Atheist vs. Religious

[KinasePro]

Bayes' theorem is about incorporating information about the world to create the most accurate-possible beliefs. A religious person is someone who holds beliefs that do not originate from material evidence, processed by Bayes' theorem.

You can logically accept every fact that has ever been proven through scientific analysis, and still use faith to understand the realm that science does not describe. Refer to the earlier conversations on solipsism for reasons why a reliance on evidence alone is arguably too simplistic and not adhered to by anyone.

Also, there is irony in basing a world view on one man's theorem and using said theorem to discredit the religious.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sibitrum]

I'm open to religion because it grapples with the framework on which a scientific attitude must be built.

If logic, observation, and experimentation were to conclude with perfect assurance that God could not exist, I would immediately launch an inquiry into how I could so perfectly ascertain a reality in which God does not exist.

You clearly still don't understand what atheism means. All it says is that one lacks belief in a god/godess/thor/ra/pink unicorn/FSM etc. Given that we have no information to suggest that any of the above exist, a person with a sound scientific mind will conclude not to hold a belief in any of them.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If logic, observation, and experimentation were to conclude with perfect assurance that God could not exist, I would immediately launch an inquiry into how I could so perfectly ascertain a reality in which God does not exist.

The thing is, it doesnt. Not at all. The conflict is a reflex response (on the part of the religious) who view science as an attempt to undermine their beliefs. Now, if they choose to believe a purely legalistic and literal interpretation of things (which IMO is silly considering that literally interpreting something that has been previously interpreted.... well... any of you guys seen Multiplicity?) then they absolutely have views contradictory to science. They. But just because someone believes in an entity of the concept of a "god" or in intelligence behind creation or origin does not mean that they reject science. Nor does it mean that they take religious writings as metaphor

 

[sibitrum]

You can logically accept every fact that has ever been proven through scientific analysis, and still use faith to understand the realm that science does not describe. Refer to the earlier conversations on solipsism for reasons why a reliance on evidence alone is arguably too simplistic and not adhered to by anyone.

Also, there is irony in basing a world view on one man's theorem and using said theorem to discredit the religious.

But how does faith have anything to do with understanding? Faith is something made up, totally disconnected from reality. How do you have any additional knowledge of this "non scientific realm"? Because some religion you happened to grow up in told you so?

 

[SpecterGT260]

You can logically accept every fact that has ever been proven through scientific analysis, and still use faith to understand the realm that science does not describe. Refer to the earlier conversations on solipsism for reasons why a reliance on evidence alone is arguably too simplistic and not adhered to by anyone.

Also, there is irony in basing a world view on one man's theorem and using said theorem to discredit the religious.

I chuckled here, but I don't think this is actually where the irony lies. Bayes theorem isn't just his own, he just applied another dude's theorem to the concept of evolving understanding.
I still say the irony is in jumping into this thread with the diversity of demonstration of what "religious" is, and then making such a closed blanket statement - clearly demonstrating that his view has not evolved with new information

 

[sinuous sausage]

Here's an article written by a biologist whose lab is a stone's throw away from the one in which I toil.

http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/FrederickGrinnell/GrinnellWebMisc/intelligible design.pdf

He does a much more savvy job than I could.

 

[SpecterGT260]

But how does faith have anything to do with understanding? Faith is something made up, totally disconnected from reality. How do you have any additional knowledge of this "non scientific realm"? Because some religion you happened to grow up in told you so?

It doesnt. This is where you misunderstand the theorem. Scientific advancement has not touched the fundamentals faith in any way, shape, or form. It has refuted several extrapolations made by specific people - geocentricism, classic creationism, whatever. But these things are NOT what religious belief is built upon. These things were erroneously built upon religious belief. It is inappropriate to try to turn and swim upstream with your logic when the problem lays with the downstream implications.

 

[KinasePro]

But how does faith have anything to do with understanding? Faith is something made up, totally disconnected from reality. How do you have any additional knowledge of this "non scientific realm"? Because some religion you happened to grow up in told you so?

I think we disagree on the definition of faith. Faith is a way of trying to understand what our logical constructs (science, the 5 senses, etc...) don't bother to address (love, good, evil, justice, etc...). It's a process, not something that a person arrives at because it felt good or sounded nice. I'd argue that an unchanging, home-grown faith is hardly the faith that is being taught in most religions.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You clearly still don't understand what atheism means. All it says is that one lacks belief in a god/godess/thor/ra/pink unicorn/FSM etc. Given that we have no information to suggest that any of the above exist, a person with a sound scientific mind will conclude not to hold a belief in any of them.

You strike at the heart of it:

God isn't some pink fairy with rainbow wings. Theists view him as that pure reason and cause of reality necessary to ever reasonably conclude that He doesn't exist in reality. He is "is." Dress him up however you like--fly the Spaghetti Monster to the moon--but if that FSM is ultimate cause it doesn't matter.

 

[KinasePro]

I chuckled here, but I don't think this is actually where the irony lies. Bayes theorem isn't just his own, he just applied another dude's theorem to the concept of evolving understanding.

At any rate, it's a dogmatic statement thats being used to discredit alleged dogmas.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You clearly still don't understand what atheism means. All it says is that one lacks belief in a god/godess/thor/ra/pink unicorn/FSM etc. Given that we have no information to suggest that any of the above exist, a person with a sound scientific mind will conclude not to hold a belief in any of them.

see, that last part is where your definition fails again. Nowhere in science does it say that we can only believe in things with direct measurable evidence. Science only demands that we not reject evidence to hold on to prior beliefs. Very very different. We have a great many things that we hold true because assuming them to be true has yielded other measurable evidences which allow us to hold other statements true. Dark energy, for example. Actually if you go to theoretical physics, many MANY things we learn about on the science channel are nothing more than mathematical constants that someone has given a face and a name to in order to explain the underlying phenomena they are attempting to quantify.

The same is true for the evolution of religion and theism. The assumption that said entity exists allowed consistency with other observations. Now, many such assumptions have been shown false for both science and religion, but that doesnt mean that they are entirely different thought processes. Science does not demand rejection of all concepts that are not explicitly proven. That is just flat wrong. In the same way one is not bound to adhere to your definition here and reject science in order to believe in a faith. I turn you back to Bayes theorem and how it does not attempt to construct a guide for the origin of belief, but only for the evolution of belief.

 

[SpecterGT260]

At any rate, it's a dogmatic statement thats being used to discredit alleged dogmas.

that is true. to discredit any dogma

 

[SpecterGT260]

You strike at the heart of it:

God isn't some pink fairy with rainbow wings. Theists view him as that pure reason and cause of reality necessary to ever reasonably conclude that He doesn't exist in reality. He is "is." Dress him up however you like--fly the Spaghetti Monster to the moon--but if that FSM is ultimate cause it doesn't matter.

I think a major component to this conflict is the attempts by the religious to put a face on their concept of "god". Such things seem hokey and unnecessarily arbitrary and many such attacks by atheists are focused here while missing the larger point that you make in bold.

 

[DrSnips]

Nowhere in science does it say that we can only believe in things with direct measurable evidence. Science only demands that we not reject evidence to hold on to prior beliefs.

This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

However, are all positions that are not presently contradicted by scientific evidence reasonable positions to hold?

Imagine the following. You are strolling through the mall and come to a kiosk with a large line in front of it. Curious to see what the commotion is, you walk to the front of the line and see a sign with large black letters, "I WILL PREVENT YOU FROM EVER GETTING CANCER WITH JUST ONE PUNCH TO THE FACE. JUST $5, RESULTS GUARANTEED!"

What would be your thoughts on this?

A) This claim is outrageous and I should warn people that this guy is off his rocker before he hurts someone

B) While I suspect he is wrong about the cancer curing properties of his face-punches, I cannot definitively state he is wrong without evidence. A prospective cohort study would be an appropriate methodology for investigation

C) Cancer is a horrible disease. We should try everything possible to prevent it, even if it means someone has to get punched in the face now and then.

D) That fool put the word "guaranteed" in his sign! I can wait for someone to get cancer after he punches them in the face and then start a huge lawsuit! I'll be rich!

 

[sibitrum]

Bayes theorem is about adapting currently held beliefs to fit new knowledge. It does not make any attempt to discuss the origin of beliefs.

This is the fundamental flaw in atheistic argument (and I think sausage is eluding to this a little bit...) The conflict between science and religion is of perception only. Just because a dude with a big stick and a large and flashy hat says that science is contradictory to his beliefs doesnt mean that it is contradictory to the concept of religion or theism in general. In making this argument you are actually guilty of what you criticize. It demonstrates an underlying bias which does not acknowledge other possibilities for your definition of "religious belief", in so doing you also fail to follow the principles of Bayes theorem.

You're right it doesn't say much about original beliefs. But it says a lot about how they should be corrected. Over enough iterations, regardless of your first belief, you should arrive at approximately the same belief as someone else with a radically different initial belief. Indeed, I grew up religious, but when I started integrating Bayesianism into my thought process, I became more and more atheistic. My posterior probability for some type of god approached zero.

 

[sibitrum]

You strike at the heart of it:

God isn't some pink fairy with rainbow wings. Theists view him as that pure reason and cause of reality necessary to ever reasonably conclude that He doesn't exist in reality. He is "is." Dress him up however you like--fly the Spaghetti Monster to the moon--but if that FSM is ultimate cause it doesn't matter.

Does such a viewpoint add anything substantial for how you view the world? Does it affect anything you do in your everyday life whatsoever?

 

[SpecterGT260]

This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

However, are all positions that are not presently contradicted by scientific evidence reasonable positions to hold?

Imagine the following. You are strolling through the mall and come to a kiosk with a large line in front of it. Curious to see what the commotion is, you walk to the front of the line and see a sign with large black letters, "I WILL PREVENT YOU FROM EVER GETTING CANCER WITH JUST ONE PUNCH TO THE FACE. JUST $5, RESULTS GUARANTEED!"

What would be your thoughts on this?

A) This claim is outrageous and I should warn people that this guy is off his rocker before he hurts someone

B) While I suspect he is wrong about the cancer curing properties of his face-punches, I cannot definitively state he is wrong without evidence. A prospective cohort study would be an appropriate methodology for investigation

C) Cancer is a horrible disease. We should try everything possible to prevent it, even if it means someone has to get punched in the face now and then.

D) That fool put the word "guaranteed" in his sign! I can wait for someone to get cancer after he punches them in the face and then start a huge lawsuit! I'll be rich!

I think you missed the point. Go back to where I said science has proven wrong many of the claims made by religious people. However these claims are extrapolations (irrational and unsupported in many cases) of their faith and not the faith themselves. Evolution is a good example. It is not contradictory to theism or even Christianity. It is just contradictory to the claims of specific Christians who view it as dangerous to their overly literalistic interpretations.

You very much can prove this guy wrong. Can you do it right here right now on this street corner? No probably not. But this is not what is being proposed.

So..... "D".

Seriously though, B. while face punching is outwardly obvious in its clinical (dis)usefulness, there are a plethora of era pies which are not so obvious in their lack of efficacy and require testing. This happens constantly. I've used the same face punching argument in other threads and other discussions when arguing against the promotion of alternative medicine. If you want to do it on your own fine, but it has no place in our hospitals (I also don't try to bring my religion into the hospital). On a broader level, proving efficacy isn't really the same as looking at evidence and applying that to religion. Evidence for therapies IS there or is attainable. The problem here is that someone is attempting to apply scientific evidence to something and draw a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence. I.e. the exact thing they wanted to criticize in the first place.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You're right it doesn't say much about original beliefs. But it says a lot about how they should be corrected. Over enough iterations, regardless of your first belief, you should arrive at approximately the same belief as someone else with a radically different initial belief. Indeed, I grew up religious, but when I started integrating Bayesianism into my thought process, I became more and more atheistic. My posterior probability for some type of god approached zero.

I still maintain that your insistence that this is the only conclusion possible based on adherence to the principles is in and of itself fallacious and contrary to those principles. You have easily (as have I) discounted the views held by many of the religious with this philosophy, but you make the error in assuming that proving wrong the practitioners has any impact on the existence of that which they worship. That is a logically indefensible leap and your insistence on holding it as true makes you as guilty as those you wish to criticize.

 

[DrSnips]

Seriously though, B. while face punching is outwardly obvious in its clinical (dis)usefulness, there are a plethora of era pies which are not so obvious in their lack of efficacy and require testing. This happens constantly. I've used the same face punching argument in other threads and other discussions when arguing against the promotion of alternative medicine. If you want to do it on your own fine, but it has no place in our hospitals (I also don't try to bring my religion into the hospital). On a broader level, proving efficacy isn't really the same as looking at evidence and applying that to religion. Evidence for therapies IS there or is attainable. The problem here is that someone is attempting to apply scientific evidence to something and draw a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence. I.e. the exact thing they wanted to criticize in the first place.

But B is a wrong answer. A is the correct answer (and maybe D if you are a lawyer). If you choose B, then a bunch of people get punched in the face for no reason, time and money is wasted on a worthless study, and Mr. Facepuncher is free to come back tomorrow and claim that kicks to the groin prevent cancer (much better than that disproven face-punching technique!) Are you going to set up another study for that? Do you really think no idea is so terrible that we can dismiss it at the outset?

 

[SpecterGT260]

But B is a wrong answer. A is the correct answer (and maybe D if you are a lawyer). If you choose B, then a bunch of people get punched in the face for no reason, time and money is wasted on a worthless study, and Mr. Facepuncher is free to come back tomorrow and claim that kicks to the groin prevent cancer (much better than that disproven face-punching technique!) Are you going to set up another study for that? Do you really think no idea is so terrible that we can dismiss it at the outset?

How are you defining "wrong"? Because that is exactly what happens IRL


Also....the part of my response you deleted addressed your last question. I never said that no idea can be disregarded until proven false.

 

[DrSnips]

How are you defining "wrong"? Because that is exactly what happens IRL


Also....the part of my response you deleted addressed your last question. I never said that no idea can be disregarded until proven false.

Wrong here means not the best choice in terms of outcome achieved when considering resources used. For example, B is less wrong than C because at least B will eventually end the number of people getting punched in the face. C causes punches into perpetuity. In a world with infinite resources and a finite number of ridiculous claims, B would always be the best answer. But that is not the world we live in.

Ok, so you do acknowledge some ideas can be disregarded before being proven false. Yet Mr. Facepuncher does not meet that threshold for you. What does? What makes you look at an idea and determine it is ridiculous?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Wrong here means not the best choice in terms of outcome achieved when considering resources used. For example, B is less wrong than C because at least B will eventually end the number of people getting punched in the face. C causes punches into perpetuity. In a world with infinite resources and a finite number of ridiculous claims, B would always be the best answer. But that is not the world we live in.

Ok, so you do acknowledge some ideas can be disregarded before being proven false. Yet Mr. Facepuncher does not meet that threshold for you. What does? What makes you look at an idea and determine it is ridiculous?

I am pretty sure I said his idea is worth rejecting outright based on our current understanding of things.

Although, you should remember that "face punching" is only a hop skip and a jump away from bleeding people, and "science" had us doing that for a very long time. I don't think this tangent really has any hope of landing anywhere around the point you appear to be making.

For me, I only reject an idea if it, or what follows from it, is a direct contradiction to that which we already know. p.s. I reject nearly everything that the Catholic church or the very conservative protestant groups have said in the realm of the natural order of things. However I also don't think that their interpretations are wholly defensible based on the foundations of the faith. I think they have made multiple illogical assumptions in order to arrive where they are. The point of this conversation was whether or not theism or the belief in a god is anti-science. It is not at least not at this point within the summation of all scientific knowledge available to us.

The point he made earlier was "if you are of scientific mind you will inevitably fall on the conclusion of atheism". This is largely because of his own bias as to what theism is, his own assumptions about the implications of scientific discovery and fact, and his own defense for his own point of view. It appears that you are attempting to set up the conversation such that "well if you can reject face punching without evidence in either direction, you should also reject theism on the same grounds. The answer to that is... sure if you want to. As it is not a defense in either direction it should not be used as such. If you look back, I have never once (not once) taken the position of "theism is the correct stance because ______". My position the entire time has been that "your argument that theism is the wrong stance because science says ______ is wrong because ______". Pointing out a flaw in another argument is not the same thing as stating a positive argument in your favor. Theism was my default, and as yet there has not been a single shred of evidence which has touched it in a way to suggest I change my default. Plenty of the associated notions have been challenged (notions concocted by other religious folk in their crusade to extract additional meaning) but that has literally nothing to do with the core concept.

 

[DrSnips]

I am pretty sure I said his idea is worth rejecting outright based on our current understanding of things.

Although, you should remember that "face punching" is only a hop skip and a jump away from bleeding people, and "science" had us doing that for a very long time. I don't think this tangent really has any hope of landing anywhere around the point you appear to be making.

For me, I only reject an idea if it, or what follows from it, is a direct contradiction to that which we already know. p.s. I reject nearly everything that the Catholic church or the very conservative protestant groups have said in the realm of the natural order of things. However I also don't think that their interpretations are wholly defensible based on the foundations of the faith. I think they have made multiple illogical assumptions in order to arrive where they are. The point of this conversation was whether or not theism or the belief in a god is anti-science. It is not at least not at this point within the summation of all scientific knowledge available to us.

You didn't say to outright reject it. You chose 'B', which was the choice that involved testing his idea. 'A' was the choice that outright rejected it.

Was bleeding people actually established through scientific method back then? I don't think it was. Hippocrates came up with some mumbo jumbo about 4 humors that was based on different colors of bodily fluids. It's magical thinking at its finest.

I am not trying to say theistic ideas contradict science. I am saying that like Mr. Facepuncher's cancer curing punches, the pretest probability of most theistic ideas is low enough that they can be dismissed. If new evidence arises for an idea, then we should weigh it at that time.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You didn't say to outright reject it. You chose 'B', which was the choice that involved testing his idea. 'A' was the choice that outright rejected it.

Was bleeding people actually established through scientific method back then? I don't think it was. Hippocrates came up with some mumbo jumbo about 4 humors that was based on different colors of bodily fluids. It's magical thinking at its finest.

I am not trying to say theistic ideas contradict science. I am saying that like Mr. Facepuncher's cancer curing punches, the pretest probability of most theistic ideas is low enough that they can be dismissed. If new evidence arises for an idea, then we should weigh it at that time.

Then we agree.
The part about B I added as an edit because I thought your point was about inability to prove

 

[DrSnips]

Then we agree.
The part about B I added as an edit because I thought your point was about inability to prove

Ok then. I did not see this ending on common ground, but here we are.

 

[kpcrew]

Ok then. I did not see this ending on common ground, but here we are.

There goes this thread.

 

[VenusinFurs]

This is maybe derailing the thread a little, but I was in a rural, very religious area recently doing a rotation, and a couple of my patients asked if I was religious. I said "no." They then asked if I believed in God. I sort of shrugged that off, because I can't in all honesty say I do. I'm not very outspoken about it because I don't want to offend people, and that does tend to offend people, even though it really shouldn't. One was pretty reasonable and said he would pray for me anyway. The other started going on about how they believed in Jesus and Jesus was good. I just nodded and tried to redirect them as much as possible.

Anyway.

How do you approach a situation like this? I am not comfortable with lying but I don't want to upset anyone.

 

[Abider]

This is maybe derailing the thread a little, but I was in a rural, very religious area recently doing a rotation, and a couple of my patients asked if I was religious. I said "no." They then asked if I believed in God. I sort of shrugged that off, because I can't in all honesty say I do. I'm not very outspoken about it because I don't want to offend people, and that does tend to offend people, even though it really shouldn't. One was pretty reasonable and said he would pray for me anyway. The other started going on about how they believed in Jesus and Jesus was good. I just nodded and tried to redirect them as much as possible.

Anyway.

How do you approach a situation like this? I am not comfortable with lying but I don't want to upset anyone.

I feel you. I think it's important to realize what role we're in. Just as I would hope a religious doc would would refer out for birth control, I tend to avoid talking about my views on religion. They need to feel comfortable. So I would just be vague. The problem with proselytizers is they just need the opportunity to save you or spread the gospel, so yay or nay is jut the prompt to testify or "help" the wayward. (For the life of me, I can't figure out how atheists are considered arrogant when nothing could be more patronizing than helping someone see the light, when they're not blind, and haven't asked your opinion)

But you were asked. Hmmmm? I'd probably take some kind of demur diest position. Like I believe in a higher power but I'm not sure what it is. Idk. You can't win unless you say Jesus is your lord and savior, and that's not happening. I guess we just try to soften the blow of our real selves to these tender souls and hope they can handle it. Lying is bound to lose you trust. Since I really am sure of nothing supernaturally, I can live with myself being sly with my answer on this. The same as why I wouldn't feel guilty lying about what a one night stand is to my 4 y/o niece if she asked.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I think a major component to this conflict is the attempts by the religious to put a face on their concept of "god". Such things seem hokey and unnecessarily arbitrary and many such attacks by atheists are focused here while missing the larger point that you make in bold.

I used to struggle mightily with this. The irrationality emanating from a sizable portion of religious folk was anathema to me. It still is! I was, after all, an atheist. My grandmother--my goodness--the worst. I thought God was like a little rainbow-speckled fairy to her. I hope atheists who read this know I've carried their banner before--I still do in certain situations.

But I did fall into that trap you describe by the mistaking human frailty and goofiness (common to religious and irreligious alike) for evidence. I also dismounted my high horse by recognizing my spectacularly irrational, frail, and goofy nature. Human beings, man. Hard to be comfortable in your own skin.

 

[sinuous sausage]

Does such a viewpoint add anything substantial for how you view the world? Does it affect anything you do in your everyday life whatsoever?

Oh surely!

I would interrogate that term "substantial," wondering if it means anything void of God, but I'll digress until the cows come home if you let me. Better if I attempt an answer directly.

That viewpoint, or at least the hazy notion of it I had floating around my head, resonated with me on levels ranging from the superficial to (what I consider) the profound.

Superficially, I was glad to no longer be at self-declared war with 90% of the human race. It was lonely being an atheist and obsessing about the destruction of all these rubes' mythical tosh. I found I would immediately judge a person as unstable or inferior in mind if they revealed that they...believed. I lost a girl I wanted to marry over my obstinacy and it took me awhile to forgive her for choosing her faith. Now, I can withstand someone's bumbling explanation of why God supposedly loves me or a circular prayer of gratitude without descending into a sputtering rage. I now believe they might have a point.

I also was able to forgive my own irrationality and shortcomings. It felt okay to be a human being again, because there's a lot of me I could never explain--to myself, never mind anyone else. It eased the pressure on my mind, because the truth no longer depended on my comprehension of it, nor my browbeating religious people about their inability to grasp it. There was...like...this inversion of thought that absolutely stunned me. I was funneling all action and beliefs through my valve of logic and empiricism, raging against all that which I thought "there was no evidence for," and I suddenly felt insane. Or at least that I was going to become so. I wondered how far I would take this--had I logically vetted my logic? Or empirically determined the value of empiricism? I got on that solipsistic train and it broke me the funk down. Seriously made me weep. I had to let go. If reason and truth and meaning and all these things I loved were to truly have meaning, I had to surrender to the possibility. The fact that I couldn't explain reason indicated to me it's okay not to always seek out explanations for why I think or act a certain way. I believe there is always an explanation, but I also believe it might be meant to lie outside my grasp. This softened me to people, replete with their emotional baggage and crazy behavior and beliefs that get them through it. I recognized myself in them!

And that last point has been instrumental for me in how I interact with others day-to-day (I'm not naturally empathetic). It's morphed into a desire to practice medicine, which led me to these boards, and now to this bloated forum post

I'm still agnostic about the whole God thing, but in that agnosticism is a hope (I think) that really shook me from a self-indulgent nihilism. Spector mentioned earlier how he doesn't believe nihilism is the exclusive domain of atheism, and I suppose I can kinda see his gist, but I would have to shelve a lot experientially if I were to come to the same conclusion. Which, just because I feel it, doesn't mean it's so. All the same, I do tend to lend a little more agency to others' life experience--religious anecdotes and such--because I think it's possible God speaks to each one of us in ways only that one person can understand. I imagine it's like a hidden conversation. Maybe there will be a conversation or a stray book passage or seemingly random event that rocks you to your core, and it's just perfectly tuned to your questions--eminently valid questions--and personality and experience. I dunno. I recognize a lot of myself in atheists, and I have an enduringly soft spot for them, even though I now typically avowedly disagree with what they're saying.

 

[Abider]

Oh surely!

I would interrogate that term "substantial," wondering if it means anything void of God, but I'll digress until the cows come home if you let me. Better if I attempt an answer directly.

That viewpoint, or at least the hazy notion of it I had floating around my head, resonated with me on levels ranging from the superficial to (what I consider) the profound.

Superficially, I was glad to no longer be at self-declared war with 90% of the human race. It was lonely being an atheist and obsessing about the destruction of all these rubes' mythical tosh. I found I would immediately judge a person as unstable or inferior in mind if they revealed that they...believed. I lost a girl I wanted to marry over my obstinacy and it took me awhile to forgive her for choosing her faith. Now, I can withstand someone's bumbling explanation of why God supposedly loves me or a circular prayer of gratitude without descending into a sputtering rage. I now believe they might have a point.

I also was able to forgive my own irrationality and shortcomings. It felt okay to be a human being again, because there's a lot of me I could never explain--to myself, never mind anyone else. It eased the pressure on my mind, because the truth no longer depended on my comprehension of it, nor my browbeating religious people about their inability to grasp it. There was...like...this inversion of thought that absolutely stunned me. I was funneling all action and beliefs through my valve of logic and empiricism, raging against all that which I thought "there was no evidence for," and I suddenly felt insane. Or at least that I was going to become so. I wondered how far I would take this--had I logically vetted my logic? Or empirically determined the value of empiricism? I got on that solipsistic train and it broke me the funk down. Seriously made me weep. I had to let go. If reason and truth and meaning and all these things I loved were to truly have meaning, I had to surrender to the possibility. The fact that I couldn't explain reason indicated to me it's okay not to always seek out explanations for why I think or act a certain way. I believe there is always an explanation, but I also believe it might be meant to lie outside my grasp. This softened me to people, replete with their emotional baggage and crazy behavior and beliefs that get them through it. I recognized myself in them!

And that last point has been instrumental for me in how I interact with others day-to-day (I'm not naturally empathetic). It's morphed into a desire to practice medicine, which led me to these boards, and now to this bloated forum post

I'm still agnostic about the whole God thing, but in that agnosticism is a hope (I think) that really shook me from a self-indulgent nihilism. Spector mentioned earlier how he doesn't believe nihilism is the exclusive domain of atheism, and I suppose I can kinda see his gist, but I would have to shelve a lot experientially if I were to come to the same conclusion. Which, just because I feel it, doesn't mean it's so. All the same, I do tend to lend a little more agency to others' life experience--religious anecdotes and such--because I think it's possible God speaks to each one of us in ways only that one person can understand. I imagine it's like a hidden conversation. Maybe there will be a conversation or a stray book passage or seemingly random event that rocks you to your core, and it's just perfectly tuned to your questions--eminently valid questions--and personality and experience. I dunno. I recognize a lot of myself in atheists, and I have an enduringly soft spot for them, even though I now typically avowedly disagree with what they're saying.

This an interesting post. Far more so, to me, than the philosophical speak.

The thing that you're assuming is that all atheists are like you were--completely inhabiting the rational and the logical exclusively. You recovered your respect for the mystery of life and are a better companion to your fellow humans. But looking back on you're old comrades as if you understand all of us and have moved passé our interpretation of the universe isn't as enlightened as your implying. It's an admirable lateral shift accomplishing a better state of mind for your self.

I'm an atheist. With an extremely robust respect for the unknown, the unknowable, and the mysterious. This is why I use psilocybin. Or have. I haven't in years. To restore respect for mystery. And yoga to inform my mind/body of what academic study cannot. It's also why I think philosophy is for non-doers.

Good luck on your way. But don't mistake your path for the rest of us.

 

[BA11]

If you arent religious, why do you care what others believe? I don't pay any mind to the homeless man who walks up to me and yells about the apocalypse, I let him live in his fantasy and go on my way.

Never understood the hatred for religion. It seems like it's more about showing off how "enlightened" one is than anything else.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you arent religious, why do you care what others believe? I don't pay any mind to the homeless man who walks up to me and yells about the apocalypse, I let him live in his fantasy and go on my way.

Never understood the hatred for religion. It seems like it's more about showing off how "enlightened" one is than anything else.

There is that. I also interpret it as a shallow or fragile worldview in which these people have a need to prove or highlight the irrationality of those with different views in order to rationalize their own. It makes the whole thing very ironic.

 

[BA11]

There is that. I also interpret it as a shallow or fragile worldview in which these people have a need to prove or highlight the irrationality of those with different views in order to rationalize their own. It makes the whole thing very ironic.

Which is silly, bc the absolute belief that there is no higher power is as ridiculous as any religion IMO. Claiming that you KNOW there is no God is the height of hubris.

Agnosticism I get, atheism I do not. It's like a big pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

 

[Abider]

If you arent religious, why do you care what others believe? I don't pay any mind to the homeless man who walks up to me and yells about the apocalypse, I let him live in his fantasy and go on my way.

Never understood the hatred for religion. It seems like it's more about showing off how "enlightened" one is than anything else.

Contemplate living under Taliban rule. You want your daughter to go to college but she talked to a gringo on the street and now the counsel is urging you to beat her to restore your family dignity. And all the necessary connections to run your produce business and feed your family are at stake.

So I'm interested in robust immune response to the tampering with a contitutional republic and it's requisite separation of church and state, so that everyone can practice their religion in peace.

Do I care what individual people believe...no. I'm trying to get better at living and let live. But then some clueless cornball will ask me if I know Jesus. Or the place I work won't give appropriate birth control measures even when health is in jeopardy. Or my gay friends can't enjoy equal protection under the law. All these things come from the political, worldly agendas of the religious.

But I hear you. It gets old to think about. I'm pretty much just going to live in place where it's a nonissue. The South, where I'm stuck now, throws it in your face too much. I'd be happy with a two state solution--red/blue.

 

[BA11]

Contemplate living under Taliban rule. You want your daughter to go to college but she talked to a gringo on the street and now the counsel is urging you to beat her to restore your family dignity. And all the necessary connections to run your produce business and feed your family are at stake.

So I'm interested in robust immune response to the tampering with a contitutional republic and it's requisite separation of church and state, so that everyone can practice their religion in peace.

Do I care what individual people believe...no. I'm trying to get better at living and let live. But then some clueless cornball will ask me if I know Jesus. Or the place I work won't give appropriate birth control measures even when health is in jeopardy. Or my gay friends can't enjoy equal protection under the law. All these things come from the political, worldly agendas of the religious.

But I hear you. It gets old to think about. I'm pretty much just going to live in place where it's a nonissue. The South, where I'm stuck now, throws it in your face too much. I'd be happy with a two state solution--red/blue.

Radical Islam is an unfortunate outlier, most religious beliefs have no harmful effect on others. Now, one could argue that many social agendas (gay marriage bans, for instance) are dictated by religion but that is just as much social as it is religious. Plenty of religious people are down with seperation of church/state, and plenty of people who have never picked up a bible feel weird when two men kiss in the street.

As for the cornballs, consider this: They care enough about you to try and do something they believe will save your eternal soul.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Which is silly, bc the absolute belief that there is no higher power is as ridiculous as any religion IMO. Claiming that you KNOW there is no God is the height of hubris.

Agnosticism I get, atheism I do not. It's like a big pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

um..... yeah. Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[sinuous sausage]

Contemplate living under Taliban rule. You want your daughter to go to college but she talked to a gringo on the street and now the counsel is urging you to beat her to restore your family dignity. And all the necessary connections to run your produce business and feed your family are at stake.

So I'm interested in robust immune response to the tampering with a contitutional republic and it's requisite separation of church and state, so that everyone can practice their religion in peace.

Do I care what individual people believe...no. I'm trying to get better at living and let live. But then some clueless cornball will ask me if I know Jesus. Or the place I work won't give appropriate birth control measures even when health is in jeopardy. Or my gay friends can't enjoy equal protection under the law. All these things come from the political, worldly agendas of the religious.

But I hear you. It gets old to think about. I'm pretty much just going to live in place where it's a nonissue. The South, where I'm stuck now, throws it in your face too much. I'd be happy with a two state solution--red/blue.

I simply don't understand whence you derive this holier-than-thou shtick.

Take your third paragraph for example. "Do I care what individual people believe?" you ask rhetorically. Obviously you do, as evinced by the BC and gay marriage remark. I assume the context of the BC remark has to do with abortion--well what if someone doesn't view a fetus as a mere clump of cells? No reason to open Pandora's Box here but you need to realize there are no moral vacuums. To sub-out Christianity's is to sub-in yours. The discussion to now has mostly dealt with the rationale behind moral systems, and it seems to elude you that there are glaring ontological deficiencies in your atheistic one. You've admitted you're not into hashing out the philosophical side of it, which is fine, but if you don't want people rolling their eyes at your moralistic screeds I'd recommend taking that into account.

As to what type of society permits the most liberty, I don't think religious or irreligious affiliation has much to do with it. We spoke earlier about the secular despots rampant throughout the 20th century. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" or "The God That Failed," and tell me afterwards you'd not almost prefer the Taliban.

 

[BA11]

As to what type of society permits the most liberty, I don't think religious or irreligious affiliation has much to do with it. We spoke earlier about the secular despots rampant throughout the 20th century. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" or "The God That Failed," and tell me afterwards you'd not almost prefer the Taliban.

Yahtzee

 

[Abider]

I simply don't understand whence you derive this holier-than-thou shtick.

Take your third paragraph for example. "Do I care what individual people believe?" you ask rhetorically. Obviously you do, as evinced by the BC and gay marriage remark. I assume the context of the BC remark has to do with abortion--well what if someone doesn't view a fetus as a mere clump of cells? No reason to open Pandora's Box here but you need to realize there are no moral vacuums. To sub-out Christianity's is to sub-in yours. The discussion to now has mostly dealt with the rationale behind moral systems, and it seems to elude you that there are glaring ontological deficiencies in your atheistic one. You've admitted you're not into hashing out the philosophical side of it, which is fine, but if you don't want people rolling their eyes at your moralistic screeds I'd recommend taking that into account.

As to what type of society permits the most liberty, I don't think religious or irreligious affiliation has much to do with it. We spoke earlier about the secular despots rampant throughout the 20th century. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" or "The God That Failed," and tell me afterwards you'd not almost prefer the Taliban.

First of all I'm a grown man, so eye rolling isn't in my body's vernacular. I just glaze over for most of your posts except when you got honest and real and personal.

There's no way I could be holier than anyone. We're all equally destitute in our understanding of what comes after death. That's all. If someone claims otherwise I think the're full of it. But....I'll take into account that thinking so can come across as hostile. Keep in mind it's keeping from conflict in the real world tha I vent in full here. You would only suspect my secular views if I was asking politely about your hospital's policy on prevention of unsafe pregnancies.

Return to the philosophery. I'll leave you unmolested at it.

 

[sinuous sausage]

First of all I'm a grown man, so eye rolling isn't in my body's vernacular. I just glaze over for most of your posts except when you got honest and real and personal.

Man, you're missing out on some good ****! If you think psilocybin is a trip you should read my posts.

:: eye roll ::

 

[BA11]

First of all I'm a grown man, so eye rolling isn't in my body's vernacular. I just glaze over for most of your posts except when you got honest and real and personal.

Bill Maher thinks you could use a lesson in humility.

 

[sinuous sausage]

Yahtzee

The dice game? Yeah, I'm at liberty to get my ass kicked in that.

 

[BA11]

The dice game? Yeah, I'm at liberty to get my ass kicked in that.

 

[Abider]

I don't understand what your posts mean, other than you think I'm an @sshole. Which I can understand, and would respect more if you said it straight up. But...I suppose philosophers wouldn't stoop to having some balls.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I don't understand what your posts mean, other than you think I'm an @sshole. Which I can understand, and would respect more if you said it straight up. But...I suppose philosophers wouldn't stoop to having some balls.

You talking to me? I think you're a stand-up sort of chap. I also think you're wrong, but with how often I've been wrong it's not like I can hold that against you.

 

[zoner]

I think we disagree on the definition of faith. Faith is a way of trying to understand what our logical constructs (science, the 5 senses, etc...) don't bother to address (love, good, evil, justice, etc...). It's a process, not something that a person arrives at because it felt good or sounded nice. I'd argue that an unchanging, home-grown faith is hardly the faith that is being taught in most religions.

actually science does address this. its called evolution psychology and social and anthropological studies. much much better than red devil with horns waiting for you at the bottom of some big fire pit (though less sexy)

Which is silly, bc the absolute belief that there is no higher power is as ridiculous as any religion IMO. Claiming that you KNOW there is no God is the height of hubris
Agnosticism I get, atheism I do not. It's like a big pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

this sounds all good and swell, but what if i want to put purple unicorn as my god. can i be agnostic about a purple unicorn as a possibility that it might be a god? What about monkey god? Can I be agnostic about those gods? now does that sound foolish?

Contemplate living under Taliban rule. You want your daughter to go to college but she talked to a gringo on the street and now the counsel is urging you to beat her to restore your family dignity. And all the necessary connections to run your produce business and feed your family are at stake.

So I'm interested in robust immune response to the tampering with a contitutional republic and it's requisite separation of church and state, so that everyone can practice their religion in peace.

Do I care what individual people believe...no. I'm trying to get better at living and let live. But then some clueless cornball will ask me if I know Jesus. Or the place I work won't give appropriate birth control measures even when health is in jeopardy. Or my gay friends can't enjoy equal protection under the law. All these things come from the political, worldly agendas of the religious.

But I hear you. It gets old to think about. I'm pretty much just going to live in place where it's a nonissue. The South, where I'm stuck now, throws it in your face too much. I'd be happy with a two state solution--red/blue.

 

[KinasePro]

actually science does address this. its called evolution psychology and social and anthropological studies. much much better than red devil with horns waiting for you at the bottom of some big fire pit (though less sexy)

Those "studies" you mention are soft science & pop-psychology, hardly empirical evidence by most standards. They're ideas that require just as much faith and hand-waving as any description of God I have ever heard.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread is defending the red devil business (i know I'm not).

 

[sinuous sausage]

I don't understand what your posts mean, other than you think I'm an @sshole. Which I can understand, and would respect more if you said it straight up. But...I suppose philosophers wouldn't stoop to having some balls.

Dude, the post I think you're referring to was totes in self-deprecation. I was rolling my eyes at the notion of my effusive prose affecting your psychological state like psilocybin. I thought it passingly witty since we were talking about eye rolling.

 

[zoner]

Those "studies" you mention are soft science & pop-psychology, hardly empirical evidence by most standards. They're ideas that require just as much faith and hand-waving as any description of God I have ever heard.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread is defending the red devil business (i know I'm not).

lets c here,

can they do certain amount of experiments to determine a specific kind of psychological and sociological factors and theories? yes. Do they prove to be correct when applied to variety of different cases? yes!

can they do certain amount of experiments on nature and "god" to give certain kind of value that says that our goodness, evilness and moral comes from the gods? no. Can they ever be applied? hell no!

you are making a bogus false equivalency here. not all science are based on numbers and something you can directly observe. and correction, they are not "soft" sciences, they are called social sciences.