pleasing to God all day every day, and because your actions aren't exactly like theirs you ARE going to hell. And they all believe different things.

That wasn't the point of the video, though. It was that on Atheism there cannot be objective right or wrong. Therefore to say anything is right, wrong, better or worse is a value judgement that can't be made. On Theism however this value judgement can be made because objective morality can be easily affirmed.

ofcourse they are, every1 is who is subjected to an unfavourable judgement. doesnt mean that the said judgement is real though. it also doesnt imply that they expect to be judged or ar atheists because they want to hide from the hypothetical judgement.

Originally posted by willRules
That wasn't the point of the video, though. It was that on Atheism there cannot be objective right or wrong. Therefore to say anything is right, wrong, better or worse is a value judgement that can't be made. On Theism however this value judgement can be made because objective morality can be easily affirmed.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheism can indeed have rights and wrongs. It could lack them as well. It has no rulebook or laws to follow. The person calling themselves an atheist can give the title whichever structure suits them the best. It could include moral code based on treating others well or it could reject moral code based on morals being a man-made illusion. A person could say that they don't believe anything another person tells them and describe themselves as an atheist. That would not then make all atheists people who don't believe anything that they are told. The title of atheist is only definable by the lack of belief in God or gods. Whether an atheist believes in morals or not depends on the individual. Remember a buddhist would fall into the category of not believing in God or gods. That could be making them a reluctant atheist by definition even if they rejected that title themselves. Buddhists have an objective code of right and wrong if I'm not mistaken.

Atheism does indeed have a rulebook. It is called "The Principles of Self-Glorification, Self-Justification, and Self-Gratification", and is written by self. <== Sarcasm

Anyway, you have to give atheists props; they are one of the few people on the planet who try to stand out. I'd wager that 80% of all people believe in some kind of god or another.

Also, The Mister, when you say that you are 'christian', do you mean catholic or do you mean a baptist or something? Two TOTALLY different things.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
Atheism does indeed have a rulebook. It is called "The Principles of Self-Glorification, Self-Justification, and Self-Gratification", and is written by self. <== Sarcasm

Anyway, you have to give atheists props; they are one of the few people on the planet who try to stand out. I'd wager that 80% of all people believe in some kind of god or another.

Also, The Mister, when you say that you are 'christian', do you mean catholic or do you mean a baptist or something? Two TOTALLY different things.