Faith

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Faith

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I don't know. What I do know is that it is ultimately beyond the purview of science.

Right. So you could just be making it all up. No way for me to find out. That's kind of frustrating.

Thanks for answering.

No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). Religious and/or spiritual experiences are commonplace in disparate cultures. Even if you disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension, you still have to explain why this is so.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'm afraid I

Paisley wrote:

I'm afraid I understand your position better than you do. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which renders life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. If this is a source of contention for you, then I suggest you may want to rethink your outlook on life.

Apparently you don't. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which requires us to specify our own purpose, and find our own meaning. From our point of view your worldview is bleak and depressing because it prevents you from doing that.

I can't comment on your worldview: no matter how many times we ask you won't state it in any detail.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:But in your

Paisley wrote:

But in your previous post you asked why "anyone needs to have a positive or hopeful outlook as opposed to a realistic one," which implies that the outlook you presently have on life is not actually a positive or hopeful one. Also, you stated previously that  you "agree that the fact that we cease to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful." It appears to me now that you are contradicting yourself. Which one is it? Do you believe that you have an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive or not?

False implication and conflation there. Asking why anyone needs a positive or hopeful outlook as opposed to a realistic one implies nothing about ones own. Stating that we case to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful about death, but says nothing about life. Unless you wish to conflate life and death, which seems to be a popular fundie thing.

Now, I'm sure that distinction has been explained to you before. Difference between life and death implies that a positive outlook on life does not require a positive outlook on death.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Anonymouse

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I don't know. What I do know is that it is ultimately beyond the purview of science.

Right. So you could just be making it all up. No way for me to find out. That's kind of frustrating.

Thanks for answering.

No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). Religious and/or spiritual experiences are commonplace in disparate cultures. Even if you disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension, you still have to explain why this is so.

Far from universal, have you seen the increase in atheism and rationalism throughout the western world (although some atheists do have a spiritual side).

Meanwhile if you consider it unreasonable to assume that something with no verifiable evidence isn't there, why are you using a computer? The existence of computers depends on physical theories which in turn depend on that epistemological approach. The same epistemology which demands that since you're asserting the existence of something, you must provide evidence for it.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"No, I don't think that is a

"No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). ~"

Explanation: People are born without knowledge. They must be taught, hence schools.
Go back 4000 years. There is no technology or knowledge that even resembles current understanding. The shear wealth of information at our fingertips does not exist. Knowledge is reduced to day to day living (farming, cooking, danger), and even there pales to simple common sense today. People don't know what a volcano is, or what causes it. Same goes for most natural phenomenae such as lightning, aurora borealis, tides, drought, etc. The simplicity of rain becomes an unknown. Life is an absolute mystery, as is death. No answers will be forthcoming for thousands of years.

People made things up to explain events beyond their comprehension, to try to make sense of their emerging intellect and the world and themselves.

Simple, really.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, I don't

Paisley wrote:
No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

But you said you don't know how to tell the difference between someone who is having this "non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality" , and someone who's just making it all up. So how can it be unreasonable for me to conclude that you could be making it all up ? If you can't tell the difference, how am I supposed to do it ?

Paisley wrote:
The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). Religious and/or spiritual experiences are commonplace in disparate cultures. Even if you disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension, you still have to explain why this is so.

Not a problem. I disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension because I don't have a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Paisley's definition of faith

 

Paisley wrote:

Faith is a nonsensory preception (or an intuitive sense) that engenders trust, hope, love, peace, wisdom,  vision, strength, bliss, acceptance, positive attitude, etc.  

 

Here is Paisley's definition of faith. What do other people think of this? Does anyone agree with the smallest part of this? That faith engenders strength? Bliss? Vision? Love? Wisdom???

I want to say here and now that this definition of faith - admirable in its ideology though it might be considered by some - cannot be applied to my reliance on my car, my short term trust in reproducible evidence, or my guarded acceptance of any other thing going on in the ordinary world. This definition of faith is loaded like a gun. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sure Sapphire can speak for herself but if she is offended by me lauding her vocation, I'm sure she'll tell me about it.

How DARE you!  I am shocked and horrified.  I can't believe you would say such a thing  *sniffle*

 

I note though that while Paisley responded to you, he hasn't to me. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol

SapphireMind wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sure Sapphire can speak for herself but if she is offended by me lauding her vocation, I'm sure she'll tell me about it.

How DARE you!  I am shocked and horrified.  I can't believe you would say such a thing  *sniffle*

 

I note though that while Paisley responded to you, he hasn't to me. 

 

Mmmm. At the risk of Pais spanking my arse again I have to say I don't think he realised he was talking to an atheist of serious quality. I don't know why theists of various types insist we are not the same as they are - that we do not have the same bigness of feelings, the same qualities. I find serious atheists to be the best and the most accepting of people. Atheism at it's core is a journey of self discovery - but unfortunately it's a journey too few people make.

Anyway - the rest of us know what you do in the real world - big respect, Sapph.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Paisley wrote:

Faith is a nonsensory preception (or an intuitive sense) that engenders trust, hope, love, peace, wisdom,  vision, strength, bliss, acceptance, positive attitude, etc.  

 

Here is Paisley's definition of faith. What do other people think of this? Does anyone agree with the smallest part of this? That faith engenders strength? Bliss? Vision? Love? Wisdom???

 

I guess maybe he's saying that trust, hope, ect..can't be "engendered" by a plain old sensory perception. It's gotta be "nonsensory" or it's no good. Or just less so.

If that's what he's saying, then no, I don't agree.

Again, I'm wondering what's the difference between trust, hope, love, etc..inspired by nonsensory perception, and trust, hope, love, etc...engendered by sensory perception, and how the heck anyone can tell the difference.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks.  My friend that I

Thanks.  My friend that I was helping passed away yesterday and although it is great that the baby is out of pain and suffering, I am sad for the family.

I think atheism does involve a lot of self discovery, when done right. 

oddly, I'm in stickam's religious debate room with an atheist arguing we should cull all less than perfect beings.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Atheistic

Paisley wrote:

Atheistic materialism is a worldview which renders life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd.

 

Actually, it's a worldview which accepts the basic premise that we may not be able to understand that which you call "the purpose of life".

The interesting difference between someone like you - who is a moron - and someone like me - who is very very smart - is that you are too stupid to realise that you are stupid, which leads you to the fallacious idea that you "get it" -- which of course you do, in a sense, if we reduce the entire scope of reality down to a twodimensional model, in which case any sphere large enough to make practical traversion in a lifetime impossible would constitute an infinite space.

You are that guy on that sphere. All you can do is go around and around, never realising that there is an "up".

Because you are that guy stuck on that surface, you will see a GLUME complex (I'll define that in a moment) such as "God" as something obvious.

GLUME (pronounced like gloom) = word that I made from the two words "glue" and "meme" that describes a sticky idea, i.e. something that sticks to your mind's membrane like for instance an annoying melody line from some pop song that plays over and over in your head, only in this case it is a meme (google memetics) that refuses to go away, such as for instance the absurd question "what is the meaning of life?". Clearly, since the concept of "meaning" has an infinite number of variables, there is no objectively logical answer to that question, so in the strictest sense it isn't a question at all. That is, unless you can get rid of the dizzying number of variables by for instance introducing a principle of infinite authority such as "God" to counterbalance it.

It resembles philosophy like rape resembles intercourse.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"oddly, I'm in stickam's

"oddly, I'm in stickam's religious debate room with an atheist arguing we should cull all less than perfect beings."

How does he define perfect anyway? There's often a way to refocus such arguments to show the asserter would be among those culled. Eyesight, disease, disorder... hell, even intellect, beliefs, and education could be thrown in once such a system was activated. It's quite foolish.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

Anonymouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Paisley wrote:

Faith is a nonsensory preception (or an intuitive sense) that engenders trust, hope, love, peace, wisdom,  vision, strength, bliss, acceptance, positive attitude, etc.  

 

Here is Paisley's definition of faith. What do other people think of this? Does anyone agree with the smallest part of this? That faith engenders strength? Bliss? Vision? Love? Wisdom???

 

I guess maybe he's saying that trust, hope, ect..can't be "engendered" by a plain old sensory perception. It's gotta be "nonsensory" or it's no good. Or just less so.

If that's what he's saying, then no, I don't agree.

Again, I'm wondering what's the difference between trust, hope, love, etc..inspired by nonsensory perception, and trust, hope, love, etc...engendered by sensory perception, and how the heck anyone can tell the difference.

 

Yeah I agree with Paisley at last - it's gotta be nonsense-ory.

Hurry up and catch up with our debate, neuroscience, you slack heap of shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I guess

Anonymouse wrote:

I guess maybe he's saying that trust, hope, ect..can't be "engendered" by a plain old sensory perception. It's gotta be "nonsensory" or it's no good. Or just less so.

If that's what he's saying, then no, I don't agree.

Again, I'm wondering what's the difference between trust, hope, love, etc..inspired by nonsensory perception, and trust, hope, love, etc...engendered by sensory perception, and how the heck anyone can tell the difference.

A lot of the time hope is engendered by no perception at all. Unless you count lack of perception. I don't perceive myself having a six figure bank balance, but I hope it might happen.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate

Indeterminate wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

I guess maybe he's saying that trust, hope, ect..can't be "engendered" by a plain old sensory perception. It's gotta be "nonsensory" or it's no good. Or just less so.

If that's what he's saying, then no, I don't agree.

Again, I'm wondering what's the difference between trust, hope, love, etc..inspired by nonsensory perception, and trust, hope, love, etc...engendered by sensory perception, and how the heck anyone can tell the difference.

A lot of the time hope is engendered by no perception at all. Unless you count lack of perception. I don't perceive myself having a six figure bank balance, but I hope it might happen.

Yeah, but if you didn't have sensory information that having a six figure bank balance would be a good thing to have, then why would you hope for it to happen ?

These non-sensory perceptions, if Paisley's really having them at all, seem rather useless.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Yeah, but

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, but if you didn't have sensory information that having a six figure bank balance would be a good thing to have, then why would you hope for it to happen ?

Touché

Anonymouse wrote:

These non-sensory perceptions, if Paisley's really having them at all, seem rather useless.

I can't help thinking that if it wasn't in the context of religion non-sensory perceptions would be called delusions and hallucinations.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:ronin-dog

Paisley wrote:

ronin-dog wrote:

As Bob said, there are two definitions. Unfortunately in the case both of the words "faith" and "belief" have been hijacked by religion and now seem to always mean blind faith and belief. I say unfortunate because I actually like both of the words. They are good for when you are sure of something (evidence based) but cannot be definite. I cannot believe in something, nor have faith in it without evidence.

Do you believe anyone can believe in something and have faith in it without evidence? If so, how is this accomplished?

ronin-dog wrote:
 

I have faith in lots of things, such as there is no real point in arguing with paisley because he is too irrational.

That's not really faith, but merely fear masquerading as faith. Flinging ad hominem attacks is an activity individuals engaged in because  they are suffering from a negative self-image and doubting their own self-worth.

I know that some people can have faith in something without evidence. This is called blind faith, children have a lot of it because they have no experience, some of us grow out of it.

It's not fear Paisley, I argued with you a few times a few years back and I know how irrational your arguments are and that you will not listen to anyone, so arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. Yes, it was an ad hominem attack and was intended as such for my own amusement. I have no problem with my self-image or worth thanks,

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Does

Atheistextremist wrote:

Does anyone have any idea what Paisley's beliefs are and why he goes to all this trouble, his position opaque, in support of the immaterial? If we are deluded and pointless, what is he doing here? If he's not a fundy, he's not going to score points with Jesus converting us, is he? Is h just here to argue for his own edification or to satisfy himself we still believe in the something? What this all about...anyone?

Paisley has been around for almost 2 years. He has presented his views/beliefs on this subject many times. This effort is a repackage of his previous views.

He is a pantheist/parentheist. He is fascinated by 1 hour videos where he can find a minute scrap to support his views.

The 1st thread he started contains much of his beliefs, it is over 1000 posts - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045

Since that effort didn't work he tried another angle - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17328

And again - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17880

There are several more, all of which contain his agenda that atheistic materialism is purposeless and hopeless.

He has yet to pull out his dictionary in this thread or his favorite sources, but wait this thread still has time to develop.

I have no idea why he comes here, possibly he is taking another philosophy class.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:greek goddess

Paisley wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative.

My interpretation of life is quite positive, as I have thus far found a number of positive ways to enrich my time during my brief existence. I guess if anything, it is my view of death that is negative. But I can't imagine I'll be happy or miserable once I reach death, because I won't be able to feel anything at all. Besides, I aspire to be a cadaver in death, which I view as positive.

But in your previous post you asked why "anyone needs to have a positive or hopeful outlook as opposed to a realistic one," which implies that the outlook you presently have on life is not actually a positive or hopeful one. Also, you stated previously that  you "agree that the fact that we cease to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful." It appears to me now that you are contradicting yourself. Which one is it? Do you believe that you have an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive or not?

Ok, I think I see the problem here. You are talking about outlook on life, and I am talking about outlook on death.

To answer your question, my interpretation and outlook on life is positive. My outlook on death is neutral. Not a contradiction at all.

Paisley wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

 

Now you're being dishonest with yourself. Your way of "making sense of life" has nothing to do with empirical observation or pursuit of true knowledge, but rather with just making up your own cushioned version of reality. I hardly think that qualifies as a rational approach.

No, I am not being dishonest. Belief in the existence of a spiritual or divine reality is a metaphysical belief. Metaphysics itself is a branch of philosophy and the methodology of philosophy is rational thought. It is the task of metaphysics to construct a coherent worldview that makes sense of life and all that we experience.

 

I don't have much background in philosophy, though I am generally aware of what metaphysics and the like entail. However, the caveat with metaphysics, and philosophy in general, is that the methodology is useful for identifying and asking questions, as well as proposing hypotheses. But philosophy cannot test its claims.

However, this provides a great starting point for scientific pursuits. (And I do happen to be well-versed in science.) Science is great for discovering new facts and answering the questions that philosophy has put forth. I think that the task of "making sense of life and all we experience" is not one that rests solely on metaphysics, but also on science. However, you seem to completely reject the latter.

It is scientific practice to only accept that which has evidence to support it, which is apparently where we differ, since you prefer to make up a complex worldview, and cling to it despite lack of evidence, because it has not been or cannot be falsified. It's basically a metaphysical "god of the gaps" exercise. 

 

 

 

 


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"oddly, I'm in

Vastet wrote:
"oddly, I'm in stickam's religious debate room with an atheist arguing we should cull all less than perfect beings." How does he define perfect anyway? There's often a way to refocus such arguments to show the asserter would be among those culled. Eyesight, disease, disorder... hell, even intellect, beliefs, and education could be thrown in once such a system was activated. It's quite foolish.

Yes.  He was arguing to "cull" at the embryonic/fetal stage so that therefore it wasn't culling people, just potential and is for the betterment of evolution of mankind.  My connection was sucking ass, which made it difficult to get responses in.  He advocated all defects, including family histories of obesity/heart disease/diabetes.  It was rather annoying. 

I would have thought he was a troll except he seemed to be a regular and he's spouted off on it before apparently.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Yes.  He was arguing to

"Yes.  He was arguing to "cull" at the embryonic/fetal stage so that therefore it wasn't culling people, just potential and is for the betterment of evolution of mankind.  My connection was sucking ass, which made it difficult to get responses in.  He advocated all defects, including family histories of obesity/heart disease/diabetes.  It was rather annoying. I would have thought he was a troll except he seemed to be a regular and he's spouted off on it before apparently."

Admittedly I'm no doctor or geneticist, but wouldn't that cover every human in existence? Even if someone doesn't have a "defect", they carry the genes of defects which can still be passed down.
If not, he's effectively suggesting we concentrate on ending evolution within our species, as that's part of evolution. Even if a cull happened, it would need to be repeated. Again and again and again. We might as well start cloning ourselves and manipulate our DNA in the process.
I think he's a defect. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. However, your worldview denies the reality of the spiritual and any attempt by you to speak of a "group spirituality" is inherently self-contradictory.

"Atheistic materialism" is the term I employ to identify a worldview which denies the reality of God and of the spiritual. I also use the term to weed out 'atheists' who really have a lurking God-belief.

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

I do believe your interpretation of life is ultimately one that renders life meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. That you refuse to acknowledge the logical implications of your worldview simply demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

These points collectively. I don't believe there is an invisible realm of spirituality where magic things happen and souls go flitting about. I used the term 'group spirituality' for your benefit but 'group feeling' would have been a more accurate portrayal of my position. Can you seriously argue that disbelief in spirituality, another word of vast ambiguity, allows you to categorize your opponents as dishonest and write off their views as absurd? I think there's a theory of mind and even a collective or shared theory of mind at a group level but that does not mean there are things going on in an invisible spirit realm we cannot detect.

What is dishonest is not the disbelief in the spiritual per se, but the profession of disbelief in the spiritual while siimultaneously making a profession of belief in a "collective or shared theory of mind." This is one of the reasons why I employ the term atheistic materialism. It is to weed-out 'atheists' who really have a lurking God-belief. In your particular case, the lurking God-belief is a pantheistic one.

Based on your profile, I can see you are a relative newcomer to this forum. On the other hand, I am a veteran here. And I can assure you that in the past I have created threads on this forum in which I presented the scientific evidence for a collective theory of mind. To say that they were not well-received is a gross understatement.

I am not denying that there is a physical aspect. But, by the same token, I am not denying that there is also a spiritual aspect. And the notion that you can profess to be an atheist and deny the reality of the spiritual while simultaneously speaking of a belief in a collective or shared theory of mind is laughable.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Based on your

Paisley wrote:

Based on your profile, I can see you are a relative newcomer to this forum. On the other hand, I am a veteran here.

Is this your latest debating tactic? You used it against me in another thread earlier. It's exceptionally poor.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Yes.  He was

Vastet wrote:
"Yes.  He was arguing to "cull" at the embryonic/fetal stage so that therefore it wasn't culling people, just potential and is for the betterment of evolution of mankind.  My connection was sucking ass, which made it difficult to get responses in.  He advocated all defects, including family histories of obesity/heart disease/diabetes.  It was rather annoying. I would have thought he was a troll except he seemed to be a regular and he's spouted off on it before apparently." Admittedly I'm no doctor or geneticist, but wouldn't that cover every human in existence? Even if someone doesn't have a "defect", they carry the genes of defects which can still be passed down. If not, he's effectively suggesting we concentrate on ending evolution within our species, as that's part of evolution. Even if a cull happened, it would need to be repeated. Again and again and again. We might as well start cloning ourselves and manipulate our DNA in the process. I think he's a defect. :P

Agreed  *L*  Even in the best case scenario, bred for certain traits, we'd end up like purebred dogs with different health problems caused by shallow gene pool.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind wrote:Paisley

SapphireMind wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Can you be more specific? How exactly are you helping this family?

Hey, I'm glad you asked.  How am I helping: (I will refer to the baby by the pronoun "it", just for gender neutrality and increased anonymity.

*I'm making sure their baby isn't in excruciating pain constantly, while they come to terms and make plans for the funeral.

*I care for their baby while they are at home, and they can be comfortable knowing that someone they know is taking good care of their child.

*I'm trying to take as many pictures of their baby that shows it in as positive and normal light as possible. 

*We give parents boxes to take mementos of their baby home, I'm making one for the baby specifically. 

*I'm supporting their religious beliefs and providing them with compassion

*I've helped organize the regular caregivers so that they only have nurses that already know them and their child. 

*I give them an outlet to vent frustration and unhappiness and how unfair it is that their child will be leaving them.  

*I know that this is going to be the worst week of their life and I do my damndest to try and help make sure that it is as easy as I can possibly make it. 

That's the majority of it.  If I happen to be there when the baby passes, I will take pictures, give the family time alone with their child, bathe the baby, take footprints/handprints, put it in the shroud and take it to the morgue. 

The item I underlined is the one I find most interesting. This is not to diminish the other areas of your work. They are certainly praise-worthy. However, I am simply focusing on this item because it is the one most relevant to the discussion at hand.

Here are my questions: Assume that my wife and I were undergoing the same situation as the couple in your nursing practice. What would you say to me on this score? Would you support my religious or spiritual conviction that love is eternal and everyone we encounter and love in this life we will  encounter in another and/or that we will always be forever connected? Or, would you tell me that I must face up to 'reality' and that to entertain such irrationality is not healthy?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Paisley

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Based on your profile, I can see you are a relative newcomer to this forum. On the other hand, I am a veteran here.

Is this your latest debating tactic? You used it against me in another thread earlier. It's exceptionally poor.

Now now, let him go with it. I've been here 15 months longer than him and have 3600+ more posts. So obviously he's lacking in the "veteran" category compared to me, who he's started ignoring because he can't respond to my demolition of his posts. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Now now, let

Vastet wrote:
Now now, let him go with it. I've been here 2 years longer than him and have 3600+ more posts. So obviously he's lacking in the "veteran" category compared to me, who he's started ignoring because he can't respond to my demolition of his posts. Smiling

I just can't help but spot underhanded tactics, rhetorical errors, and of course everyone loves a good fallacy. Bad habit.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Paisley

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Well, spiritually speaking (to quote St. Francis), it is only by dying that we are born to eternal life. But we are talking about two different types of deaths.

There is only one kind of death.

Well, actually there is another type of death. But it is not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I see jealousy is an attribute of the ego-self, not God.

So you aren't a christian. After all, the bible says quite clearly that god is jealous.

No, I am not - at least not to your definition of Christian.

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I'm making things up? Previously, you concurred that our eventual fate is certain oblivion. Now you seem to be changing your tune. Which one is it?

You shifted the topic from you and I to humanity in general. I did not change anything.

If you're holding out the hope that some human beings in particular or that humanity in general will live forever, then you are clearly displaying faith.

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

To put it bluntly, every choice you make is predetermined and ultimately caused by the Big Bang." No. "The belief that you are the cause of your own choices is purely illusory.

I never said I was the cause for my choices, merely that I make choices.

If you are not the cause of your choices, then you do not make any choices. It's really that simple.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
True, I'm just a big fan of

True, I'm just a big fan of using people's own tactics against them. They're almost never prepared for it. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:SapphireMind

Paisley wrote:

SapphireMind wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Can you be more specific? How exactly are you helping this family?

Hey, I'm glad you asked.  How am I helping: (I will refer to the baby by the pronoun "it", just for gender neutrality and increased anonymity.

*I'm making sure their baby isn't in excruciating pain constantly, while they come to terms and make plans for the funeral.

*I care for their baby while they are at home, and they can be comfortable knowing that someone they know is taking good care of their child.

*I'm trying to take as many pictures of their baby that shows it in as positive and normal light as possible. 

*We give parents boxes to take mementos of their baby home, I'm making one for the baby specifically. 

*I'm supporting their religious beliefs and providing them with compassion

*I've helped organize the regular caregivers so that they only have nurses that already know them and their child. 

*I give them an outlet to vent frustration and unhappiness and how unfair it is that their child will be leaving them.  

*I know that this is going to be the worst week of their life and I do my damndest to try and help make sure that it is as easy as I can possibly make it. 

That's the majority of it.  If I happen to be there when the baby passes, I will take pictures, give the family time alone with their child, bathe the baby, take footprints/handprints, put it in the shroud and take it to the morgue. 

The item I underlined is the one I find most interesting. This is not to diminish the other areas of your work. They are certainly praise-worthy. However, I am simply focusing on this item because it is the one most relevant to the discussion at hand.

Here are my questions: Assume that my wife and I were undergoing the same situation as the couple in your nursing practice. What would you say to me on this score? Would you support my religious or spiritual conviction that love is eternal and everyone we encounter and love in this life we will  encounter in another and/or that we will always be forever connected? Or, would you tell me that I must face up to 'reality' and that to entertain such irrationality is not healthy?

I'm not Sapphire but I'll jump in because I've been in similar situations.

You tell people things when they are able to handle them. If that means acquiescing to their God-belief to keep them sane, ok. Sometimes it just means shutting up and letting them have the floor. for as long as they need it. It's a natural, biochemical reaction for humans to not attack other humans when they're vulnerable.

From my experience, it takes religion to override this reaction. I had a friend who was dying of a very painful heart condition. One day he decided the pain was too much and shot the offending organ.  At his funeral, his wife asked my mom if he was in heaven. she had the good sense to keep quiet. If my grandfather heard that question his response would have been, "Pat's writhing in Hell right now because all suicides go to hell". I was never so thankful Grandpa was as deaf as a post in my life.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

so you believe in whatever you call God because it makes you feel good and gives you a positive emotional outlook - and you have the rocks to call that a rational approach?

The worldview of atheistic materialism is ultimately irrational because it views the world as utlimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd.

Atheism only rejects belief in a particular immaterial entity, ie , something which is some sort of sentient intentional being.

To demonstrate your conclusion, you need to show: 1. That only the existence of such a being could make the world meaningful and purposeful to us; AND 2. That the world is necessarily meaningful and intelligible.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Well, actually there is

"Well, actually there is another type of death."

No, there isn't.

Death:
the event of dying or departure from life; "her death came as a terrible shock"; "upon your decease the capital will pass to your grandchildren" the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism; "the animal died a painful death" the absence of life or state of being dead; "he seemed more content in death than he had ever been in life" the time when something ends; "it was the death of all his plans"; "a dying of old hopes" the time at which life ends; continuing until dead; "she stayed until his death"; "a struggle to the last" the personification of death; "Death walked the streets of the plague-bound city" end: a final state; "he came to a bad end"; "the so-called glorious experiment came to an inglorious end" the act of killing; "he had two deaths on his conscience"

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If you're holding out the

"If you're holding out the hope that some human beings in particular or that humanity in general will live forever, then you are clearly displaying faith."

I don't believe either is the case. Given time enough, homo sapiens will be extinct. Though we may evolve into new species. In fact, we always are. Provided we don't destroy ourselves and nothing else does either in the near future, there's no reason to believe that we can't be around for millions or billions of years. You can try and predict a gloomy ending all you like, I have no reason to.

"If you are notthe cause of your choices, then you do notmake any choices. It's really that simple."

Illogical. It does not follow. It's really that simple.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Paisley

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

To argue otherwise is to extricate yourself from the causal nexus of the entire natural process and thereby make an argument for the existence of the soul.

 

Ridiculous assertion.

That's a well thought-out response.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There is no

Vastet wrote:

There is no such thing as an atheist world view, as atheism is merely the rejection of theism. A rejection of a world view is not a world view in and of itself. Therefore it cannot be irrational.

This is a common tactic atheists employ - taking refuge under the banner that atheism simply means "without belief in God." The rationale for this ploy is obvious: You wish to have the luxury of attacking the spiritual worldview without subjecting your own materialist worldview to the same scrutiny. How convenient! If you reject a spiritual or divine reality, then this necessarily implies that you only accept the material as real. If there is another viable option, then I am not aware of it.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Okay,

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay, interesting. Something extreme happens to the person who was bullying one of your circle ? And it wouldn't happen if you didn't have one of your sesions ? Sounds like good oldfashioned witchcraft.
What you mean as witchcraft is, when people, ordinary men or women with limited knowledge do their occult practices. But people are fallible and ignorant, so they will sooner or later screw up something really bad and then occultism backfires on them. If they won't do the optimal thing in optimal time to optimal person, in optimal extent with optimal motivation, then they contribute to their bad karma, which will eventually return to them. As there is the saying, all good deeds must be rightfully punished Smiling
The only way how to not screw thing up, is to do all the occultism through one's own higher part of personality, called the soul. The soul is the true "white mage", that knows all the facts from it's realm and will solve the situations in most optimal and just way. So it's wise if I build my link to the soul, (antahkarana) so I can communicate and cooperate with it better. Building this link, consciously or not, is the sense of life and this is what makes people geniuses, artists, inspired, charismatic, and so on. In this way, even a rational and skeptical atheist can be much more spiritual than majority of occultists and believers.


Anonymouse wrote:
Ah yes, well..I'm not totally sure what you're into, but would I be correct in assuming that in your circle there's a lot of shared mythology ? I mean, a lot of reading of the same books, familiarity with the same concepts, terminology, etc... It wouldn't really be hard for any of them to make a good guess.
There is something that you might call mythology, but why would anyone want to deceive others? Firstly, it's a bad thing. Secondly, we all know, that for everything (even thoughts) there is an appropriate response from the universe. This is called karma. It would be really irrational from any of us to set negative karma into motion against us. This is why we're all honest, don't lie, don't deceive others, it's not worth it. This is how we all think, we already have enough of  karma on us from the mistakes we did unintentionally, there's no reason to produce karma intentionally.
If we want to make a game with guesses, then we just say it.

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay, maybe lying's too harsh a term. But I'm sure you've met people who pretend to be someone/something they aren't. Sometimes out of necessity, or sometimes just because it's fun.
Sure, the people who don't understand what karma is.
I know, maybe it's naive, but it works for years, there's no reason to start suspecting people of dishonesty. If someone is full of shit, then they don't have to be secretive, we have to respect that Smiling Those who are full of shit remind us of ourselves 10 or 20 years ago. We don't force them to agree with us, they can start their own group of like-minded people and 10 or 20 years later develop mentally where we are now. And in meantime, we can still propagate the topics on which we mutually agree. And if there is someone who's totally full of shit and he still gathers followers, then we have the "white soul magic" to make their own soul put them on a tighter and shorter leash. 
Our main protection from lies and imprecision are the sources, that we already proved to be reliable by each our member independently. No potential liar among us could offer a different version without raising suspicion and demands for explanation.
 

Anonymouse wrote:
Luminon wrote:
And again, telling a real experience from someone's lie is done simply by comparison. It's just common sense, nothing else than policemen do, when they interrogate witnesses.
That would have to make your experience incredibly specific, and something that couldn't be guessed by someone who knows you and shares your beliefs.

Btw, Paisley answered the question, and he says no, it's impossible to tell the difference. See, that's what's so frustrating about trying to make sense of theism. There's a theist on every side of every question. *sigh*

Yes, usually it's impossible to tell if the experience is true, but the talk was about shared experiences, where we can compare each version from each person. But sometimes it's too specific to ignore.
Also, pretending too much of mystical experiences might cause others to think, that the person is astrally sensitive. This is an obsolete form of clairvoyance, known by it's unreliability.

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm guessing she doesn't do lottery numbers either ? Sorry, I keep repeating this, but I'm really not trying to take the piss. I just think the same argument applies here. I mean, how can you know what she needs ? She gets to meet up with a group of people who take her "powers" seriously. Sounds like that would be fun for her. Make-believe for people who don't like to admit that that is what they're doing. Harmless fun. (I personally know a mensa-member who takes astrology serioulsy. She did my chart once. Very detailed, and it all turned out to be bollocks. But I'm sure she had fun making it)
That clairvoyant person already helped many of us with important problems, mostly emotional, in relationships, organizational, job-related, and so on. If she would make a bad advice or decision, we would certainly notice it. So far, she was always right. And we also sometimes have other sources, which we can consult to see, that they match each other.
But there is not much popularity that can be gained from that. The methods by which we usually work are very... esoteric and minimalistic. We don't need much talking, many people or a lot of equipment. The work is done quickly, effectively and quietly. Majority of it is done in the unphysical realm. We do nothing to impress people.

As for astrology, I study that and I have to say, if someone practices it on medieval level, (which is today still prevalent) then it may even give exact opposites, compared to reality. Medieval astrology was made for kings by their court astrologers. Perhaps you have to become a king, then it will fit on you Smiling
 

Anonymouse wrote:
  Again, if that sounds condescending, I apologise. Heck, if you guys had zapped my bully a few years ago, I'd probably be in your group too. 
No problem. But as you mentioned zapping... well, one such an incident involved electrical accident of the guilty person's son Smiling But there are many other methods. For example, we can in some cases disable someone's powers, if they are misused, for instance, to manipulate people. You'd be surprised what some people do, to gather audience on their lectures on shamanism Smiling
 

Anonymouse wrote:
 People ending up dead instead of cured ? Sure. But in that case, it's the result of a medical professional not doing his/her job properly. Deaths caused by practioners of alternative medicine are just the natural result of what they do, which is nothing. Big difference.

But yeah, that's another thread entirely...

Yeah, that's a different thread... I'm starting to get impression, that alternative medicine on American continent really does nothing, although here it's very powerful. It must be impossible to hold up good standards in such a vast country as USA.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: This is a

Paisley wrote:

This is a common tactic atheists employ - taking refuge under the banner that atheism simply means "without belief in God." The rationale for this ploy is obvious: You wish to have the luxury of attacking the spiritual worldview without subjecting your own materialist worldview to the same scrutiny. How convenient!

I'd be falling off my chair if it wasn't so comfortable. I can't believe you said this moments after saying in the thread next door

Paisley wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

I certainly couldn't describe your views, since I've not been able to find any occasion where you've expounded them in any detail, although I've found many occasions on which you've been invited to.

No, you can't. And I am not about to share my theistic views with you.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:How

Paisley wrote:

How convenient! If you reject a spiritual or divine reality, then this necessarily implies that you only accept the material as real. If there is another viable option, then I am not aware of it.

Solipsism?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Paisley

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Atheistic immaterialism" is an oxymoron.

In fact it is not. Plenty of atheists believe in the immaterial. You further demonstrate your lack of understanding as to what atheism is.

Yes, I am quite aware of this fact (I encounter it all the time). That's why I employ the term atheistic materialism. Those atheists who refuse to identify themselves as materialists need not participate in my threads. So-called atheists who profess to believe in the reality of the immaterial are implicitly professing a belief in the spiritual. And I see no point in arguing with an individual who is bolstering my worldview.

Quote:

immaterialism : a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

im·ma·te·ri·al·ist \-list\ noun

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterialism

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Everyone is a "believer" (and nonbeliever) in some sense and is therefore subject to bias. On this view, no one would be fit to do science." Except that scientists recognise their potential for bias.

 

That's why they use peer review, and make concentrated efforts to eliminate bias from experimentation even before hypothesis are subjected to peer review.

And how does this support the notion that believers are incapable of doing science?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
I tried to resist, but I

I tried to resist, but I couldn't.

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Atheistic immaterialism" is an oxymoron.

In fact it is not. Plenty of atheists believe in the immaterial. You further demonstrate your lack of understanding as to what atheism is.

Yes, I am quite aware of this fact (I encounter it all the time). That's why I employ the term atheistic materialism. Those atheists who refuse to identify themselves as materialists need not participate in my threads. So-called atheists who profess to believe in the reality of the immaterial are implicitly professing a belief in the spiritual. And I see no point in arguing with an individual who is bolstering my worldview.

Quote:

immaterialism : a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

im·ma·te·ri·al·ist \-list\ noun

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterialism

You realise that the dictionary definition that you provide contradicts your own statement, right? Immaterialism is not synonymous with spirituality.

I don't identify as a materialist. Since I know the meaning of the terms 'atheism' and 'materialism' this doesn't present a contradiction. Cue hissy fit.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Take a hissy fit if you must. But I must forewarn you that it will not change the facts - facts that I have already spelled out in my last post: "It is not possible to engage in rational thought or discourse without presupposing some kind of belief which is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term...belief without sufficient evidence or proof."

 

But not a hissy fit. When I have a hissy fit, you'll know about it. I don't agree with your contention that you quote here yet again that supposes that faith in god and faith in things reliably proven by evidence can be compared. This assertion is just - silly. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow - it always has in my life. I have no faith in god/s operating in some invisble dimension. Why don't you get it? Too much invested in your belief system?

The belief (you actually called it faith, your word - not mine) you have that the "sun will rise tomorrow because it always has" in your life is a prime example of inductive reason or inference. Induction is used in science and assumes a belief in what is called the "principle of the uniformity of nature" - the belief we have that things tend to behave in a regular manner. But just because something has happened before on a regular basis is no justification to rationally warrant that it will behave like that in the future. In other words, your belief that the "sun will rise tommorow just because it always has before in your life" is a belief that is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). So, my assertion is not silly! The very faith you profess to hold in utter contempt is actually the same faith that you employ in your everyday life. And moreover, this very same faith is employed in science.

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

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:No. Diversity

Marquis wrote:

No. Diversity can never be a problem.

The first problem is that we think our "worldviews" matter. They don't.

The second one is that we think we can explain our own and/or understand other people's "worldviews". We can't.

What we can do, however, is to agree on some rules for civilized behaviour to one another - including, but not limited to, how we present our opinions and conduct our discussion on the relative differences of opinion that we seem to experience. Like for instance how metaphysical speculation isn't about being right or wrong, much less about winning the discussion. It is about things we need to have in our life in order for the world to make sense; and for us to be happy with it all.

Okay.

Marquis wrote:

Actually, it's a worldview which accepts the basic premise that we may not be able to understand that which you call "the purpose of life".

The interesting difference between someone like you - who is a moron - and someone like me - who is very very smart - is that you are too stupid to realise that you are stupid, which leads you to the fallacious idea that you "get it" -- which of course you do, in a sense, if we reduce the entire scope of reality down to a twodimensional model, in which case any sphere large enough to make practical traversion in a lifetime impossible would constitute an infinite space.

You are that guy on that sphere. All you can do is go around and around, never realising that there is an "up".

Because you are that guy stuck on that surface, you will see a GLUME complex (I'll define that in a moment) such as "God" as something obvious.

GLUME (pronounced like gloom) = word that I made from the two words "glue" and "meme" that describes a sticky idea, i.e. something that sticks to your mind's membrane like for instance an annoying melody line from some pop song that plays over and over in your head, only in this case it is a meme (google memetics) that refuses to go away, such as for instance the absurd question "what is the meaning of life?". Clearly, since the concept of "meaning" has an infinite number of variables, there is no objectively logical answer to that question, so in the strictest sense it isn't a question at all. That is, unless you can get rid of the dizzying number of variables by for instance introducing a principle of infinite authority such as "God" to counterbalance it.

It resembles philosophy like rape resembles intercourse.

Is this what you call civilized behavior? Tell me, what set you off? When I stated in a previous post addressed to you that an "atheist immaterialist" is an oxymoron?

Previously you stated that "we think we can explain our own and/or understand other people's worldviews. We can't." It would appear now that you really don't believe this.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Take a hissy fit if you must. But I must forewarn you that it will not change the facts - facts that I have already spelled out in my last post: "It is not possible to engage in rational thought or discourse without presupposing some kind of belief which is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term...belief without sufficient evidence or proof."

 

But not a hissy fit. When I have a hissy fit, you'll know about it. I don't agree with your contention that you quote here yet again that supposes that faith in god and faith in things reliably proven by evidence can be compared. This assertion is just - silly. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow - it always has in my life. I have no faith in god/s operating in some invisble dimension. Why don't you get it? Too much invested in your belief system?

The belief (you actually called it faith, your word - not mine) you have that the "sun will rise tomorrow because it always has" in your life is a prime example of inductive reason or inference. Induction is used in science and assumes a belief in what is called the "principle of the uniformity of nature" - the belief we have that things tend to behave in a regular manner. But just because something has happened before on a regular basis is no justification to rationally warrant that it will behave like that in the future. In other words, your belief that the "sun will rise tommorow just because it always has before in your life" is a belief that is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). So, my assertion is not silly! The very faith you profess to hold in utter contempt is actually the same faith that you employ in your everyday life. And moreover, this very same faith is employed in science.

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

Inductive reasoning DOES NOT assume that because something has happened in a particular way in the past that it will ALWAYS happen that way in future.

Rather, it makes the perfectly reasonable assumption, that in the absence of further information, that such a thing is likely to continue with a similar frequency in future.

It works in probabilities, not absolutes, which is the only way we can treat 'truths' which are not explicit logical deductions from given axioms, as in math or logic.

The 'problem' associated with induction is the problem of trying to apply binary (true/false) thinking to probabilistic reasoning. Such reasoning can be made more rigorous by applying Bayes Theorem.

The likelihood that any particular observation will remain consistent into the future is also subject to assessment by induction.

The confidence we are justified in applying induction is built upon the accumulation of experience of the results of applying it.

This process is the ONLY way we gain useful and relatively reliable information about reality.

Purely internal experience can be totally misleading - we only can have confidence in some 'belief' in so far as it matches independent observations.

NO system of thought, including formal logic or math or metaphysics, etc, can be proven to be internally consistent from within the system.

We do not need 'faith' at all, merely working assumptions to base our judgements on, assumptions which we should be prepared to adjust when confronted with evidence that they may be mistaken to some degree.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Paisley

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I'm afraid I understand your position better than you do. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which renders life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. If this is a source of contention for you, then I suggest you may want to rethink your outlook on life.

Apparently you don't. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which requires us to specify our own purpose, and find our own meaning. From our point of view your worldview is bleak and depressing because it prevents you from doing that.

That's atheistic existentialism, not atheistic materialism. The atheist existentialist views life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. However, he believes that he is able to create his own purpose. But this must necessarily be illusory based on his worldview.

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

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

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

Indeterminate wrote:

I can't comment on your worldview: no matter how many times we ask you won't state it in any detail.

You're contradicting yourself because you just stated above that my worldview is "bleak and depressing ."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The item I

Paisley wrote:
The item I underlined is the one I find most interesting. This is not to diminish the other areas of your work. They are certainly praise-worthy. However, I am simply focusing on this item because it is the one most relevant to the discussion at hand.

Here are my questions: Assume that my wife and I were undergoing the same situation as the couple in your nursing practice. What would you say to me on this score? Would you support my religious or spiritual conviction that love is eternal and everyone we encounter and love in this life we will  encounter in another and/or that we will always be forever connected? Or, would you tell me that I must face up to 'reality' and that to entertain such irrationality is not healthy?

No, I will not contradict their views at all, because it is not my place to in that situation.  I am a nurse and I have legal, moral and ethical responsibilities, which include caring for the patient and the family as best I can.  If it makes them feel better to think that they'll see their child again, then bully for them.  I believe that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, you can believe whatever the hell you want.  But yes, I will lie to parents and agree with them if they look to me for support and confirmation.  It is not a nurse's job to try and tear down a family while they are mourning the loss of their child.  I would posit NO ONE should do that.  If they want to doubt god and be pissed at god, I'll support that too.  If they are muslim, I support that.  If they are pagan, I support that, or buddhist or hindu or anything.  Because it's not about me, it's about them.

But here, you're not my patients' families nor my patients themselves.  So I am free to tell you that you are on crack.  (I would never say that to a family, even the ones who are literally on crack).

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Inductive

BobSpence1 wrote:

Inductive reasoning DOES NOT assume that because something has happened in a particular way in the past that it will ALWAYS happen that way in future.

Rather, it makes the perfectly reasonable assumption, that in the absence of further information, that such a thing is likely to continue with a similar frequency in future.

It works in probabilities, not absolutes, which is the only way we can treat 'truths' which are not explicit logical deductions from given axioms, as in math or logic.

The 'problem' associated with induction is the problem of trying to apply binary (true/false) thinking to probabilistic reasoning. Such reasoning can be made more rigorous by applying Bayes Theorem.

The likelihood that any particular observation will remain consistent into the future is also subject to assessment by induction.

The confidence we are justified in applying induction is built upon the accumulation of experience of the results of applying it.

It's not a perfectly reasonable assumption. You're engaging in circular reasoning because you're employing induction to justify the validity of induction. That's the "problem of induction."

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

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Indeterminate

Paisley wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I'm afraid I understand your position better than you do. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which renders life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. If this is a source of contention for you, then I suggest you may want to rethink your outlook on life.

Apparently you don't. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which requires us to specify our own purpose, and find our own meaning. From our point of view your worldview is bleak and depressing because it prevents you from doing that.

That's atheistic existentialism, not atheistic materialism. The atheist existentialist views life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. However, he believes that he is able to create his own purpose. But this must necessarily be illusory based on his worldview.

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

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

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

You've been alleging absurdity not absurdism. One is an insult and one is a philosophical position, they're difficult to confuse.

Do you really not understand that existentialism and materialism are not mutually exclusive options?

Paisley wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

I can't comment on your worldview: no matter how many times we ask you won't state it in any detail.

You're contradicting yourself because you just stated above that my worldview is "bleak and depressing ."

I should have said that I can't comment in detail. From the arguments you've made against the rest of us I can know that you cannot engage in the kind of processes that many of the rest of us do in order to find purpose and meaning. From the poor quality of the arguments you've made I can know that you can't even comprehend those processes. I find this knowledge bleak and depressing.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:What is

Paisley wrote:

What is dishonest is not the disbelief in the spiritual per se, but the profession of disbelief in the spiritual while siimultaneously making a profession of belief in a "collective or shared theory of mind."

Theory of mind is a mental faculty. Humans being one species it's quite plausible, even likely, that in all healthy adults the theory of mind is virtually identical and in that sense shared. There's even arguments to be made that this is necessary for society to function. Where in any of that is there anything spiritual?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:He

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

He has yet to pull out his dictionary in this thread or his favorite sources, but wait this thread still has time to develop.

Wikipedia-links have arrived. This thread is go !