Calling all agnostics!

[Radu]

Out of curiosity, how many posters here are agnostic like myself? I have certain philosophical leanings which could be interpreted as religious, but nothing that I consider a religion. I read a lot. Alan Watts and Douglass Adams are probably my two largest religious influences, but I can't really say I fall into a specific camp.

If I'm going to be honest about it (which, in order to have any sort of legitimate discussion, I must be) I am a bit unsettled by religion. I don't know what it is, but people of strong religious faith are simultaneously enviable, enigmatic, and irritating. I would like to believe in something as firmly as some. I think it gives a lot of people a pretty substantial emotional baseline and helps them cope with life.

At the same time, I don't know how someone CAN be so thoroughly convinced of the "truth" of their religion. As far as I know, no religion incorporates the possibility that it may be wrong, unlike science. I've been wrong enough times that I can't really wrap my head around the idea that someone can be absolutely correct. It's simultaneously scary and baffling.

I suppose I take a certain comfort from the fact that I just don't know what's really going on or what the "One True Faith" might be. Strangely enough, being wrong about things doesn't make me feel bad about myself or make me question my existence. It reaffirms my humanity, because making mistakes is a fundamental part of what it means to be a human in the first place. Therefore, to me, agnosticism is very reassuring. Not knowing the answer means you can change your mind. Or not. And since the only reliable constant in life is change, I like not being locked into a certain mindset.

Of course, ask me again in 20 years and I'll probably have a different answer.

Are there any other agnostics here?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm agnostic about God in the same way I'm agnostic about Zeus or Shiva or Wotan or the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent. Which is to say, I have to acknowledge that one or more of them might be true, but I find it very unlikely on the currently available evidence.

Even the so-called "New Atheists" are really agnostics. The central chapter of Dawkins' The God Delusion is, after all, entitled "Why God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist".

My beef with faith is precisely the unfounded certainty you speak of. There is something scary about a mindset that is prepared to be certain of things without or against the evidence. It bothers me that faith is presented as a virtue in modern societies. It's always struck me as a vice.

[Schizm]

Ignoring Atticus' pimping of his usual prophets, I would reply that you know I'm around here.

[cyphersmith]

I don't believe that any one religion has it completely right, nor do I think that is possible. The idea that you have everything right is arrogance. I believe that there is a creator, but I also believe that there is no way that any one path to him is absolutely correct.

All religions have some truth to them, but none of them are fact.

[Dr_Avalanche]

I'm agnostic about God in the same way I'm agnostic about Zeus or Shiva or Wotan or the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent. Which is to say, I have to acknowledge that one or more of them might be true, but I find it very unlikely on the currently available evidence.


That is about my stance. I find the existance of divine beings to be rather unlikely, but I acknowledge the possibility.

[Dacke]

That is about my stance. I find the existance of divine beings to be rather unlikely, but I acknowledge the possibility.
We really need to get a :ditto: smiley around here.

[Eliezer]

Nope, I would not consider myself agnostic. Perhaps it would be better to say a believer with agnostic leanings.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Nope, I would not consider myself agnostic. Perhaps it would be better to say a believer with agnostic leanings.

Have you encountered Fowler's stages of faith development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development)? (dreadful article, I'm sure that a previous version was better, but, if it engages you then the second external link leads to something much better, but much more in depth). I don't think anyone can come through Fowler stage four without some level of agnosticism

[Eliezer]

Have you encountered Fowler's stages of faith development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stages_of_faith_development)? (dreadful article, I'm sure that a previous version was better, but, if it engages you then the second external link leads to something much better, but much more in depth). I don't think anyone can come through Fowler stage four without some level of agnosticism

Actually, I've never looked at that before, it does sound fascinating, though. I wonder why some people get stuck in some stages of faith. I know men much older than me whose faith has passed through the standard midlife changes in faith and they come through with an anthropomorphic deity and a stronger conviction. Others older than me just seem to not have strong feeling with regard to faith. It's an interesting question of faith development.

[panther.jd]

I'm in the Ditto category as well.

[GhostWolf69]

During my years at the university I always felt a litte agitated when people started refering to themselves as agnostics. It seemed like the chicken-way-out to me and something about all those humanitarian-relativist-liberal-lefties made me nervous. There is a brainwave at work here that I find very hard to accept and maybe even harder to put into writing or formulate even to myself.

cut'n-pasted from wikipedia:

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion."

As far as I know this definition of the term is the proper one and it is most often used in this way. Aberrations may exist but it doesn't matter to make my point.

My point is that calling onself Agnostic is like saying "I have no experience in this area, but I'm willing to submit to 'proof' if it hit me in the head."

My feeling here is that the statement is in itself quite pointless but that the person making it feels like he has proclaimed something about his/her person.

What he/she is really saying is this: "I'm not religious right now... but who knows... maybe in a couple of years I will be? If god himself steps down from heaven and prove to me that he exists, I guess I'll have to start believe in him."

What so the great secret about your personality is that you are willing to accept proof when you walk right into them?

In what way does that make you different from a scientist who claims NOT to believe in God, calling himself an Atheist?

In what way does that make you any different from the Priest who claimed to be an atheist until he was 25 years old and converted to Catholisism after he found Jesus (or maybe Jesus found him?)?

Both of these people are the same...

All you cowards out there, refusing to choose sides because you think you might have to "change" sides later on in the game and that would not reflect well on you, then calling onself an Agnostic is NOT refusing to take a stand between Religion and Non-Religion, instead it is a clear statement that you believe in Relativism and Subjectivism.

Me personally; I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, and the idea of a supernatural force guarding and watching over us is preposterous to me, something I find fascinating and have spent years studying at the University, something I find highly interesting as themes in literature and music, something that I acknowledge governs millions of humans on a dayily basis, but also something that I belive is utter bollocks, borderline psychotic, and slightly mad, in a very real and culturally accepted way.

I believe in science. That means I'm willing to accept changes to a paradigm if the basis for that change is within the criteria set by science. I guess I would believe in God if you could prove his existance in a scientific way. But I also have a feeling that if you could do that it would not be religion any more... it would be science... or maybe it will be the other way around?

I also acknowledge the fact that I myself might eventually succumb to the mental illness called 'religion'. That I might start to believe due to life crisis, revelation, hallucinogenic effects or whatever. I might even become a priest, and live life in full preaching the word. I will not look away from the notion that stuff like that could happen. In the same way as it is theoretically possible for me to divorce my wife hook up with a 21 year old model and run off to Las Vegas... or die in a car crash tomorrow... the future holds many secrets... I know that...

... but that doesn't make me an Agnostic.

Cause I still belive that what I can prove or falsify with science is true or false for everyone. I believe religion is bollocks, but very fascinating such.

/wolf

[Schizm]

My point is that calling onself Agnostic is like saying "I have no experience in this area, but I'm willing to submit to 'proof' if it hit me in the head."

My feeling here is that the statement is in itself quite pointless but that the person making it feels like he has proclaimed something about his/her person.

What he/she is really saying is this: "I'm not religious right now... but who knows... maybe in a couple of years I will be? If god himself steps down from heaven and prove to me that he exists, I guess I'll have to start believe in him."

What so the great secret about your personality is that you are willing to accept proof when you walk right into them?

In what way does that make you different from a scientist who claims NOT to believe in God, calling himself an Atheist?

In what way does that make you any different from the Priest who claimed to be an atheist until he was 25 years old and converted to Catholisism after he found Jesus (or maybe Jesus found him?)?

Both of these people are the same...

All you cowards out there, refusing to choose sides because you think you might have to "change" sides later on in the game and that would not reflect well on you, then calling onself an Agnostic is NOT refusing to take a stand between Religion and Non-Religion, instead it is a clear statement that you believe in Relativism and Subjectivism.



In other words, you don't get it, and thus feel the need to call people who are comfortable not knowing the answer cowards?

:lol:

The only true scientific position from which to answer the theistic question is that of "I don't know." Given that there is no testable, falsifiable experiment that can provide proof one way or the other, choosing either of the sides is merely an exercise in faith.


Of course, given the implication that your position is against relativism and subjectivism, I'd have to ask where you, as a self-acknowledged atheist, feel that your morality comes from. Please remember to answer the question in absolute terms. :lol:

[there_is_no_bob]

I'm agnostic about God in the same way I'm agnostic about Zeus or Shiva or Wotan or the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent. Which is to say, I have to acknowledge that one or more of them might be true, but I find it very unlikely on the currently available evidence. I'm jumping on this pile, too.

[Radu]

Really, I think the answer Schizm is equally valid for me as well, but allow me to answer it in another fashion:

If, by your definition, I am a coward because I am an agnostic, then so be it. My being a coward in your eyes does not affect me whatsoever, nor does it (or will it) change my views. That you feel I lack conviction because I am comfortable in my lack of knowledge is unfortunate.

I don't know what the answer to religion is. Therefore, I cannot really claim to be atheist. I know I don't really believe in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam as they have been presented to me. But that lack of belief does not translate into absolute certainty. I've changed my mind enough times in the past to recognize a pattern when I see one, and that pattern is this: I change my mind A LOT.

In an argument, I typically believe whole heartedly in my respective position, until I am faced with a superior argument. I then change my position to account for this new argument or (more often) adopt the new argument as my own. It happens all the time. I used to think Blade Runner was one of the most over-hyped and needlessly influential science fiction films of all time. Later on, I watched it again, with a different set of experiences and a different attitude. It has since become one of my all time favorite films of ANY genre.

This serves to illustrate my point that I cannot really say with certainty what it is I believe. I am still in the process of finding out, and so until I can come up with an answer that will satisfy those who need labels, I label myself an agnostic. If the answer, "I don't know" is unsettling to you, then may I suggest that it may be your belief system itself that disturbs you? Uncertainty and skepticism are cornerstones of scientific thought. Being uncomfortable with not knowing the answer is being uncomfortable with the very curiosity that is the driving force behind scientific exploration. At the risk of being a bit trite, I believe Trinity in The Matrix had it right when she said, "It's the question that drives us."

I said I was disturbed by religious faith. I said I did not know how someone could be so convinced of their own creed they did not acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. I said I might change my position in the future.

Never did I say that I disbelieved in God because I have no personal, direct contact with Him. I never asked anyone to explain to me their beliefs, justify their lack thereof, or clarify things.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Using the wiki definition, I'd be an agnostic theist

I wonder why some people get stuck in some stages of faith.

Research Is Continuing.

I suspect that not being part of a faith community that encourages and supports the search for truth, questioning, and occasional insanity that accompanies Fowler stage four isn't going to help

You might be interested in this (http://www.amazon.com/Churchless-Faith-Alan-Jamieson/dp/0281054657). It's the product of research into why people leave evangalical/charismatic/pentacostal churches and contains a great introduction into Fowlers ideas. Very few people leave these sorts of churches because they've lost their faith - all too often they leave because they want to grow

(Sorry for the theistic invasion)

[Schizm]

Using the wiki definition, I'd be an agnostic theist



Research Is Continuing.

I suspect that not being part of a faith community that encourages and supports the search for truth, questioning, and occasional insanity that accompanies Fowler stage four isn't going to help

You might be interested in this (http://www.amazon.com/Churchless-Faith-Alan-Jamieson/dp/0281054657). It's the product of research into why people leave evangalical/charismatic/pentacostal churches and contains a great introduction into Fowlers ideas. Very few people leave these sorts of churches because they've lost their faith - all too often they leave because they want to grow.

(Sorry for the theistic invasion)

Not at all Rich, I find your insights into religion to be fascinating and informative, and (speaking for myself only) welcome your presence in this thread. I would point out that it's interesting that the majority of self-identified Christians whom I can stand on matters of religion are those same "agnostic theists."

Prior discussions on the board have opened up a couple of subjects with you that I find rather intriguing, and would love to pick your brain about - if it could be done without interference from a certain Dawkins/Harris/et al.-l loving shitweasel. It seems currently impossible to have a meaningful discussion about religion, or lack thereof, without that person's regurgitation of opinions becoming the centerpoint of the thread.

[Freedom Canadian]

Regarding God and the validity of religion, I'm firmly in the "don't know, don't care, fuck Ghostwolf" camp. :D

[Special K]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. Given the amount of evidence and testimony from both theism and atheism, I chose to think one side more probable. I am not an agnostic, even though I do submit that if proof of a God was shown I would become a theist.

Of course, only the insane would stick to atheism after being shown proof otherwise, so I think I agree with Ghostwolf in that an agnostic doesn't seem much more different than either a theist or an atheist with enough sanity to alter his opinion after seeing proof towards the other side. Which in all likelihood will not happen. So essentially agnostics are either atheists or theists with the proper amount of flexibility, or they are content to say "I haven't even thought about it enough to take a guess."

I do think a lot of the argument is semantics, people like to label themselves. Its my opinion that the agnostic label is a little pointless, I'd prefer "non-religious" or "I don't think about it".

[Atticus_of_Amber]

During my years at the university I always felt a litte agitated when people started refering to themselves as agnostics. It seemed like the chicken-way-out to me and something about all those humanitarian-relativist-liberal-lefties made me nervous. There is a brainwave at work here that I find very hard to accept and maybe even harder to put into writing or formulate even to myself.

cut'n-pasted from wikipedia:

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people,[1] although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion."

As far as I know this definition of the term is the proper one and it is most often used in this way. Aberrations may exist but it doesn't matter to make my point.

My point is that calling onself Agnostic is like saying "I have no experience in this area, but I'm willing to submit to 'proof' if it hit me in the head."

My feeling here is that the statement is in itself quite pointless but that the person making it feels like he has proclaimed something about his/her person.

What he/she is really saying is this: "I'm not religious right now... but who knows... maybe in a couple of years I will be? If god himself steps down from heaven and prove to me that he exists, I guess I'll have to start believe in him."

What so the great secret about your personality is that you are willing to accept proof when you walk right into them?

In what way does that make you different from a scientist who claims NOT to believe in God, calling himself an Atheist?

In what way does that make you any different from the Priest who claimed to be an atheist until he was 25 years old and converted to Catholisism after he found Jesus (or maybe Jesus found him?)?

Both of these people are the same...

All you cowards out there, refusing to choose sides because you think you might have to "change" sides later on in the game and that would not reflect well on you, then calling onself an Agnostic is NOT refusing to take a stand between Religion and Non-Religion, instead it is a clear statement that you believe in Relativism and Subjectivism.

Me personally; I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, and the idea of a supernatural force guarding and watching over us is preposterous to me, something I find fascinating and have spent years studying at the University, something I find highly interesting as themes in literature and music, something that I acknowledge governs millions of humans on a dayily basis, but also something that I belive is utter bollocks, borderline psychotic, and slightly mad, in a very real and culturally accepted way.

I believe in science. That means I'm willing to accept changes to a paradigm if the basis for that change is within the criteria set by science. I guess I would believe in God if you could prove his existance in a scientific way. But I also have a feeling that if you could do that it would not be religion any more... it would be science... or maybe it will be the other way around?

I also acknowledge the fact that I myself might eventually succumb to the mental illness called 'religion'. That I might start to believe due to life crisis, revelation, hallucinogenic effects or whatever. I might even become a priest, and live life in full preaching the word. I will not look away from the notion that stuff like that could happen. In the same way as it is theoretically possible for me to divorce my wife hook up with a 21 year old model and run off to Las Vegas... or die in a car crash tomorrow... the future holds many secrets... I know that...

... but that doesn't make me an Agnostic.

Cause I still belive that what I can prove or falsify with science is true or false for everyone. I believe religion is bollocks, but very fascinating such.

/wolf

Whoa there! And people attack my attitude to religion.

As I said, strictly speaking, I think it's irrational to be anything but an agnostic about most religious claims. The currently available evidence doesn't many of them impossible (though they can't all be true). But that doesn't mean that we can't assign probabilities to the possibilities. And the currently available evidence and our current knowledge of how the universe works indicates that its incredibly unlikely that any of them are true.

It seems to me that the only rational answer is: "I don't know for sure, but on the currently available evidence and given the current state of our knowledge about the universe, I think the chances of any religious claims about God being true are very, very low."

In other words, you don't get it, and thus feel the need to call people who are comfortable not knowing the answer cowards?

:lol:

The only true scientific position from which to answer the theistic question is that of "I don't know." Given that there is no testable, falsifiable experiment that can provide proof one way or the other, choosing either of the sides is merely an exercise in faith.

Agree with you up to that point. But...

Of course, given the implication that your position is against relativism and subjectivism, I'd have to ask where you, as a self-acknowledged atheist, feel that your morality comes from. Please remember to answer the question in absolute terms. :lol:

Didn't I deal with that point here (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=26795#post26795)?

[Radu]

{cue Altered Beast voice} "Riiiise from your grave!" {/Altered Beast voice}

Semi-meaningless update:

I have been reading quite a bit of atheist and anti-dogmatic literature lately, both online and in print... especially Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I have since revised my opinion, and have determined that I am a fairly convinced atheist.

I realize now that I was using the terms atheist and agnostic more or less as synonyms when in fact there's a bit of difference between the two. Furthermore, I realize that my agnosticism was mainly just a refusal to really admit to others and to myself that I really was an atheist. In this, I must tip my hat to Atticus, who in inspiring such levels of resentment and anger in me a few months ago is the catalyst for much of the reading I've done. I doubt I would have seriously considered Dawkins and his fellows if I hadn't been such a stubborn ass insisting on proving you "wrong."

So until evidence provided otherwise, I consider myself to be a
Buddhist Atheist with respect to my personality/moral guidelines and humanist/rationalist approach to the world, respectively. Thank you to all those who contributed to this thread- without the incentive of nerd rage I doubt I would have been motivated enough to bother figuring this out on my own.

[Singularity]

I'm about as close to atheist as an agnostic can get. I don't believe in an all knowing, all caring god who created everything, but I aknowledge that I could be wrong. If when I die and I end up at the pearly gates and am asked why I refused to believe, my answer will be that god left us insufficient evidence.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

{cue Altered Beast voice} "Riiiise from your grave!" {/Altered Beast voice}

Semi-meaningless update:

I have been reading quite a bit of atheist and anti-dogmatic literature lately, both online and in print... especially Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I have since revised my opinion, and have determined that I am a fairly convinced atheist.

I realize now that I was using the terms atheist and agnostic more or less as synonyms when in fact there's a bit of difference between the two. Furthermore, I realize that my agnosticism was mainly just a refusal to really admit to others and to myself that I really was an atheist. In this, I must tip my hat to Atticus, who in inspiring such levels of resentment and anger in me a few months ago is the catalyst for much of the reading I've done. I doubt I would have seriously considered Dawkins and his fellows if I hadn't been such a stubborn ass insisting on proving you "wrong."

So until evidence provided otherwise, I consider myself to be a
Buddhist Atheist with respect to my personality/moral guidelines and humanist/rationalist approach to the world, respectively. Thank you to all those who contributed to this thread- without the incentive of nerd rage I doubt I would have been motivated enough to bother figuring this out on my own.

Thanks, I think.

Would you now agree with me that Dawkins is horribly misrepresented in the media and by moderate theists and live-and-let-live agnsotics like Hastur? It's my perception of that misrepresentation that provokes my "nerd rage".

Have you tried Sam Harris yet? As Julia Sweeny once said, just when you think your worldview has been shifted as much as it can be by Dawkins, Sam Harris comes along and blows your mind all over again.

Dennett is also worth the (admittedly considerable) effort. Breaking the Spell is actually rather respectful of religion and its (partially) beneficial role in human development and makes some very sensible proposals that go beyond the (very worthwile but not sufficient) consciousness-raising and Overton-Window-shifting that Dawkins is engaged in.

As for Hitchens' God is Not Great, there's very little to learn there - but he's damn entertaining in a naughty-boy-farting-in-church way. However his Portable Atheist is a wonderful resource - its a collection of pieces by other writers with introductions by the Hitch.

And, if you can, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Not a great thinker, IMHO, but a great life story and an incredibly courageous woman.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm not sure I believe that I don't believe in anything...

[Name Lips]

I have no problem with all religions being simultaneously true and untrue.

[Radu]

Thanks for the recommendations, Atticus. I'll have to check them out when I get finished digesting the Dawkins, Dune Messiah, and the Heinlein short story collection I'm on. I can only juggle so many books at once!

(By the way, despite how it comes out my earlier post was really supposed to be a thank you. Reading it after a few hours break it comes across kind of mixed. I really was pretty pissed/irritated when I first started this thread, but in its own way that frustration was far more encouraging than any number of casual book recommendations would have been. I'm kind of a stubborn asshole sometimes.)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Thanks for the recommendations, Atticus. I'll have to check them out when I get finished digesting the Dawkins, Dune Messiah, and the Heinlein short story collection I'm on. I can only juggle so many books at once!

I know the feeling.

Add to that that I do a job where I read and write arguments all day, and it can be hard to really get into a argumentative book for fun.

But trust me, Sam Harris is worth it and will rock your world - ESPECIALLY if you're intersted in a kind of atheistic Buddhism stripped of its metaphysical bullshit (which is basically a precis of Harris' beliefs).

(By the way, despite how it comes out my earlier post was really supposed to be a thank you. Reading it after a few hours break it comes across kind of mixed. I really was pretty pissed/irritated when I first started this thread, but in its own way that frustration was far more encouraging than any number of casual book recommendations would have been. I'm kind of a stubborn asshole sometimes.)

You're very welcome.

And as a "stubborn asshole" myself, let me say that I think there's nothing wrong with being either stubborn or an asshole ... hence my support for Hillary Clinton! ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I have no problem with all religions being simultaneously true and untrue.

Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute!

[Singularity]

Error: Does not compute!

It's an imaginary number, sort of like the square root of -1.

[Varaj]

It's an imaginary number, sort of like the square root of -1.

imaginary number is a misnomer.

[Eliezer]

My beef with faith is precisely the unfounded certainty you speak of. There is something scary about a mindset that is prepared to be certain of things without or against the evidence. It bothers me that faith is presented as a virtue in modern societies. It's always struck me as a vice.

You have prepared your definitions to support your conclusions.

evidence is only evidence that is valid for scientific purposes. The problem with this "evidence" is that nobody lives this way. Every person has to make judgments about other people, relationships etc on the basis of criteria that do not meet up to the criteria for scientific evidence. Scientists nor science lay people can define what love really is, how the dynamics of love truly function, even the roles of various brain chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin play in "love". With a huge scientific gap in this area holding as unreasonable any "faith" is tantamount to holding up "love" as unreasonable.

I won't even bother to go into your definitions of faith, Atticus.

Morbidity may be an actuary, but I imagine she wants more than cold, passionless reasoning in your love for her.

[Name Lips]

Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute! Error: Does not compute!
It's not supposed to compute. It's not supposed to make sense.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be spiritual/religious.

That's the problem atheists have with religion. They don't feel the need for something essentially senseless in their lives. So it baffles them that other people do feel it -- and they do feel it as a genuine need.

[The Winslow]

I have no problem with all religions being simultaneously true and untrue.

"Slag-Blah's philosophy is that of militant agnosticism; we don't know and you don't know either! So we believe in everything! No religion is too silly, no pantheon too crowded, no cosmology too counter-intuitive!"
"But many religions contradict each other."
"True, so each religion has its own day, when its doctrines reign supreme over all."
"You don't have any problems with that?"
"Well, yes. Becuse of this the Slag-Blah year is 7823 days long."
"This is a problem?"
"We only get paid once a year. But it's a fun filled yer! See? Today is one of the Winslow Worship days! They're my favorites!"
"You get lot of them?"
"Oh yes! The Winslow figures in easily three quarters of the known religions, in a variety of roles! Neat, huh?"
"But religion exists to provide stable, comforting mega-philosophy that sentients use to establish a code of conduct and to help prepare themselves for entropy or death. Adherents of Slag-Blah are sure of nothing."
"No, today I am sure that when I die, my soul will dance with the lizard kings! Tomorrow, I'll be sure that when I die, I will travel to the Great Desert of Squim to help count every grain of sand to make sure that the universe will be reborn. Who is to say tht I will not do them all?"

[Dacke]

I have no problem with all religions being simultaneously true and untrue.
GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You have prepared your definitions to support your conclusions.

evidence is only evidence that is valid for scientific purposes. The problem with this "evidence" is that nobody lives this way. Every person has to make judgments about other people, relationships etc on the basis of criteria that do not meet up to the criteria for scientific evidence. Scientists nor science lay people can define what love really is, how the dynamics of love truly function, even the roles of various brain chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin play in "love". With a huge scientific gap in this area holding as unreasonable any "faith" is tantamount to holding up "love" as unreasonable.

I won't even bother to go into your definitions of faith, Atticus.

Morbidity may be an actuary, but I imagine she wants more than cold, passionless reasoning in your love for her.

Oh dear. Eliezer misses the point. Again.

(For those of you who've just tuned in, the definitions Elizer attributes to me are not ones to which I actually subscribe. But, of course, if you've been reading my posts over the last sixteen months, you'd already know that.)

We make judgments based on evidence and arguments and calculation every day - *especially* when it comes to human relationships. (Indeed, there's evidence to suggest that the way we evolved our reasoning skills was precisely because they were required to manage the complex web of human relationships, alliances and favour accounting systems that emerged in human societies after the development of language.)

My belief that Morbidity loves me is based on evidence - a LOT of evidence. Six and a half years of observed body language, facial expressions, secrets confided, fears revealed, common projects planned for, physical intimacy, a fucking huge wedding ceremony and reception, her continued toleration of my foibles, her apparant disinterest in the attentions of other men, spontaneous favours unsaked for, returning from the other side of the planet to be with me, etc. And her belief that I love her is, I surmise, based on similar evidence.

But I will concede this: There are at least two categories of people who *do* believe that the object of their affection loves them without, or even in spite of, the available evidence. These "faith-based lovers" are more commonly referred to as "stalkers" and "battered wives".

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's not supposed to compute. It's not supposed to make sense.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be spiritual/religious.

That's the problem atheists have with religion. They don't feel the need for something essentially senseless in their lives. So it baffles them that other people do feel it -- and they do feel it as a genuine need.

As Sam Harris says, there's no need for spirituality to be based on bullshit. Spiritual experience is scientifically udnerstandable and it should be.

That's one of the "new" things about Sam Harris's atheism - he's an atheist mystic who spent ten years in meditation retreats and other spiritual pursuits - inlciding a stint as a body guard for the Dalai Lama.

[Name Lips]

Mystical Atheism?

That sounds as odd as the Judeo-Pagan I knew once.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Mystical Atheism?

That sounds as odd as the Judeo-Pagan I knew once.

Actually, I think Sam Harris would want to reverse the term and talk about "atheist mysticism" or "rational mysticism". Remember, this is a guy who regularly does silent mediation retreats for up to three months.

There's no need to buy into any bullshit in order to get in touch with the experiences that mystics have been having (and often misinterpreting) for centuries.

[Eliezer]

Oh dear. Eliezer misses the point. Again.

(For those of you who've just tuned in, the definitions Elizer attributes to me are not ones to which I actually subscribe. But, of course, if you've been reading my posts over the last sixteen months, you'd already know that.)

We make judgments based on evidence and arguments and calculation every day - *especially* when it comes to human relationships. (Indeed, there's evidence to suggest that the way we evolved our reasoning skills was precisely because they were required to manage the complex web of human relationships, alliances and favour accounting systems that emerged in human societies after the development of language.)

My belief that Morbidity loves me is based on evidence - a LOT of evidence. Six and a half years of observed body language, facial expressions, secrets confided, fears revealed, common projects planned for, physical intimacy, a fucking huge wedding ceremony and reception, her continued toleration of my foibles, her apparant disinterest in the attentions of other men, spontaneous favours unsaked for, returning from the other side of the planet to be with me, etc. And her belief that I love her is, I surmise, based on similar evidence.

But I will concede this: There are at least two categories of people who *do* believe that the object of their affection loves them without, or even in spite of, the available evidence. These "faith-based lovers" are more commonly referred to as "stalkers" and "battered wives".
Maybe I am missing the point, but I keep coming up with you missing the point. I don't believe I've ever come upon someone with whom I could find so little common ground except those that believe their particular viewpoint irrespective of all evidence and reason.

I'm calling you out on this, Atticus. You say I mis-represent you, but put out or shut up. What level/type of evidence is required before you're willing to acceded concerning believers that this is incorrect?

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking out of their asses.




Hmm, appears then that there was a major miscommunication here. It could have happened for several reasons and it could have been me, however, I suspect it's you in this particular case. You seem to frequently get frustrated with people not understanding what you are posting about a lot and then blame the other for not understanding. I suspect it's you not understanding or even trying to understand other points of view. You're so convinced of the superiority of your thinking and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong that you don't even bother to process what they say. It's a common human frailty. This willful ignorance on your part is allowing you to sit unchallenged upon your supposed summit of superiority.

So, when you want to actually open your mind and discuss things and try to understand other people get back to me.

Feel free to back track all you want. I'm generous in this regard. Feel free to fidget and change your positions. I won't harass you too badly about it.

[Eliezer]

Oh dear. Eliezer misses the point. Again.

Before you go off on a rant, this seems reminiscent of resent arguments we've had. And it's not just me seeing things between us the way I do. Here is evidence from another.

Atticus it certainly seems to me that you aren't addressing his post and attacking him as a person instead of addressing it.
Almost as bad as when you asked me a direct question and ignored my answer to it. :D

His post was irrelevant as it didn't address anything I was talking about. His rather snitty misunderstanding to the contrary is what has made me point and laugh.

Sometimes it seems to me you get caught up on what you believe instead of what is real. It appears that every one of his posts is relevant and the only one that is throwing a tantrum in here of late and being snitty is you.


I do not deliberately misrepresent you just to try to make a point. I am at the very least being honest in my representation of my understanding of your positions. If I am wrong, clarification may or may not be worthwhile. Those times when you have clarified (where I understood you) I have acknowledged the clarification and thanked you for it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Sigh.

Elizer, go re-read my last post and ask yourself, are you a stalker or a battered spouse? If, as I suspect, the answer is neither, then you already understand the point I'm making. Think about it.

Radu, do you want to cover this one if Elizer needs more explanation? Having explained the same arguments over and over for more than a year now, I suspect I've reached the end of my tolerance for the obtuse.

[doc]

Atticus, you do know that Budda died for your sins right ?

[Ergeheilalt]

imaginary number is a misnomer.

Clearly. I mean, the square root of -1 is a non-real number.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, you do know that Budda died for your sins right ?

The Budha appears to have been far too wise and rational a man to do anything so disgusting and demeaning (to both him and me) as to engage in a scape-goating exricse such as that attributed to the Nazareen.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Budha was far too wise and rational a man to do anything as disgusting and demeaning (to both him and me) as to engage in a scape-goating exricse such as that attributed to the Nazareen.
So, what you're saying is, you take everything seriously.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So, what you're saying is, you take everything seriously.

Inconceivable!

[Varaj]

Clearly. I mean, the square root of -1 is a non-real number.

At least it isn't irrational.

[Radu]

You have prepared your definitions to support your conclusions.

Or perhaps he has reached his conclusions based on his definitions? The chicken or the egg? I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume to speak for Atticus as well as myself. It is the definitions themselves which have created the opinions. Any logical argument must begin from a certain premise, and arriving at a definition of certain terms is a very good way to begin.

Evidence is only evidence that is valid for scientific purposes. The problem with this "evidence" is that nobody lives this way. Every person has to make judgments about other people, relationships etc on the basis of criteria that do not meet up to the criteria for scientific evidence.

I will agree and disagree with you here. It is true that scientifically valid evidence is difficult to obtain in some areas. That does not mean, however, that it is impossible nor that we cannot make some reasonable conjectures based on what we DO know or CAN obtain. What, specifically, do you take issue with in this post? I don't know what evidence you are calling out as unscientific, so I can't refute or support your argument on that level. The second half of it, though...

We make judgments every day that meet the criteria for scientific evidence, but on so many levels we are unaware of exactly how much. Take beauty and health, for instance. I found `one study (http://cogprints.org/4349/) that linked symmetry to appearance of health. Another study (http://jorthod.maneyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/2/159.pdf) found a correlation between symmetry and attractiveness (though I admit the 1st did not). Clearly whether attractiveness is influenced by symmetry is not something everyone agrees on, but equally so it seems to be crucial in judging the potential worthiness of a mate. Whether it means a healthier mate or a more attractive one, facial symmetry is something we seem to value highly despite having naturally asymmetrical faces. This is only one example of a judgment we make every day that seems to be subjective, but can also be seen as being calculated and rather scientific.

Scientists nor science lay people can define what love really is, how the dynamics of love truly function, even the roles of various brain chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin play in "love".

I will agree with you here. To my knowledge no one is quite sure what love is or precisely how it arises, but we do know it has a great deal of survival value from a Darwinian standpoint, leading as it does to more stable parental relationships and increased success at raising future generations. Please note this does not mean love is "unscientific." We simply do not understand enough about it at this point, but at its root it remains a scientific question: "What is love, how does it arise, what are the dynamics of love, and what physical behaviors cause it?" Whether or not this is an easy question to answer is another story.

With a huge scientific gap in this area holding as unreasonable any "faith" is tantamount to holding up "love" as unreasonable.

Untrue. Rephrasing, because "A" has some unknown factors/is not as well studied, we cannot make statement "p" about subject "B", a subject that also has some uncertainty. Our scientific understanding of love has no bearing on faith and vice versa. Richard Dawkins has some interesting ideas in The God Delusion about how love may contribute to the survival of religious belief, but saying "'faith' being unreasonable makes 'love' unreasonable too" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To my knowledge, Atticus has never claimed such. He and I feel that religious faith is irrational and often silly. Claiming that we cannot say anything about faith because we don't know enough about love is like saying a medical doctor cannot diagnose color-blindness because he doesn't know enough about how to paint a picture. They are two completely unrelated fields.

I won't even bother to go into your definitions of faith, Atticus.

Fair enough. How about offering up some of your own?

Morbidity may be an actuary, but I imagine she wants more than cold, passionless reasoning in your love for her.

Irrelevant. As previously noted, religious belief and/or the lack thereof has no bearing on love, one's capability TO love, or the depth of one's feelings. Furthermore, Morbidity's profession has no bearing on how she may feel towards Atticus or how she would like those feelings reciprocated. She may be an actuary and want passionate, unreasonable love. She may want calculated reasoning love. She may not want love at all and could be partners with Atticus out of convenience, economics, or some other reason. She could desire any and all of these whether or not she was an actuary, a shoe sales clerk, or a dance instructor. Furthermore, aren't you resorting to the same ad hominym attacks you attribute to Atticus? There's no call to bring in his personal relationships nor exploit your knowledge of such. It's dirty pool, honestly, and I expect better of you.

[Name Lips]

The Budha appears to have been far too wise and rational a man to do anything so disgusting and demeaning (to both him and me) as to engage in a scape-goating exricse such as that attributed to the Nazareen.

Interestingly enough, it's quite possible to be a Buddhist Atheist. Many of them understand Nirvana and Samsara as non-mystical states of mind, and of Buddha as a philosopher, not a divine being or prophet.

[doc]

Inconceivable!

Okay Atticus sounds like you're ready to join the First Church of Elvis, when you make the Haj to Graceland look me up

[Eliezer]

Sigh.

Elizer, go re-read my last post and ask yourself, are you a stalker or a battered spouse? If, as I suspect, the answer is neither, then you already understand the point I'm making. Think about it.

Radu, do you want to cover this one if Elizer needs more explanation? Having explained the same arguments over and over for more than a year now, I suspect I've reached the end of my tolerance for the obtuse.

Okay let's make this exceedingly plain since you've missed the point over and over again:

1. Belief in the divine or following a particular faith creed is sometimes based (in some people) upon experiential evidence of following the precepts and finding comfort/value in them.
2. This evidence, albeit subjective, can lead a person to believe that there is something to the faith based belief system

So we have "evidence" or "experience" that leads a person to accept religious teachings based upon personal experience.

It's the exact same process for determining other things that are very difficult to know on a personal level, like if someone loves you. I appreciate all your "evidence" that morbidity loves you. Some religious folks through years of interacting with deity believe they have similar evidence.

There are deluded folks like the stalkers or battered lovers and religion surely has it's share of those types folk. But there are also the other class of folks who believe based upon experience and the evidence of their experience.

Will you acknowledge that there is such a believer or are they all deluded stalker types as you intimated?

[Maddman]

The Budha appears to have been far too wise and rational a man to do anything so disgusting and demeaning (to both him and me) as to engage in a scape-goating exricse such as that attributed to the Nazareen.

umm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

[Name Lips]

umm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

Yes, but the Buddha didn't start that one. :tongue:

[Maddman]

Yes, but the Buddha didn't start that one. :tongue:

According to its adherant, maybe not The Buddha but another Buddha who are really the same. :p

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Okay let's make this exceedingly plain since you've missed the point over and over again:

1. Belief in the divine or following a particular faith creed is sometimes based (in some people) upon experiential evidence of following the precepts and finding comfort/value in them.
2. This evidence, albeit subjective, can lead a person to believe that there is something to the faith based belief system

So we have "evidence" or "experience" that leads a person to accept religious teachings based upon personal experience.

It's the exact same process for determining other things that are very difficult to know on a personal level, like if someone loves you. I appreciate all your "evidence" that morbidity loves you. Some religious folks through years of interacting with deity believe they have similar evidence.

There are deluded folks like the stalkers or battered lovers and religion surely has it's share of those types folk. But there are also the other class of folks who believe based upon experience and the evidence of their experience.

Will you acknowledge that there is such a believer or are they all deluded stalker types as you intimated?

To what would I compare a person who uses one or more spiritual experiences of bliss as evidence for the propositions that Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, died and rose again, can answer prayers, will care for you in the afterlife and will return again in glory to jduge the living and the dead? I'd compare that to a battered wife who believes her cheating, abusive husband loves her because the sex is mind-blowingly good.

[Eliezer]

To what would I compare a person who uses one or more spiritual experiences of bliss as evidence for the propositions that Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, died and rose again, can answer prayers, will care for you in the afterlife and will return again in glory to jduge the living and the dead? I'd compare that to a battered wife who believes her cheating, abusive husband loves her because the sex is mind-blowingly good.

Hey, that's remarkably lucid, Atticus, thanks.

So the issue is level of evidence. It sounds like you're saying that having one or more spiritual experiences that leads a person to conclude the Christian myth as true is a leap of logic that is profoundly delusional. I think that's a valid stance to take and I have no problem with that.

In my mind the evidences that a believer encounters should be significantly more than just having "spiritual experiences", but that may be a discussion for another time as I don't think we have a lot of common ground to discuss that at the moment.

[Name Lips]

The interesting thing about spiritual experiences is that firm believers of a religion assume members of other religions don't have convincing spiritual experiences, because how could they? Their religion is wrong!

It confuses them when they go to a Buddhist retreat or a pagan circle or something, just to show how open-minded they are, and they have another spiritual experience. They have to explain it somehow.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Open mind, closed mouth.

[Eliezer]

The interesting thing about spiritual experiences is that firm believers of a religion assume members of other religions don't have convincing spiritual experiences, because how could they? Their religion is wrong!

It confuses them when they go to a Buddhist retreat or a pagan circle or something, just to show how open-minded they are, and they have another spiritual experience. They have to explain it somehow.

Yep! Many devout Christians eschew the "spiritual experiences" thing as a reason to believe.

They've even shown some "spiritual experiences" to be something that can be induced by making the brain malfunction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death

[Dacke]

It's an imaginary number, sort of like the square root of -1.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/math_paper.png

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hey, that's remarkably lucid, Atticus, thanks.

So the issue is level of evidence. It sounds like you're saying that having one or more spiritual experiences that leads a person to conclude the Christian myth as true is a leap of logic that is profoundly delusional. I think that's a valid stance to take and I have no problem with that.

In my mind the evidences that a believer encounters should be significantly more than just having "spiritual experiences", but that may be a discussion for another time as I don't think we have a lot of common ground to discuss that at the moment.

See, if I hit you over the head hard enought, you actually *do* begin to dimly understand.

Now go back and re-read my last, say, 20 posts. It'll eventually sink in.

ISince I'm in a patient mood, I'll give you a further hint: As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Eliezer]

See, if I hit you over the head hard enought, you actually *do* begin to dimly understand.

Now go back and re-read my last, say, 20 posts. It'll eventually sink in.

ISince I'm in a patient mood, I'll give you a further hint: As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Yes, I am extraordinarily dim witted, Atticus. But not in the way you seem to believe. My problem was over estimating your understanding of Christianity. My failure was in failing to accurately recognize your ignorance.

I appreciate your patience. I will try to be more clear in the future with you if I ever decide to discuss such things with you again. It has been a remarkably frustrating experience with you believing it was my failure to understand you and all along it was my ignorance of your massive misunderstandings, not misunderstanding your posts.

[Atropine Mama]

:grey:

Will you two get a room, please.

[Pigs in Space]

:grey:

Will you two get a room, please.

Hey Bella, I got a cool idea for your next picture. You can call it "The christian and the Atheist".

It should be two people with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALALALALA".


It would sell, totally.

[Atropine Mama]

:lol:

If only I could draw people worth a damn. I think that's one of those talents only the Christian lot get. :D

[Eliezer]

:grey:

Will you two get a room, please.

Dude, I'd so do Atticus!!! His hot, spouting, firebrand preaching so turns me on. It's totally better than a revival.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Deleted

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yes, I am extraordinarily dim witted, Atticus. But not in the way you seem to believe. My problem was over estimating your understanding of Christianity. My failure was in failing to accurately recognize your ignorance.

I appreciate your patience. I will try to be more clear in the future with you if I ever decide to discuss such things with you again. It has been a remarkably frustrating experience with you believing it was my failure to understand you and all along it was my ignorance of your massive misunderstandings, not misunderstanding your posts.

<Sigh> Ok, what do I "misunderstand" about Christianity?

(I warn you, I understand a LOT more about Christianity that you think I do.)

[Name Lips]

Hey Bella, I got a cool idea for your next picture. You can call it "The christian and the Atheist".

It should be two people with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALALALALA".


It would sell, totally.

Woah! I so TOTALLY just got an idea for an awesome reality TV show!

[Eliezer]

<Sigh> Ok, what do I "misunderstand" about Christianity?

(I warn you, I understand a LOT more about Christianity that you think I do.)

Believe me, the sigh is mutual.

You know how much I think you know about Christianity? Apparently this was the whole problem: me thinking you knew a LOT about Christianity.

I suspect (don't know) based upon a careful reading of your responses that you have some misapprehensions about how some Christians view a process of coming to know Christ and the experientially driven process. It is a process that carries with it a healthy level of skepticism and requires people to thoughtfully consider things. It does require faith in the sense of a willingness to practice/try/experiment upon principles.

In this fashion it is very similar to coming to know that someone loves you or come to understand that a principle of psychology is useful for you (like a self-help book or the like).

The level of evidence required for belief is decidedly different than that of the stalker.

[Snatch]

The level of evidence required for belief is decidedly different than that of the stalker.

Huh? I recognize those words but I don't understand the sentence. Whose the stalker?

[Name Lips]

Huh? I recognize those words but I don't understand the sentence. Whose the stalker?

This thread is finally making sense!

[pandiculator]

This thread is finally making sense!

ooh. You're right!

[Space Cadet B^3]

Hey, I'm in left field here, do I still need to keep my glove on?

[The Winslow]

Hey, I'm in left field here, do I still need to keep my glove on?

You can lose the glove, but keep the pants.

Unless you want to go to Atticus & Eliezer's room, then it's the reverse.

[Scarbonac]

Huh? I recognize those words but I don't understand the sentence. Whose the stalker?

Here!

[Snatch]

This thread is finally making sense!

I've been to Chernobyl and I don't recall anyone looking like the Remans from ST:Nemesis. I don't think I've even heard of that game before.

Here!

Finally - more sense!

[Radu]

I think this thread has reached the end of its productive lifetime. Atticus and Eliezer, if you would like to continue, may I suggest making a new thread for that discussion? The signal:noise ratio is getting lower and lower all the time.

[Singularity]

I think this thread has reached the end of its productive lifetime. Atticus and Eliezer, if you would like to continue, may I suggest making a new thread for that discussion?

Do I hear a "plunk!"?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Believe me, the sigh is mutual.

You know how much I think you know about Christianity? Apparently this was the whole problem: me thinking you knew a LOT about Christianity.

I suspect (don't know) based upon a careful reading of your responses that you have some misapprehensions about how some Christians view a process of coming to know Christ and the experientially driven process. It is a process that carries with it a healthy level of skepticism and requires people to thoughtfully consider things. It does require faith in the sense of a willingness to practice/try/experiment upon principles.

In this fashion it is very similar to coming to know that someone loves you or come to understand that a principle of psychology is useful for you (like a self-help book or the like).

The level of evidence required for belief is decidedly different than that of the stalker.

You. Are. Still. Missing. The. Point.

Go back and re-read the battered wife analogy.

How is the fact that believing a proposition makes one feel better, or makes one a better person, be evidence of the truth of the proposition?

To borrow an anology from Sam Harris, imagine you notice that your neighbour and his family spend every Sunday digging up their backyard. You ask him why and he tells you that there is a diamond the size of a refigerator burried somewhere in his back yard and he is looking for it. You ask him how he knows there is a diamond in his back yard. He tells you that believing that there is a huge diamond in his back yard gives his life meaning. That it makes him a better person and sustains him in times of trouble. That digging for it every Sunday brings him and his family together. That he wouldn't want to live in a universe in which there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator burried in his back yard.

Clearly your neighbour is not thinking in a rational or evidence-based manner. His arguments might support the proposition that believing in the huge-diamond-in-his-backyard theory is beneficial, but they are utterly irrelevant to the question whether there really is a diuamond in his backyard.

And if all his digginging is undermining the foundations of your house, or even just disturbing the quiet enjoyment of your own property, you'd hardly have to bow to his crazy beliefs.

Similarly, the fact that belief in the propositions of Christianity might make people feel better and or be better people, is not evidence for the truth of the propositions that there is a God, that His took human form and performed miracles or that he died on the Cross and rose from the dead.

Of course, if you want to argue for the continuation fo Christian practice with the propositions treated openly as non-factual but inspiring and informative mythology, then not only am I content, I'm actively supportive. That's why Im such a fan of John Shelby Spong.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I think this thread has reached the end of its productive lifetime. Atticus and Eliezer, if you would like to continue, may I suggest making a new thread for that discussion? The signal:noise ratio is getting lower and lower all the time.
Did you get promoted?

[Radu]

No, not a promotion. I'm still a mere poster, Piratecat comparisons aside. I'm not trying to Enworld the thread. I just think that if people want to contribute, they should- in a meaningful way. Posting "I agree," a snarky picture, or tangential subjects doesn't really add anything, it just drops the signal:noise ratio down. Sorry if people took it the wrong way, but it's a bit irritating reading all that nonsense when I'm genuinely interested in the subject at hand.

[Singularity]

No, not a promotion. I'm still a mere poster, Piratecat comparisons aside. I'm not trying to Enworld the thread. I just think that if people want to contribute, they should- in a meaningful way. Posting "I agree," a snarky picture, or tangential subjects doesn't really add anything, it just drops the signal:noise ratio down. Sorry if people took it the wrong way, but it's a bit irritating reading all that nonsense when I'm genuinely interested in the subject at hand.

I didn't take it the wrong way. I just thought it was funny because that post could very easily have come directly from Piratecat as he was killing a thread.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Fair enough, I admit, that was snarky of me... :)

[Critter]

One thing I've never been able to get is people asking for evidence to some sort of claim involving a spiritual or religious experience.

Atticus, in my opinion, the analogy you pull in about the diamond in the backyard is terrible. Seriously.

You're taking something that has an ultimate tangible conclusion and putting it up against something that pretty much won't. Not to say it's false or fake, but you kinda have to die to figure out if anything happens to us after we die and that defeats the issue in the fact you eventually run out of people to argue with.

Make an analogy of something not-so concrete. The love thing was kind of cool but all you did was post tangible things as to why you're in love. It takes a level of faith to fully say (and mean) "I love you" and nothing could really prove or disprove that between people. Hell, you could take two different people and line up the same situation, won't mean they're in love. You admit and you say you're in love because it makes sense, because you feel and know it. I'm going to go ahead and say faith in a deity is a lot like that. You can't point to two people that appear in love and say that is proof of love as you can't say someone who comes out of a church as saying that's proof of Jesus.

Calculus. Hm... see, I don't know shit about it. I know people who've dabbled in it, and from my understanding it seems fairly plausible that it's a working, functional Math. Now, can I ask one of them to prove it? Can I then throw your diamond in the backyard analogy to it? No, I can't. Can I call someone out and say Calc doesn't exist because you can't physically point to it? No. Can you accept that perhaps, maybe it does have some merit, somewhere because it makes sense to people even though it can't actually be proved in any physical sense? Yes.

I am not religious. Never have I seen the point, or joy, in churches or anything like it. To me, religion and faith is purely a personal issue. I keep with me what makes sense and feels good to me and that's generally as far as it goes.

But, I understand that certain experiences could, perhaps, lead to that ultimate conclusion for people. I've had what you could call a "spiritual experience" and did indeed gain a certain amount of faith in that fact that something is indeed there.

Call me out all you want. I don't care. You can't prove or disprove anything that you're saying no one else can prove or disprove. People define themselves under others' actions or merits because it makes sense to them. Some people can take that farther than others, oh well. If you have an issue with that, stop quoting various authors on every other one of your posts on a religious subject. Can't call someone out for absorbing something that makes sense to them and keeping it as a personal philosophy.

I came into this thread late, hehe, so forgive me if I missed something. I did, for some reason, feel the need to add something tho.
*shrugs*

[Singularity]

You're taking something that has an ultimate tangible conclusion and putting it up against something that pretty much won't. Not to say it's false or fake, but you kinda have to die to figure out if anything happens to us after we die and that defeats the issue in the fact you eventually run out of people to argue with.

Actually it holds up just fine, because unless the guy digs down to the center of the Earth, there is no saying that there is in fact not a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in his back yard. Aside from that, other than digging, there is no way to conclusively prove that there is one either. As far as I know, there are no tests that will tell you if a super dense piece of carbon is down there. So you have to dig until one day you either find it or you die.

Make an analogy of something not-so concrete. The love thing was kind of cool but all you did was post tangible things as to why you're in love. It takes a level of faith to fully say (and mean) "I love you" and nothing could really prove or disprove that between people. Hell, you could take two different people and line up the same situation, won't mean they're in love. You admit and you say you're in love because it makes sense, because you feel and know it. I'm going to go ahead and say faith in a deity is a lot like that. You can't point to two people that appear in love and say that is proof of love as you can't say someone who comes out of a church as saying that's proof of Jesus.

Love is easy to prove. Just hook them both up to a lie detector and see. If they both say they are in love and the detector does not indicate that either of them are lying, then they are in love. Its tangible, its provable, and it's as real as any other emotion humans experience.

You can't prove or disprove anything that you're saying no one else can prove or disprove. People define themselves under others' actions or merits because it makes sense to them. Some people can take that farther than others, oh well. If you have an issue with that, stop quoting various authors on every other one of your posts on a religious subject. Can't call someone out for absorbing something that makes sense to them and keeping it as a personal philosophy.

Why should he not quote authors and philosophers? They tend to come to the same conclusions, but do so more succinctly. Do religious people not quote the bible to justify their beliefs? It makes sense to me that an atheist would do the same. The difference is that the texts quoted would be ones that cite logic and reason as opposed to thousands of year old myths with nothing to back them up.

[Name Lips]

Love is easy to prove. Just hook them both up to a lie detector and see. If they both say they are in love and the detector does not indicate that either of them are lying, then they are in love. Its tangible, its provable, and it's as real as any other emotion humans experience.


What if they only believe they're in love, but they're actually wrong?

You'd answer that belief is enough. Because they believe they're in love, that's enough to constitute proof.

Let's say we need to test whether or not two people are in love, but we're not allowed to ask them. Maybe two people were murdered and we want to test whether or not they were in love with each other. There's no way to tell.

Love is totally faith/belief based. But it's still real. People base their entire lives on it. They get married and have children because of it.

Why do they do this, when they don't have some sort of test to prove they're in love first?

[Critter]

The difference is that the texts quoted would be ones that cite logic and reason as opposed to thousands of year old myths with nothing to back them up.

Quit trying to attach science/reason/logic to a religious idea or experience and we're good. One of the things I was trying to get at. I might not have been 100% clear on my points, I was shooting my mouth off in Vent the entire time, hehe...

Someone did say something interesting to me earlier tho...
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

I thought it neat.
I can't prove to you that it is indeed neat, but I most certainly have faith in the fact that I think it's neat, so thus, to me, it is neat.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

One thing I've never been able to get is people asking for evidence to some sort of claim involving a spiritual or religious experience.

But Christianity isn't just making claims about experiences. It's making claims about hsitory, biology and physics.

Atticus, in my opinion, the analogy you pull in about the diamond in the backyard is terrible. Seriously.

You're taking something that has an ultimate tangible conclusion and putting it up against something that pretty much won't.

Either Jesus was born of a virgin, or he wasn't. He eitehr healed the sick and raised the dead, or he didn't. He either erose from the dead, or he didn't.

Not to say it's false or fake, but you kinda have to die to figure out if anything happens to us after we die and that defeats the issue in the fact you eventually run out of people to argue with.

We could get definitive that there *is* life after death, but as is often the case, we can't get difinitive proof that there isn't. However, that doesn't mean that we can't say anything about the probability of there being life after death. We have evidence that goes to that probability. For example, we know to a high degree of confidence that personality and memory are purely a function of the brain. Destroy parts of a brain and you destroy that person's power to recognise grandma. But yet some people seem to beleive that if you destroy all of the brain, some immaterial "essence" will float off and be able to recognsie grandma? Where's the evidence for that? There is none. Where's the evidence agaisnt it? Filling several libraries of neuroscience journals. Is the evidence against definitive? No. Does it make the proposition of the conventional view of the afterlife highly unlikely to be true? Absolutely.

Make an analogy of something not-so concrete.

But most religious people are making concrete claims.

The love thing was kind of cool but all you did was post tangible things as to why you're in love. It takes a level of faith to fully say (and mean) "I love you" and nothing could really prove or disprove that between people. Hell, you could take two different people and line up the same situation, won't mean they're in love. You admit and you say you're in love because it makes sense, because you feel and know it. I'm going to go ahead and say faith in a deity is a lot like that. You can't point to two people that appear in love and say that is proof of love as you can't say someone who comes out of a church as saying that's proof of Jesus.

Again, you confuse absolute proof with evidence that goes to the probability that a proposition is true. All I ask is that people apply the same standards to their assessment of the truth claims of Christinity as they do with respect to other truth claims.

Calculus. Hm... see, I don't know shit about it. I know people who've dabbled in it, and from my understanding it seems fairly plausible that it's a working, functional Math. Now, can I ask one of them to prove it? Can I then throw your diamond in the backyard analogy to it? No, I can't. Can I call someone out and say Calc doesn't exist because you can't physically point to it? No. Can you accept that perhaps, maybe it does have some merit, somewhere because it makes sense to people even though it can't actually be proved in any physical sense? Yes.

There is a whole lot of evidence you can use to come to a probabilistic assessment of the truth of something you don't understand. For me, it's like that with quantum theory. Do I understand it? Hell no. But there's this system called the scientific method that I do have some experience with and which I am pretty convinced (based on that experience and the testimony of others that is consistent witht hat experience) is an incredibly good way to get at the truth. And there's this community called "scientists" who I'm pretty sure, based on evidence and testimony of people who have proved reliable on other matters, applies the scientific method pretty reliably and rigourously. And that community has a consensus that quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. So I'm pretty sure quantum theory is not a crock of shit, and that view is based on a rational assessment of the evidence that is available to me.

I am not religious. Never have I seen the point, or joy, in churches or anything like it. To me, religion and faith is purely a personal issue. I keep with me what makes sense and feels good to me and that's generally as far as it goes.

But, I understand that certain experiences could, perhaps, lead to that ultimate conclusion for people. I've had what you could call a "spiritual experience" and did indeed gain a certain amount of faith in that fact that something is indeed there.

Spiritual experiences are great and worthy of study - as Sam Harris never tires of saying. But they aren't evidence of the truth of the claims of Christianity any mroe that the spiritual experiences felt by your neighbour is evidence that there really is a huge diamond in his backyard - as Sam Harris also never tires of saying.

Call me out all you want. I don't care. You can't prove or disprove anything that you're saying no one else can prove or disprove.

Again you are confusing absolute proof with a rational evidnece-based assessment of the probaility of a propsotion being true.

People define themselves under others' actions or merits because it makes sense to them. Some people can take that farther than others, oh well. If you have an issue with that, stop quoting various authors on every other one of your posts on a religious subject. Can't call someone out for absorbing something that makes sense to them and keeping it as a personal philosophy.

You can (and should ) if they start making claims about the nature of the universe based on those intuitions.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Quit trying to attach science/reason/logic to a religious idea or experience and we're good. One of the things I was trying to get at. I might not have been 100% clear on my points, I was shooting my mouth off in Vent the entire time, hehe...

Someone did say something interesting to me earlier tho...
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

I thought it neat.
I can't prove to you that it is indeed neat, but I most certainly have faith in the fact that I think it's neat, so thus, to me, it is neat.

Again you're confusing proof with evidence.

The actual saying is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

And actually, an absence of evidence can be evidence of an absence. Just not conclusive evidence. We use that principle every day.

How can you say that there isn't an invisible, weightless unicorn sitting on your left shoulder right now? Because there's no evidence for the proposition. Indeed, there's no evidence for the propsoition that invisible unicorns exist at all. That in itself is evidence, though not conclusive evidence, for the belief that unicorns don't exist.

[Singularity]

Quit trying to attach science/reason/logic to a religious idea or experience and we're good. One of the things I was trying to get at. I might not have been 100% clear on my points, I was shooting my mouth off in Vent the entire time, hehe...

I'm sorry, but without proof, there is no validity. If someone wants to believe in something without proof, more power to them so long as they don't get upset with me when I think they're bugshit crazy.

What if I hold the belief that I'm the only real being in the universe and the rest of you are just hallucinations to keep me from going crazy? Or maybe I have gone crazy and you "people" are all just there to keep me company in my madness. Either way, you don't exist and you can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right. Now pardon me while I go build a church to myself and erect statues in my honor.

[Eliezer]

You. Are. Still. Missing. The. Point.

Go back and re-read the battered wife analogy.


Atticus, long post follows. It's may be round about, but it will start with things we believe in common. Please take the time to read it before frothing at the mouth about how I missed that or still fail to understand.
-Thanks


My fundamental contention through all of this is that practice of religion or adherence to a religious myth is not inherently unreasonable. It is in many instances. More often than otherwise how people treat/believe in religion is unreasonable, but because a large majority fall into that category it does not make the practice inherently so. My problem is really just the broad brush that you use since your characterizations are accurate in many instances.


How is the fact that believing a proposition makes one feel better, or makes one a better person, be evidence of the truth of the proposition?

To borrow an anology from Sam Harris, imagine you notice that your neighbour and his family spend every Sunday digging up their backyard. You ask him why and he tells you that there is a diamond the size of a refigerator burried somewhere in his back yard and he is looking for it. You ask him how he knows there is a diamond in his back yard. He tells you that believing that there is a huge diamond in his back yard gives his life meaning. That it makes him a better person and sustains him in times of trouble. That digging for it every Sunday brings him and his family together. That he wouldn't want to live in a universe in which there wasn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator burried in his back yard.

Clearly your neighbour is not thinking in a rational or evidence-based manner. His arguments might support the proposition that believing in the huge-diamond-in-his-backyard theory is beneficial, but they are utterly irrelevant to the question whether there really is a diuamond in his backyard.

And if all his digginging is undermining the foundations of your house, or even just disturbing the quiet enjoyment of your own property, you'd hardly have to bow to his crazy beliefs.

Similarly, the fact that belief in the propositions of Christianity might make people feel better and or be better people, is not evidence for the truth of the propositions that there is a God, that His took human form and performed miracles or that he died on the Cross and rose from the dead.

Of course, if you want to argue for the continuation fo Christian practice with the propositions treated openly as non-factual but inspiring and informative mythology, then not only am I content, I'm actively supportive. That's why Im such a fan of John Shelby Spong.

A very nice analogy and I can't argue with the logic of it. I can, however, argue with its applicability to what I am trying to convey.


My basic proposition is that the value of religious practice can be evidenced in their life to themselves and that they can come to find that the tenants are true. If we describe essential Christian doctrines outside of religious language and or mythology you could come up with something like:

1. Focus on welfare of others individuals equally as your own welfare
2. Prepare for long term future
3. Participate in a community of common values
4. Don't take offense at others
5. Benefit of the community is greater than benefit to self

Now, each of these concepts can be shown empirically to have intrinsic circuitry in the brain that when activated helps the individual feel better, live longer and healthier lives, have a stronger immune system, reduce impacts of stress/stressful events, and provide for a sense of security necessary to activate other parts of the brain beyond survival mechanisms. This is pretty established neuroscience and something I believe we both agree upon. You've stated numerous times that on this level religion is valuable.

Also, you've stated time and time again that the value of the belief system does not necessarily relate to it's truthfulness. That is accurate, but in scientific terms if you label the myth or belief as a model then you should be able to evaluate it as a model. Is the model useful? Does it model well enough our observations of the world around us and can it predict accurately outcomes? That's the real criteria. Now, some claims of religious myth cannot be very well verified. With others the very lack of evidence of the claims is so astonishing as to make the claims look spurious at best and outright lies at worst.

Now, hopefully, this has given you a perspective on how I can reason and understand enough to be able to scientifically evaluate my own perceptions and to apply them to the model that religion provides. Has my "model" changed. Certainly it has. As I've learned more, gained more experience, applied more rigid standards to the model it has changed and grown. Do I have enough confidence in the model to be able to state that I reasonably believe certain things? Certainly I do. Am I speaking out of my ass?

I am a member of a religious community that when a doctor doing a physical on me noticed it (for the form he was filling out) said something to the effect of, "Oh you're <such and such>, so you have lower stress in your life. You don't engage in these activities, and you should have strong community support to provide these health benefits." I was a little startled that the scientific literature had noticed such a huge benefit. It does nothing to prove the myth justifying certain practices, but it does help validate the practices themselves. In a like manner, with certain internal/intellectual/meditative practices the myths may simply provide focal points or reinforcements to help the brain retain the practices better. Does it prove the myths? No, it doesn't. The truthfulness of the myth is not proven or even validated in any of these. So the question remains at what point does the myth/model actually begin to function as a model that provides model like benefits? Well, suck, here I am in a catch-22. I said I would not testify but it is very difficult to answer the question without doing so. So I guess I'll leave it at that.

In the end, you can believe as you will. You can accept the evidences you've seen and continue to characterize all religious believers with the same broad brush of "speaking out of their ass" or you can be a little more specific and retain a smidgen of skepticism that perhaps someone is not "speaking out of their ass" when you address the subject in the future.

[Space Cadet B^3]

The thing about those doctrines, is that they are fairly universal for many religions as well.

Just take the golden rule for instance. Whether it's "as ye sow, so shall ye reap" or the concept of karma, or even the naturalists "leave it better than you found it" philosophy. It really is fundamentally about making the world a better place and you a better person in it.

I guess this doesn't really comment directly on the topic, but ah well, I typed it anyway. :)

[Singularity]

The thing about those doctrines, is that they are fairly universal for many religions as well.

Just take the golden rule for instance. Whether it's "as ye sow, so shall ye reap" or the concept of karma, or even the naturalists "leave it better than you found it" philosophy. It really is fundamentally about making the world a better place and you a better person in it.

I guess this doesn't really comment directly on the topic, but ah well, I typed it anyway. :)

A lot of religious folk love to make the claim that morality belongs to their religion. The truth is that not only do individuals violate these tenets of their religion on a pretty regular basis, but atheists typically adopt the same outlook because it benefits society. If something benefits society as a whole, it makes their own lives better because society in general is less hostile, specifically towards them.

Anyway, for all its lofty goals, religion is commonly used to justify some pretty fucked up shit, so the moral high ground argument doesn't work for me. Show me a religion that is only interested in the betterment of society, without dictating personal morality or attempting to suggest legislation that only makes sense within a religious context, and I'll agree that maybe it isn't detrimental to society.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Sure atheists and agnostics do moral deeds as well, I don't think anyone's claiming that, nor a superiority for them. I was just offering an observation. Perhaps my focus wasn't wide enough.

[Critter]

Hey Atticus, I think you missed the point of my post.

Oh yeah Critter? I think you side stepped all the valid points of my post.

No Atticus, you responded to something completely different.

Critter, you're missing the point.

Atticus, this is silly.

Critter, go re-read it all and it will make sense.

:D

When I got time, I'll get back to a serious response on this thread.

[Eliezer]

A lot of religious folk love to make the claim that morality belongs to their religion. The truth is that not only do individuals violate these tenets of their religion on a pretty regular basis, but atheists typically adopt the same outlook because it benefits society. If something benefits society as a whole, it makes their own lives better because society in general is less hostile, specifically towards them.

Anyway, for all its lofty goals, religion is commonly used to justify some pretty fucked up shit, so the moral high ground argument doesn't work for me. Show me a religion that is only interested in the betterment of society, without dictating personal morality or attempting to suggest legislation that only makes sense within a religious context, and I'll agree that maybe it isn't detrimental to society.

Yep, the morality has some firm biological basis in our brain. We're hard wired to get a reward for behaving in a "moral" way.

[Ascarel]

A lot of religious folk love to make the claim that morality belongs to their religion. The truth is that not only do individuals violate these tenets of their religion on a pretty regular basis, but atheists typically adopt the same outlook because it benefits society. If something benefits society as a whole, it makes their own lives better because society in general is less hostile, specifically towards them.


I've always liked this paper (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/poverty.html) (warning: rather wonkish, but worthwhile overall) I found when looking for something completely unrelated in philosophy of science. Basically, he argues that theistic morality is not, and cannot be superior to secular humanism (as a secular humanist himself he's not claiming the opposite, though, i.e. that secular humanism is therefore logically superior. I like this part at the end: "If I may use the received androcentric idiom, the brotherhood of man does not depend on the fatherhood of God, either normatively or motivationally".)

[Radu]

My basic proposition is that the value of religious practice can be evidenced in their life to themselves and that they can come to find that the tenants are true.

Of course to a practitioner of a religion the tenets will be true. They believe in the religion, ergo they have already bought into its truth value. It would be meaningless to say I was a Jew without actually believing Judaism's tenets to be true. The perceived value of a belief to the believer has nothing to do with the truth of those beliefs.

If we describe essential Christian doctrines outside of religious language and or mythology you could come up with something like:

1. Focus on welfare of others individuals equally as your own welfare
2. Prepare for long term future
3. Participate in a community of common values
4. Don't take offense at others
5. Benefit of the community is greater than benefit to self

Now, each of these concepts can be shown empirically to have intrinsic circuitry in the brain that when activated helps the individual feel better, live longer and healthier lives, have a stronger immune system, reduce impacts of stress/stressful events, and provide for a sense of security necessary to activate other parts of the brain beyond survival mechanisms. This is pretty established neuroscience and something I believe we both agree upon. You've stated numerous times that on this level religion is valuable.

Sure, if you want to take the religion out of religion, then it becomes much clearer what benefits they possess. Taking the mythology and religious language out of religion and discussing its value in improving human lives is like taking the engine and tires off of a car and discussing its value as a transport.

As BBB has pointed out earlier, there are many religions and philosophies which could be described by those beliefs. Confucianism, for example.

I agree with the point that those values have led to an increased quality of life and thus to the survivability of groups which adhere to them, but I disagree with the point that those views derive from religion or that they are valuable parts of a religion. I hold that most of them arose as a direct result of evolutionary advantage.

Belief 1: Altruism. Altruism is often very selfish, as embodied in the phrase, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." There is a very clear gain for the individual by giving to other individuals. Altruism can also be a means of signaling your superiority over others. "Look, I'm in such a good position, I can afford to divert attention and resources towards the well-being of others." In this way, it is also selfish as an advertisement for the viability of your genetics. Furthermore, even if it occasionally results in disadvantage for the giver, it reinforces the strength of the group as a whole and thus they survive where others may not.

Belief 2: Foresight and planning. This is a "chicken or the egg?" problem. On the one hand, the development of the human brain and culture allowed us to spend increasing amounts of time planning for the future. Tools allowed us to shape the environment to suit us. Specialization of social roles allowed us to be more productive and thus free up time for planning. Our development encourages planning for the future. On the other hand, our plans also influence our future development. Because we plan, our brains, societies, and religions changed. Because we planned, things developed in a different manner, one more suited to sustaining long term plans. Belief 2 is more of an indicator of the success our ancestors had back when we didn't have the luxury of internet debates.

Belief 3: In Groups and Out Groups. A community of like minded individuals becomes an in group. "Birds of a feather flock together." A strong group identity leads to increased survivability of the in group members. This is hardly limited to humans. Look at wolves. Or lions. Or sheep. Or birds. Each of them survives quite well by attaching themselves to an in-group, one whose needs they attend to as priority 1. Humans have the luxury of giving our groups labels and indeed having many different groups. We are all members of Kaytastrophe's Space Station- that's one sort of In Group. Some of us are Male and some Female. Two more In Groups. There's an endless slew of In Groups: Nationality. Religion. Musical taste. Handedness. Political parties. That we have the luxury of such arbitrary distinctions is yet another indicator of our ancestors' evolutionary successes (thus far.)

Belief 4: Where do you get this? Turn the other cheek, ok. What about an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? I agree with belief 4, by the way: I think we shouldn't seek revenge. I don't, however, ascribe that belief to the Bible or to Christianity. There are too many contradicting passages for me to accept this as a core tenet of Christianity.

Belief 5: Addressed in dealing with In Groups and Altruism.

Also, you've stated time and time again that the value of the belief system does not necessarily relate to it's truthfulness. That is accurate, but in scientific terms if you label the myth or belief as a model then you should be able to evaluate it as a model. Is the model useful? Does it model well enough our observations of the world around us and can it predict accurately outcomes? That's the real criteria.

Sure. Let's evaluate the success of the religious model in predicting outcomes and describing the world. How does Young Earth Creationism sound? Genesis doesn't exactly gel with the evidence we have in favor of evolution, and geology alone makes the timing mighty suspect. I believe this sort of thing is what you had in mind when you said:

Now, some claims of religious myth cannot be very well verified. With others the very lack of evidence of the claims is so astonishing as to make the claims look spurious at best and outright lies at worst.

...with certain internal/intellectual/meditative practices the myths may simply provide focal points or reinforcements to help the brain retain the practices better. Does it prove the myths? No, it doesn't. The truthfulness of the myth is not proven or even validated in any of these. So the question remains at what point does the myth/model actually begin to function as a model that provides model like benefits? Well, suck, here I am in a catch-22. I said I would not testify but it is very difficult to answer the question without doing so. So I guess I'll leave it at that.

It is true that religion may lay out a successful methodology for a great many beneficial practices. It also lays out a successful (in that it works) methodology for many negative practices as well. It is the practices themselves which are good or bad, but it is the religion that provides the means and justification for them. We aren't discussing the utility/benefits of religion, we're discussing the truthfulness of it.

In the end, you can believe as you will. You can accept the evidences you've seen and continue to characterize all religious believers with the same broad brush of "speaking out of their ass" or you can be a little more specific and retain a smidgen of skepticism that perhaps someone is not "speaking out of their ass" when you address the subject in the future.

False dichotomy and an assumption as well. Atticus HAS accepted the evidence he has seen, and his atheism is the result. There is a phenomenal amount of evidence supporting one claim (atheism) and precious little supporting other claims (religions).

Furthermore, this is not a binary choice. Someone may very well believe they are not speaking out of their ass, but without evidence to support it they may as well be. How can you refute the invisible, intangible golden monkey that advises me on religious matters? When two sides disagree, the truth doesn't always lie in compromise (or skepticism, if you prefer.) It is possible for one or both parties to simply be wrong.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I should say that if (1) a "Christian" says the he thinks it highly unlikely that there really is a god, that he thinks it highly unlikely that Jesus was this God's son and that this Son performed miracles and rose from the dead, BUT (2) s/he says that the mythology around these claims is a powerful nourishing tradition and that many of the practices that have surrounded that traidtion are beneficial to the practitioners and you can get msot or all of the benefitis without believing the mythology is anything other than mythology; and thus (3) that his/her practice of Christianity doesn't imply that s/he actually believes the myths in (1), then I have absolutely no problem with said "Christian". Indeed, that "Christain" is close to a description of me.

[Space Cadet B^3]

The biblical scholars I saw on "The Real Story of Jesus" on ABC a few years back all said that the miracles were written into the bible to compete with the other religions of the day. Poseidon, Dionysus, etc.

They also said that at that time there was an outbreak of 'death cults' that espoused resurrection. Some argue that the bible again borrowed source material from them, but the majority of the biblical scholars were affiliated with a church in some fashion, and they believed that on a very fundamental level for the whole story of Jesus to have any weight, that the resurrection had to happen.

Now I don't hold this truth (or their version of it) a sacred or anything but the thoughts this show lead me on made me say goodbye to organized religion. I was through pretending.

Now as I discovered in thinking through this thread, a lot of the chip I had on my shoulder in regards to religion, is not the divine, in whatever form that may be, but rather with the organizations often standing up loudest and calling the faithful to worship.

I have a mish-mash of beliefs, some of which are irrational and in a sense contradictory. But I do believe in the spirit, I do believe everyone has a way of finding their connection with that spirit and being renewed.

Now I couldn't begin to tell you that there's some Being out there responsible for this connection. I don't know if it's magical or psychic or just a bald lie to comfort ourselves... but I believe in that place of renewal human beings are somehow greater than they were before.

Frankly, who am I to judge their paradigm in plugging into the Matrix.

[Trainz]

Now I couldn't begin to tell you that there's some Being out there responsible for this connection. I don't know if it's magical or psychic or just a bald lie to comfort ourselves... but I believe in that place of renewal human beings are somehow greater than they were before.

For me, you don't need any spiritual beleif at all to experience enlightment and renewal. Standing on my balcony on a nice summer day as the sun sets and colors the clouds, with a gentle wind, taking it all in, and feeling as being part of the universe and all it's wonders, as part of the cycle of life, it's as profound and significant to me than any other religion is to others.

You don't need beleifs to experience elation...

[Singularity]

For me, you don't need any spiritual beleif at all to experience enlightment and renewal. Standing on my balcony on a nice summer day as the sun sets and colors the clouds, with a gentle wind, taking it all in, and feeling as being part of the universe and all it's wonders, as part of the cycle of life, it's as profound and significant to me than any other religion is to others.

You don't need beleifs to experience elation...

I totally agree with every bit of that.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I totally agree with every bit of that.

As does Sam Harris - see the final chapter of The End of Faith.

[Space Cadet B^3]

For me, you don't need any spiritual beleif at all to experience enlightment and renewal. Standing on my balcony on a nice summer day as the sun sets and colors the clouds, with a gentle wind, taking it all in, and feeling as being part of the universe and all it's wonders, as part of the cycle of life, it's as profound and significant to me than any other religion is to others.

You don't need beleifs to experience elation...The key to your post is in the emphasis I added... So let the other players enjoy Mario Kart, and you go on playing Zelda. It's not hard.

The paradigm is individual, it doesn't have to be proven. It is in fact completely incapable of being proven.

There're 3 guys in my office who play MMOs, 2 WoW users and one who is the penultimate EQ2 fanboi. At some point they just have to allow the others to enjoy their own path because they can't convince each other that playing with their own joystick is less fun than playing with someone elses.

I don't believe in Santa Claus but I believe in the spirit of Christmas. Not because big black baby jeebus is involved, but because of the hint of a smile that crops up on people's faces when you do something nice for them. Now I know plenty of scrooges out there who are like 'bah you shouldn't need a calendar to tell you to be a better person.'

Well so fucking WHAT?! Don't fucking kick the cow in the dog-gamned udder because the milk's not chocolate. Take what good you can and keep your vitriol for something where it matters! Enjoy your world-view, and simply allow other people to enjoy theirs.

WE DON'T NEED TO AGREE! EVER!

We don't even need to draw up a fucking blueprint on how we're different. You can listen to NPR in your car on your commute, I'll be listening to the classic rock station, driving in my own lane and having one hell of a time. Is your drive better than mine? Only to you my friend, but I'll not break off your antenna because I think you're having a more rockin' ride than I.

Viva la difference and let the stupid shit go.

[Trainz]

The key to your post is in the emphasis I added... So let the other players enjoy Mario Kart, and you go on playing Zelda. It's not hard.

I agree. I rarely engage in the religious debates, only when I feel a measure of balance is needed in such discussions. But with Atticus and Singularity, I rarely feel the need to add my input.

:tongue: