24 replies to this topic

[mentatpsi]

It used to be my belief that atheists must be smarter (or at least more perceptive) than the average man for a particular ability which the average man does not have developed well, critical thought. Yet after conversing more I've noticed that this is not always the case, so I've been led to believe that there should be "class distinction" within atheists. I have made it resemble vampire class distinctions because vampires and immortality go hand and hand, eh? Here is my proposed classes:

The pure blood
The pure blood are atheists who became such due to heavy philosophical and scientific inquiries. They have noted the absurdity at truly knowing if god exists, and have seen the self-regulatory nature of the universe and thereby cannot soundly place god within the framework of the universe. Although probably more agnostic in nature, they prefer being called atheists because theism does not meet their fancy and would prefer that the methods to ascertain god be scientific rather than faith based. They represent the intelligent atheist for they have arrived there purely by the capacity of their minds.

The led astray
The led astray are those who have faced such a burdening experience that they question the liklihood that god is up there when such tragedies can befall man. In this regard, they have been "turned" by an outside force. These groups formulate the opinion based on their conception of the Abrahamic faiths. The abrahamic faith show a god of human quality who has some capacity for love based on Christian theologians. And indeed, if christianity is the grid by which to perceive, then how can such a loving god watch as men die without relation to their "wickedness". Sometimes these groups do not look into deism, or any of the other more objective philosophies regarding the possibility of a deity. In other words, they don't examine the possibility that god might not give a damn. The intelligence varies more so with this group as tragedy is not a function of intelligence. They arrive to the conclusion by the capacity of their hearts.

The self-serving
The self-serving are atheists who arrive there because it serves their aim. They find a moral scheme without repercussions to be excellent in their aims for power or peace of mind. They would shed their atheism for the religious if it served their purpose. They are the type who would most likely call on their deathbeds that god exists for the sake of protecting their souls from ever lasting torment.


Eh?

Edited by mentatpsi, 08 February 2010 - 01:37 AM.

[mentatpsi]

People may ask why exactly this is necessary. It is mainly because I personally think the best representatives of the movement are the pure blood. Mainly from a statistical perspective, the pure blood are more likely to be prepared for the onslaught of fanatics of a movement, while at the same token (I would hope) they are also more open minded and can "triangulate" the origin of a belief within another. Having thought of the same material, they are more likely to make good debaters.

Personally, the catalyst of me becoming agnostic was with a scientist who I had a small debate with and noticed the errors in my assumptions. Quite liberating.

[Luna]

It is true not all atheists are smart, just as not religious are stupid.
Calling them in such names, especially as "Pure Blood" seems just weird and primitive (sorry! it just reminds me why people killed others previously, saying they are not pure enough)

Realize not all religious are stupid and not all atheists are smart, some simply don't believe in god just because and never cared to think much about it. Some thought about it a lot and somehow got to the conclusion there is enough proof for it, read our lifestyle forum, the debates about diets are not much different than that!

Personally, I don't think that I believe in any religion but I keep in mind it doesn't mean that god or something doesn't exist, god might exist but "who knows".

[melly_d]

Atheists are going to be as rich and varied as any other selection of a large group of people. And, uh, what's with the vampire-sounding names?

[mentatpsi]

The classes are merely focused on describing the motive behind the ascription of "Atheist". It's not to say one is better than the other. I do believe, however, what's more important is how true the definition is to oneself.

I had thought that to oppose something so founded on tradition (especially when the opposing is aimed at seeking truth rather than personal happiness) at least should grant some sort of intelligence and inquisitiveness as a default descriptor. It is a good point, intelligence isn't a default nor is the amount of time spent thinking about it. But to call oneself an atheist, which seems more defined in a certainty than a possibility, and have it be one of those fleeting thoughts seems to make it a poor descriptor of an individual. A better descriptor for such a case would be agnostic. One could say that the purity of atheism within that individual wouldn't be as high as one who spent a great deal of their time examining both. I apologize if it came off a bit arrogant.

The vampire inspired names is cause I'm lame .

Edited by mentatpsi, 10 February 2010 - 10:50 PM.

[goodman]

It is true not all atheists are smart, just as not religious are stupid.
Calling them in such names, especially as "Pure Blood" seems just weird and primitive (sorry! it just reminds me why people killed others previously, saying they are not pure enough)

Realize not all religious are stupid and not all atheists are smart, some simply don't believe in god just because and never cared to think much about it. Some thought about it a lot and somehow got to the conclusion there is enough proof for it, read our lifestyle forum, the debates about diets are not much different than that!

Personally, I don't think that I believe in any religion but I keep in mind it doesn't mean that god or something doesn't exist, god might exist but "who knows".

those who call them selves children of Abraham and follow any of these religions, even though they know 'the facts' MUST be stupid. No excuse/tollerance there, sorry
But as we all know, nobody of these 'believers' believes - it's all about what they want to believe. Might sound arrogant, but I see no reason whatsoever to find apologies for these people!

[mentatpsi]

It is true not all atheists are smart, just as not religious are stupid.
Calling them in such names, especially as "Pure Blood" seems just weird and primitive (sorry! it just reminds me why people killed others previously, saying they are not pure enough)

Realize not all religious are stupid and not all atheists are smart, some simply don't believe in god just because and never cared to think much about it. Some thought about it a lot and somehow got to the conclusion there is enough proof for it, read our lifestyle forum, the debates about diets are not much different than that!

Personally, I don't think that I believe in any religion but I keep in mind it doesn't mean that god or something doesn't exist, god might exist but "who knows".

those who call them selves children of Abraham and follow any of these religions, even though they know 'the facts' MUST be stupid. No excuse/tollerance there, sorry
But as we all know, nobody of these 'believers' believes - it's all about what they want to believe. Might sound arrogant, but I see no reason whatsoever to find apologies for these people!

Indeed, if a belief is so centered on feeling good while ignoring the possibility of darkness, then you are the creator of your own ignorance. Although this practice is socially acceptable, it does lead to reliance on belief to be the crafter of truth rather than empirical reasoning.

[shadowhawk]

Since some think no one could be a serious intellectual and be a theist of the Christian type I cite two sources among thousands showing this is nonsense. The first, “The Existence of God,” by Swinburne from Oxford who is a Christian. I have quoted the book review from Amazon The second source is the famous Atheist Anthony Flew, “There is a God.” which records his recent conversion and the reasons he now believes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swinburne
http://www.amazon.co...r...9694&sr=1-1

"He argues his case very well both in this book and in others ... if you are looking for a book which will help you to see that there is more than what you daily observe with your senses, this is a good book to read." --The Tablet

"The book is clearly written, compact, and it provides an excellent introduction to the work of a prolific and significant contemporary Christian philosopher of religion. Not all will be convinced by every argument, but all will benefit from reading it with attention." --Science and Christian Belief

Review from previous edition: "The book is ... an immensely rewarding one for those who are prepared to give it the close attention which it both requires and deserves ... Swinburne is accepting the challenge to make his case on the more difficult side. He succeeds brilliantly, and we can indeed be grateful to him for that ... a worthy counterbalance to the views of such as Dawkins and Hawking. It is much to be hoped that it receives as much attention." --The Door

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flew
“British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew's recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part: if the speed or mass of the electron were off just a little, no life could have evolved on this planet. Perhaps the arrogance of the New Atheists also emboldened him, as Flew taunts them for failing to live up to the greatness of atheists of yore. The book concludes with an appendix by New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, arguing for the coherence of Christian belief in the resurrection. Flew praises Wright, though he maintains some distance still from orthodox Christianity. The book will be most avidly embraced by traditional theists seeking argumentative ammunition.

http://www.amazon.co...-...1626&sr=1-1

[mentatpsi]

It's a known argument, there is such a delicate balance that presents such perfect conditions for life that it seems there must be a creator. If you look at Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", one sees that there could be thousands of different universes, each with their own set of natural laws and each with their own fate (eg. expanding or contracting at different rates and times). Thousands upon thousands of universes could have been formed, and just this one bore the natural prerequisites to harbor and evolve complex organisms. The whole point is, one can note a probabilistic model in the formation of life and thereby saying such perfection depicts a creator is not a valid argument. What of the possible heat death of the universe? Does the creator care so little of his creations that he would leave their fates to death. Such beauty he would damn?

Further, what of the emotional inclinations of this creator? We have personified him, but any reasonable thinker can see the underlying currents of the persona. An overly flawed creator who appears more like a warlord than a Mage beyond comprehension. You wish to tell me he is as flawed as the Bible depicts? A being capable of such wonder and we've the capacity to know it? Personally, in the persona I see the possibility to make people into puppets, to create a black & white morality, and inflict punishments on those who would deny validity.

Deism I may admit possible, but with the lot of religions I cannot see truth. Call the stories a metaphor as one chooses, but one does not call an entry within a history or science book metaphor if it is proven wrong.

Beliefs are powerful, but to hold one so close that you close your mind to the possibility of darkness is to me not a sign of an intellectual.

Sorry to be overwhelming, I only mean to say that to believe in the possibility of a god is fine, but being headstrong about any belief just results in ignorance.

Edited by mentatpsi, 02 March 2010 - 03:23 AM.

[Forever21]

FYI, all vampires are "turned in". No one made himself a vampire by biting himself.

[mentatpsi]

FYI, all vampires are "turned in". No one made himself a vampire by biting himself.

Where did the original vampire come from?

[Forever21]

FYI, all vampires are "turned in". No one made himself a vampire by biting himself.

Where did the original vampire come from?

From God.

Edited by Forever21, 02 March 2010 - 07:49 PM.

[shadowhawk]

t's a known argument, there is such a delicate balance that presents such perfect conditions for life that it seems there must be a creator. If you look at Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", one sees that there could be thousands of different universes, each with their own set of natural laws and each with their own fate (eg. expanding or contracting at different rates and times). Thousands upon thousands of universes could have been formed, and just this one bore the natural prerequisites to harbor and evolve complex organisms. The whole point is, one can note a probabilistic model in the formation of life and thereby saying such perfection depicts a creator is not a valid argument. What of the possible heat death of the universe? Does the creator care so little of his creations that he would leave their fates to death. Such beauty he would damn?

The Anthropic Principle states that the universe was from the very first moment of its existence fitted for life and hence human life to appear. As you note it is a delicate balance. In fact it is amazing. For life to be present today a set of incredibly restrictive conditions must have been president from the beginning. I won’t point out the more than 30 conditions but I note Hawking in “A Brief History of Time,” also answered the question Why does the Universe bother to exist? He said, “I don’t know the answer to that.” ( pg. 99) We could also ask the same question of the, “Parallel Universe,” theory which you mention. If intelligent design is not a valid argument then neither is a parallel universe theory. The Bible predicts a heat death of the universe and claims this is not Gods desire. That is another subject.

Further, what of the emotional inclinations of this creator? We have personified him, but any reasonable thinker can see the underlying currents of the persona. An overly flawed creator who appears more like a warlord than a Mage beyond comprehension. You wish to tell me he is as flawed as the Bible depicts? A being capable of such wonder and we've the capacity to know it? Personally, in the persona I see the possibility to make people into puppets, to create a black & white morality, and inflict punishments on those who would deny validity.

This is not my experience.

Deism I may admit possible, but with the lot of religions I cannot see truth. Call the stories a metaphor as one chooses, but one does not call an entry within a history or science book metaphor if it is proven wrong.

You have not proven anything like this.

Beliefs are powerful, but to hold one so close that you close your mind to the possibility of darkness is to me not a sign of an intellectual. And who is doing this?

Sorry to be overwhelming, I only mean to say that to believe in the possibility of a god is fine, but being headstrong about any belief just results in ignorance.

This is an empty statement. Who are you speaking of?

[mentatpsi]

You're probably mistaking spirituality for religion as you seem more spiritual than religious. Eh?

I'll take a look at the citations in the "Brief History of Time" book, thanks for the mention.

Anyways, here's a pretty good read:
Link. My point with it is that beliefs shape the trajectories our brains take, and to be shoved a pattern of fanatical devotion and supression of inquiry is going to have repercussions.

I know there are errors in this kind of study, but one must admit, religion can be damaging if taken without scepticism.

[shadowhawk]

You're probably mistaking spirituality for religion as you seem more spiritual than religious. Eh?

I'll take a look at the citations in the "Brief History of Time" book, thanks for the mention.

Anyways, here's a pretty good read:
Link. My point with it is that beliefs shape the trajectories our brains take, and to be shoved a pattern of fanatical devotion and supression of inquiry is going to have repercussions.

I know there are errors in this kind of study, but one must admit, religion can be damaging if taken without scepticism.

The problem with your link showing IQ and religious belief of countries is fraught with problems. Among them are:

1. There is no evidence that one countries people have lower mental abilities than any others. This kind of phudo-science has been the tool of all kinds prejudice and bias against many in the past. It is not science.

2. I suspect there are logical flaws in the way the questions were set up. For example what logical connection could there be between IQ and religious belief? Only dumb people could be religious?

3. “Is it reasonable to have faith in God? Can intelligent, educated people really believe what the Bible says? Or do the atheists have it right--has Christianity been disproven by science and discredited as a guide to morality? Best-selling author Dinesh D'S “ Here is a book, “What’s so great about Christianity?” It is a good introduction to Christianity with its many leading intellectuals throughout history. Shall I list many of them? Not now.

http://www.amazon.co...t...7545&sr=1-1

Religion is the corporate expression of the spirituality of people. One aspect of being a spiritual person is experience. It is the basis of a relationship with God. If you read the writings of Soren Kierkegard you will see the intellectual necessity for experience and spirituality. We have a mind so I don’t limit proof and evidence to experience alone and part of my experience is mental as well. Spirituality and Religion are integrated as well.

[Luna]

Nothing can be proven impossible

I met a lot of very smart religious people. Atheists are usually not better than religious people.

And for what been said in response to my earlier post: "Ignorance is bliss."
We are only better if we win. Win versus aging and have happy life.
A lot of atheists are really stupid, being atheist doesn't make you smart. Actually, a lot of atheists believe there is nothing afterwards and like that idea, other might hate it but you don't see them helping the immortality cause. How does it make atheists better?

Imagine a person being afraid of dying, all their life sad depressed.. then dies.
Then there is the religious guy happy living, dies.
Then there is the ones who are afraid of dying, can be sad can be depressed but wins and defeats aging, dying, any sort of death, stays alive. Happy ever after.

Well ignoring the third option which we all hope to be, you see the religious person at least is happy, he was happy for thousands of years.
You know what the funny thing is? When we defeat death and aging (or more like aging and death!) - the religious person will be happy even more and say GOD gave him this gift finally. We will bump our heads in a wall screaming *STUPID* *STUPID* *STUPID
The sad atheist will join group number three, with us.

But overall, in a subjective world where you didn't prove anything, the religious and ignorance have the win on who might be having happier less stressful life.
They aren't ignoring any facts today, that's the fun thing with religion. You can just say "God did it" "God is testing us worthy". After thousands of years of religious suddenly comes this thing "SCIENCE" and tells us that a thousands years old tradition is wrong.. of course they won't "see the truth". Especially since God cannot be disproved.

[mentatpsi]

My point is intelligence will breed uncertainity. Doubt should be a natural aspect of any sane and intelligent individual. That is my point. I'm sure fanatics don't claim to have doubt, but do. My point is, to be a theist and deny oneself that most basic instinct... doubt... is not allowing the mind to flourish. Exploring the imagination should be allowed even if it escapes one's faith. To suppress doubt publicly, to have a "corporate spirituality" as you stated is damaging. I've no issue with spirituality because it stays open minded even if it leads to agnosticism and it trains the imagination, my issue is with organized religion.

Btw, I don't think science can disprove or prove god, and I think that's the point.

[shadowhawk]

Btw, I don't think science can disprove or prove god, and I think that's the point.

Science is a process not a position. All questions are open to question and challenge. Science has not proven atheism any more than God. It is because Science is limited. Presciently we are not able to ask questions like this. Maybe in 100 years we will know enough to ask, “what is God?” That does not keep us from believing in God now any more than we couldn’t believe in radio waves before we had the tools and evidence to believe in something we can’t see or touch. I once had an atheist tell me he only believed in what he could see and touch. I blew on him and asked him if he believed that? The point is many people believe the cosmos evidences what we can’t see.
Check out:

http://www.amazon.co...t...2350&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co...a...2350&sr=1-3

[bacopa]

Nothing can be proven impossible

I met a lot of very smart religious people. Atheists are usually not better than religious people.

And for what been said in response to my earlier post: "Ignorance is bliss."
We are only better if we win. Win versus aging and have happy life.
A lot of atheists are really stupid, being atheist doesn't make you smart. Actually, a lot of atheists believe there is nothing afterwards and like that idea, other might hate it but you don't see them helping the immortality cause. How does it make atheists better?

Imagine a person being afraid of dying, all their life sad depressed.. then dies.
Then there is the religious guy happy living, dies.
Then there is the ones who are afraid of dying, can be sad can be depressed but wins and defeats aging, dying, any sort of death, stays alive. Happy ever after.

Well ignoring the third option which we all hope to be, you see the religious person at least is happy, he was happy for thousands of years.
You know what the funny thing is? When we defeat death and aging (or more like aging and death!) - the religious person will be happy even more and say GOD gave him this gift finally. We will bump our heads in a wall screaming *STUPID* *STUPID* *STUPID
The sad atheist will join group number three, with us.

But overall, in a subjective world where you didn't prove anything, the religious and ignorance have the win on who might be having happier less stressful life.
They aren't ignoring any facts today, that's the fun thing with religion. You can just say "God did it" "God is testing us worthy". After thousands of years of religious suddenly comes this thing "SCIENCE" and tells us that a thousands years old tradition is wrong.. of course they won't "see the truth". Especially since God cannot be disproved.

great post! It has always got me how stubborn, or ignorant some atheists are. Like when I brought our goals over to Atheist Nexus, most had the death is "natural," who are we to tamper with nature, type attitude, and it really bothered me!

Most people gave population worries and global eco-terrorism fears to my idealism of defeating the aging process. It's what Portal said, give someone a potential solution and if you state it wrong people will instinctively argue with it, devils advocate thinking, but more than this I think many atheists are afraid of tackling the problem for multiple reasons. One could be "what if we defeat aging and I don't make the cut?" Which is a big fear for lots of people I'd imagine. Another fear might be knee jerk reaction fears that challenge status quo thinking. And just any new concept, especially this big of a potential change to our lives, obviously scares people.

But I get annoyed at humanist groups like Harvard Humanist. I tried getting them interested a few times with no response. Could be they didn't see it, or didn't get to it, but I tend to believe doing something about death scares people for some reason. Maybe Humanists are just so angered at all the terrible things religion has done to people, that challenging their acceptance of natural death is too much to handle...I've always feared death and from a young age asked my dad if we could stop aging...but some people don't think like me, although most do or there wouldn't be so many religious people hoping to get to heaven.

But some people really don't think too progressively, which is glaringly obvious.

[mentatpsi]

Btw, I don't think science can disprove or prove god, and I think that's the point.

Science is a process not a position. All questions are open to question and challenge. Science has not proven atheism any more than God. It is because Science is limited. Presciently we are not able to ask questions like this. Maybe in 100 years we will know enough to ask, “what is God?” That does not keep us from believing in God now any more than we couldn’t believe in radio waves before we had the tools and evidence to believe in something we can’t see or touch. I once had an atheist tell me he only believed in what he could see and touch. I blew on him and asked him if he believed that? The point is many people believe the cosmos evidences what we can’t see.
Check out:

http://www.amazon.co...t...2350&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co...a...2350&sr=1-3

Science is a position to not make positions unless it can go through the process of science lol.

The universe might have consciousness, the issue is, does consciousness have free will? Though we are sentient it is possible we have no free will, and our actions are determined by genetics and our neural activity which is partially complex patterns. If this is true, then how can one prove that the universe is sentient? It too abides natural laws, does that make it sentient? The point is there is probably no method to prove it. You can't have the method be "talk to the universe and see if it responds" because if it does respond, how do you know it's not your imagination?

Mystical experiences does not translate directly to a deity, it translates to activity in your brain. If i experience a massive hallucination and neural networks in my brain which determine imagination from reality were inactive for some odd reason, would my hallucination be reality? Surely not. Unless you believe in multiple realities, and then whatever floats your boat.

The point I am trying to make with this is that even though my imagination might stir me towards seeing the possibility of a deity or a conscious universe, my mind frame still sees the weakness in ever proving or disproving it... because it's all logic and subjective experience. And yes though empiricism is subjective, it seeks the objectivity within the experience. The event which is bounded by variables and can be predicted with accuracy and demonstrated time & time again. Such is the beauty of agnostic/atheistic thought, learning to not manipulate reality to meet the demands of our egos, but rather discovering it daily.

-------------

In regards to wind being blown, science can show what mechanisms as well as what precisely you are doing when you blow air. A more appropriate thing for him to have said is that he only believes what he experiences. The issue is that there are processes in the brain which give rise to "oneness" (such as the activities of the parietal lobe), and if we could explain that the god that one experiences is most likely a creation of the brain.

Radio Waves shouldn't have been believed in with 100% certainty until one constructed and demonstrated their existence. To simply believe without demonstration would have not sufficed and we would never be communicating. It's similar to believing in theoretical physics without ever having demonstrated the construction in reality. Yes yes, the mathematics works, but show it in an experiment.

Edited by mentatpsi, 07 March 2010 - 05:04 AM.

[Luna]

Most people gave population worries and global eco-terrorism fears to my idealism of defeating the aging process. It's what Portal said, give someone a potential solution and if you state it wrong people will instinctively argue with it, devils advocate thinking, but more than this I think many atheists are afraid of tackling the problem for multiple reasons. One could be "what if we defeat aging and I don't make the cut?" Which is a big fear for lots of people I'd imagine. Another fear might be knee jerk reaction fears that challenge status quo thinking. And just any new concept, especially this big of a potential change to our lives, obviously scares people.

but I tend to believe doing something about death scares people for some reason.

I don't get it.
If you might not get it, it's better not try at all? I mean, don't they want to get it? Just give up and die because you might not? If you don't make it then no one else should?

Afraid of doing something about death? Isn't dying unwanted? feared? So why be afraid to do something about it?

Changing the economics and status of people is more scary than dying?

[shadowhawk]

Science is a position to not make positions unless it can go through the process of science lol.

The universe might have consciousness, the issue is, does consciousness have free will? Though we are sentient it is possible we have no free will, and our actions are determined by genetics and our neural activity which is partially complex patterns. If this is true, then how can one prove that the universe is sentient? It too abides natural laws, does that make it sentient? The point is there is probably no method to prove it. You can't have the method be "talk to the universe and see if it responds" because if it does respond, how do you know it's not your imagination?

You have no basis for science. As the contemporary philosopher of science Mary Hesse has pointed out, the lesson of the history of science seems to be that the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be overturned as the theories they replaced! That is my point. Beside this point consciousness is part of the universe, look in the mirror.

Mystical experiences does not translate directly to a deity, it translates to activity in your brain. If I experience a massive hallucination and neural networks in my brain which determine imagination from reality were inactive for some odd reason, would my hallucination be reality? Surely not. Unless you believe in multiple realities, and then whatever floats your boat.

What is the point. If you had no brain you couldn’t determine anything. And, how did you prove there is no deity?

The point I am trying to make with this is that even though my imagination might stir me towards seeing the possibility of a deity or a conscious universe, my mind frame still sees the weakness in ever proving or disproving it... because it's all logic and subjective experience. And yes though empiricism is subjective, it seeks the objectivity within the experience. The event which is bounded by variables and can be predicted with accuracy and demonstrated time & time again. Such is the beauty of agnostic/atheistic thought, learning to not manipulate reality to meet the demands of our egos, but rather discovering it daily.

I’m glad you used no logic or subjective experience to make these claims. You have demonstrated this time and again? I find that hard to believe.
-------------

In regards to wind being blown, science can show what mechanisms as well as what precisely you are doing when you blow air. A more appropriate thing for him to have said is that he only believes what he experiences. The issue is that there are processes in the brain which give rise to "oneness" (such as the activities of the parietal lobe), and if we could explain that the god that one experiences is most likely a creation of the brain.

Most people that believe in God also have an experience of God. I think you are a long way from demonstrating experience is only a brain function and has northing to do with reality.

Radio Waves shouldn't have been believed in with 100% certainty until one constructed and demonstrated their existence. To simply believe without demonstration would have not sufficed and we would never be communicating. It's similar to believing in theoretical physics without ever having demonstrated the construction in reality. Yes yes, the mathematics works, but show it in an experiment.

As the contemporary philosopher of science Mary Hesse has pointed out, the lesson of the history of science seems to be that the theories we currently hold to be true are as likely to be overturned as the theories they replaced! Much of what we think and believe now will be overturned sometime in the future. Science does work and science is knowledge of a sort. It's just not the absolute knowledge that some claimed that it is.

That is the basis of the claim, despite the present evidence, for belief in immortality. Talk about faith! Again, “science is a method not a position.

[mentatpsi]

I'm not proving there is no deity, but i'm not proving the opposite. I'm pointing out the absurdity in knowledge of a deity when such knowledge is so much more governed on faith than reason. I was spiritual once, so don't cast me into a category of one who does not understand spiritualism or belief.

No basis for science? Honestly though, science might be flawed in ways, but it has granted medical treatments that actually work. Demonstrating something consistently is a basis. Such is the way of statistical analysis and empirical methods and most importantly, the scientific method. Religion had granted a belief in demonic possession and drilling holes in people's heads. Gave rise to the belief that human sacrifice yielded auspicious returns if consistent enough. Gave rise to salvation and damnation, of great control over humans as if we are herd animals with no ability to grow minds.

My point with the brain is to say, there's a segment which perceives reality, yes there is some grounds there to call senses reality. However, there are also huge chunks of the brain which create, imagine, and interpret. Is it not likely that the experience of god's presence is imagined? Do not say "no" with such conviction, you should at least admit the possibility that imagination comes into play. Much as a schizophrenic can hold conviction of his hallucination's truth, so too may we hold conviction in a creation where happiness sprouts. This does not mean god does not exists, but means anecdotes of presence cannot equate to a deity.

As far as immortality, I believe in the premise of anti-aging. I'm not sure about immortality, but I believe in anti-aging because we have already seen it as our life expectancies have risen from past eras. This is not faith, but observation of trends. To support it is something any sentient being who enjoys living should do.


I apologize if I come off disrespectful, and my argumentation is not meant to suggest I don't believe you intelligent, in fact the only reason i still pursue this is because I see your intelligence. The issue I have is I don't understand some of your convictions, so I apologize if I come off insulting.

[shadowhawk]

I'm not proving there is no deity, but I’m not proving the opposite. I'm pointing out the absurdity in knowledge of a deity when such knowledge is so much more governed on faith than reason. I was spiritual once, so don't cast me into a category of one who does not understand spiritualism or belief.

[b]Ok, don’t think I was doing that.[/b]

No basis for science? Honestly though, science might be flawed in ways, but it has granted medical treatments that actually work. Demonstrating something consistently is a basis. Such is the way of statistical analysis and empirical methods and most importantly, the scientific method. Religion had granted a belief in demonic possession and drilling holes in people's heads. Gave rise to the belief that human sacrifice yielded auspicious returns if consistent enough. Gave rise to salvation and damnation, of great control over humans as if we are herd animals with no ability to grow minds.

Science is not flawed but limited in what it does. It is a method not a position. As to it’s wild past, practices of those who now claim to be practicing science, we will laugh at them. We will still be laughing 100 years from now about what is going on now.

My point with the brain is to say, there's a segment which perceives reality, yes there is some grounds there to call senses reality. However, there are also huge chunks of the brain which create, imagine, and interpret. Is it not likely that the experience of god's presence is imagined? Do not say "no" with such conviction, you should at least admit the possibility that imagination comes into play. Much as a schizophrenic can hold conviction of his hallucination's truth, so too may we hold conviction in a creation where happiness sprouts. This does not mean god does not exists, but means anecdotes of presence cannot equate to a deity.

Is it not equally possible that we have chunks of the brain that imagine there is no God? Perhaps it is a kind of schizophrenic illness.

As far as immortality, I believe in the premise of anti-aging. I'm not sure about immortality, but I believe in anti-aging because we have already seen it as our life expectancies have risen from past eras. This is not faith, but observation of trends. To support it is something any sentient being who enjoys living should do.

I believe in aging. Scientific method tells us it is part of being alive. This is as scientific as it gets. Life is good and a gift but it ends. There is an old Christian blessing, “God grant you many years.” That is my wish for you.

I apologize if I come off disrespectful, and my argumentation is not meant to suggest I don't believe you intelligent, in fact the only reason I still pursue this is because I see your intelligence. The issue I have is I don't understand some of your convictions, so I apologize if I come off insulting.

[u]I am a Christian. You are not insulting at all. Thanks for the exchange.[u

[mentatpsi]

I'll comment more later but this was interesting:

The Serotonin System and Spiritual Experiences