Atheists and Theists are both mistaken.

Hogspanker
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheists and Theists are both mistaken.

First, we have to accept the fact that it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend Reality. That gives you a test that you can use: If you think you understand Reality, you have made a mistake. Christians think they understand Reality. They are wrong. Atheists believe they understand Reality, and they too have made a mistake.
It is, however, possible to understand what Reality is not. This requires that you be willing to drop your pre-conceived beliefs, stop thinking, and simply watch.
There is a process of Spiritual Evolution that is taking place. We are all involved in it whether we want to be or not; whether we know it or not. The process takes many directions, and moves at many different speeds. All of us will reach enlightenment. Some will take hundreds of thousands of years; some will simply accept it now.
The reason we can be assured that we will all achieve enlightenment is because it has already happened. The concept of time being linear is an illusion. That is one of our biggest mistakes. You have enlightenment now – you just don’t know it. It is nearly impossible for a human to think outside of linear time. In these few sentences, I seem to have contradicted myself regarding time, but that is because we cannot understand that there is no such thing as time.
There is also no such thing as physical reality. (Any quantum physicists out there?) The acceptance of the absence of time and physical reality is a very big step. But once you have taken that step, it all begins to fall into place. What does “no time” and “no physical reality” mean? It means no place called heaven. No hell. No universe. No “you”. Of course, there is a “You”, but “you” don’t know what that is.
The fact is the only Reality is perfection. Here is another test we can use. If it is not perfect, it is not real. Are you perfect? Am I? No. Therefore, we are not real – we (meaning we humans) don’t really exist. The universe does not exist, and God did not create it.

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the Peace of God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: Have you seen

Spewn wrote:
Have you seen the original papers Hubbard wrote?  Dude was slammin' H, and it shows.  He does things like;  numbering the pages twice.  Capitalizing words for no reason.  It honestly doesn't even make sense to try and read what Hubbard originally wrote.  It's like Keanu Reeves on "Celebrity Jeapordy" saying "Eleventy-Billion."  Sure, it's english...but it's not anything that makes sense.  If you want to leave the Sea corps., you have to go through a Route-Out process(which has been described as an attempt to brainwash you into staying, from those who've made it out).  It sounds horrifying, and it honestly doesn't make one bit of sense.

I've never read his actual texts, no. I've just read, from what I could tell was unbiased, detailed layouts of his beliefs; eg: dianetics.

I've always had a nagging irrational thought that Hubbard may not have actually believed everything he said himself. It always seemed to me in a way that he might have started it all just to show how stupid all religion is. Especially with all the obvious errors he made. But then it actually became successful and he decided to run with it full force, using it to evade taxes and the like. Obviously I could be completely off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Upochapo wrote:   The


Upochapo wrote:
  The word faith was used correctly both times.  Both in grammar and context.


I agree that the word ‘puts’ means the same thing, but it is a verb; it is not a concept.
However, when you said, "while a theist puts their faith in religion, it seems that an atheist puts their faith in science", they are both ‘putting’, but the concept of faith is different for each.
The theist’s faith is not the same as the atheist’s faith. The theist puts faith in something that has no basis of evidence. The atheist puts faith in something that has a basis of evidence.
Science is a methodical process based on evidence.  Religion is not.

Which bring us to your question,” How are these two concepts different from each other?  “Putting” is not a concept; it is a verb. The concept in question is faith.
Theists are putting their faith in religion and the atheists are putting their faith in science.
Religious faith is a belief without basis.
Scientific faith is a belief with a basis.
They are clearly not the same.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Upochapo
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
ROFLMAO!!!!!   I see

ROFLMAO!!!!!

 

I see now.  I got it, I think.  Maybe I should have worded my ORIGINAL question better, eh?  Maybe it would have been better to ask, "How is putting faith in science any different than putting faith in religion?"  or "How is the concept of putting ones faith into science different from the concept of putting ones faith in religion?" I am not questioning the differences on the basis of said faith, I'm questioning the ACTION.  In that respect, there is no difference.  So, we seem to agree on that point.

The difference is in conceptualization.  But, I already knew that.  And, I thought that was just pretty much 'common knowledge' here.  I just took for granted that one would be able to see that I meant the actual action of itself, clearly I was wrong on that part  And, we seem to agree on this point as well.

 

Hot damn, I sure hope we're understanding each other.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Upochapo wrote: "How is

Upochapo wrote:

"How is putting faith in science any different than putting faith in religion?"
How are they the same? How is faith in religion the same as faith in science? What is faith in religion? What is faith in science?
Quote:
"How is the concept of putting ones faith into science different from the concept of putting ones faith in religion?"
How are they the same? How is faith in religion the same as faith in science? What is faith in religion? What is faith in science?

Quote:
I am not questioning the differences on the basis of said faith,
I am
Quote:
I'm questioning the ACTION. In that respect, there is no difference.  So, we seem to agree on that point.
No one cares about the action. If you put on a shirt or put on a coat, you're putting something on. But the shirt and coat are clearly different. Religious faith and scientific faith are obviously different things.

Quote:
The difference is in conceptualization.
I agree.

Quote:
But, I already knew that.  And, I thought that was just pretty much 'common knowledge' here.
With atheists it is common knowledge, atheists know religious faith is an empty concept, that's why we're atheists.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Upochapo
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
ok. now you've just crossed

ok. now you've just crossed the line to being obnoxious. if you don't like the fact that i am questioning the action then fine. if you do not want to acknowledge that the actions are both identical then fine, be my guest. apparently, you are just too hung up on the two seperate definitions. For someone who aligns themself with a community that sure seems to condemn smoke and mirrors you sure are seeming to go to great lengths to obscure the reality of it all. You might as well just go all out and be a theist because you're doing the same thing they do. Oh and you don't answer a question with a question. That is just more smoke and mirrors and proves nothing. You sir are a cafeteria atheist.

"No one cares about the action. If you put on a shirt or put on a coat, you're putting something on. But the shirt and coat are clearly different. Religious faith and scientific faith are obviously different things."

If we used your logic, we can say people use coats and shirts to sing into. Because, remember by what you said no one cares about action. I have not met many people in my life who purchase such items because they want to use it as a microphone. The list of irrational possibilities is endless. Sorry, but I live in a world of cause and effect. I know no other. Do you know of another one?

 

"No one cares about the action."

And look at your human arrogance shining through. And, you can speak for everyone?

Translation: You don't care about the action.

Person x kills person y.

Person x kills cat z.


You're right. People do not care about action. That is why we are freely able to do these actions indiscriminately without any repurcussion at all. Congratulations, you just proved you are a cold heartless bastard. I mean if you're going to show this level of human arrogance then I can too.

 

you're right hogspank, some people can not think simple.

This thread is hijacked, if you still feel the need to go in circles the way a bible thumper does we can do this through a pm.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Ok, we've sidetracked a

Ok, we've sidetracked a little it seems

Can we please return to Hogspank's proposition?

 

Hogspank, the idea you propose is very interesting and philosophers have been wrestling with it since philosphy was first conceived. What is reality? Does it actually exist? Some use the ever popular argument, cognito ergo sum, which I like sticking with for simplicity. At any rate, I am a scientist, and ergo hold a fundamentally materialistic view of the universe. As an athiest, one of the principles which I live my life on is: NEVER base anything on armchair raciocintation or a priori arguments. This is why I reject the non-existent material reality idea.

Thiests hold a partial spiritual/materialistic view in which a spiritual God created the material universe with some things that they consider spiritual like the mind. This is ridiculous. Your proposition, which is the opposite, a completely spiritual world with no actual physical reality is not ridiculous, just rather strange.

 

I'm gonna go with mattshizzle on this. You'd have to smoke like a rastafarian to think this way.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Upochapo wrote: "How is

Upochapo wrote:
"How is putting faith in science any different than putting faith in religion?"
If you phrased the question, "How is 'putting faith in' any different than 'putting faith in'?", then there is no difference. But you added the words 'science' and 'religion'. Now there is a difference. Science supports the theory that letting go of a ball will result in that ball falling based on evidence. Religion supports the theory that letting go of the ball will result in whatever you are hoping it to do based on desire. Putting faith in something is an expectation. It is having confidence or trust in a future occurrence. Science is the study of an idea to determine if there is any evidence that supports an idea as being worthy of expectation or confidence in something happening. Religion is a belief in something that has no evidence of having ever occurred and has no justification of expectation of that something ever happening in the future. The meaning of "putting faith in" is determined by what you are putting faith in. If you are expecting {putting faith in} something to happen that has in fact happened in the past, your faith is justified. But if you are expecting {putting faith in} something to happen that has in fact has no evidence of having happened in the past, your faith is unjustified.
I answered your question. If you can you prove that putting faith in science is not different than putting faith in religion I would like to hear it.

 

Your question, "How is putting faith in science any different than putting faith in religion?" is analogous to, "How is breathing air any different than breathing nothing?"

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Upochapo
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
First of all, I just want

First of all, I just want to make it perfectly clear, I do not think you are a cold heartless bastard. I just used that as an example.

Again, what you are doing is distorting the question. In your example, there is no difference because breathing is breathing. When we ask "how" the emphasis is placed on the action which you clearly care nothing about so why did you even answer the question in the first place and keep on going? ESPECIALLY, after I made it perfectly clear that the emphasis was placed on the act itself. If you do not care about the act, then why do you keep talking?

You are answering "Why". A question that never existed. Plain and simple.

 

edit:

Sorry about this folks.  After this one if Aiia doesn't take this to a pm then I will.  Please accept my apologies. 


Hogspanker
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
  When you look at

 

When you look at someone, you are looking at yourself.

When you blame someone, the blame falls upon you.

If you require scientific proof, you are missing out on a Reality that is simply beyond your wildest dreams.

We are on a journey without distance.

Together we will disappear into the Presence beyond the veil, not to be lost but found.

It is like a single separated drop of rain falling toward the sea. Separate while falling, but the instant it touches the sea, its separation is no more.

Forgiveness is the path out of this world.

True forgiveness is knowing there is nothing to forgive.

 


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
I thought this thread was

I thought this thread was about discussing/debating/comparing atheism and theism through reason, inductive and deductive. Your sentiment is nice and fluffy, but pointless. When you imply "scientific proof" isn't required to back your contentions, your essentially saying your argument isn't subject to reason. It's an inadvertent admission that you can't back up what you're writing.  That being the case, you have no argument. Your contentions are based on faith alone. There's nothing wrong with having faith, but faith isn't tangible, logical, debatable, or subject to reason . You're failing miserably. Sorry...


Hogspanker
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
    It doesn't really

   

It doesn't really matter what you thought. "Thought" is the problem; "reason" is also the problem with "this world". Who said truth has to adhear to human reason? The universe we experience adhears to the reason of mind because mind thought it up. This universe is an illusion of the split mind. If you restrict yourself to what you think is reasonable you are trapped indefinitely until you free your mind from the self-inflicted restrictions. Therefore, what I am saying is definitely not subject to reason. It is not logical, and from the point of view of human reason it makes no sense. There is no way someone like you can accept it or even understand it given your current awareness. You have to step out of it to see it. I know you will do that simply because you already have. You just don't know it. You are free to flop around in this bloody hog-waller for as long as you like. Failing? Convincing you or anyone else of anything is irrelevent. Once you are on a spiritual path it is impossible to fail.     


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
All I can gather from your

All I can gather from your "wiser than thou" drivel is that you don't think an opposing viewpoint should be countered with reason. You don't approve of thinking. You're enlightened. I'm not. Does that sum it up?

You could've started out with this. It would've saved some time. That way no one would try to reason with you (reason is BAD). No one would think about your contentions (thought is BAD). Most importantly, we'd all know that you're very wise (just ask you, right?).

You win brother. I'm going home. Siddhartha would be proud...no... wait... he wouldn't. Do you know why? Think about it.

Ah...never mind.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Edger wrote: All I can

Edger wrote:

All I can gather from your "wiser than thou" drivel is that you don't think an opposing viewpoint should be countered with reason. You don't approve of thinking. You're enlightened. I'm not. Does that sum it up?

You could've started out with this. It would've saved some time.

agreed. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Upochapo wrote:"When I'm

Upochapo wrote:
"

When I'm done answering your question I'll ask you: how are they the same?

Why is this so? Because your committing a fallacy of equivocation here - you're using 'faith' in two different senses.

These 'faiths' - faith in the supernatural, 'faith' in science, are fundamentally different. You're conflating theistic faith, which is unjustified belief, with 'colloquial' faith, which is belief taken on probability.

Science is naturalistic. One does not need to violate naturalism in order to 'believe in it'. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural, a belief for which there can be no rational grounds, a belief that violates everything we know of the world, including basic ontology itself.

Here are four reasons why any natural assumption is NOT theistic faith."

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

Ok. And, this is why things spiral out of control. When did I ever say natural assumption is equivalent to theistic faith. There is no fallacy in my argument. You have created the fallacy. You are the one that is applying two seperate definitions here causing a fallacy to surface.

No, I'm giving you the actual, necessary distinctions.

Quote:

Faith is nothing more than having confidence or trust in a person or thing.

Unjustified confidence, in the case of theism.

If you could justify it, you'd have evidence, but it's not possible to have empirical evidence of something beyond nature.

 

Quote:

Why is it that you keep putting these spins on everything?

Why is it that you dodge all the points before you, by calling it spin? If you aren't able to follow the argument, just ask questions, but dodging it like this and pretending to have answered is silly.

 

Here are the points again:  dodge them a second time, and you're exposed:

These 'faiths' - faith in the supernatural, 'faith' in science, are fundamentally different. You're conflating theistic faith, which is unjustified belief, with 'colloquial' faith, which is belief taken on probability.

Science is naturalistic. One does not need to violate naturalism in order to 'believe in it'. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural, a belief for which there can be no rational grounds, a belief that violates everything we know of the world, including basic ontology itself.

Here are four reasons why any natural assumption is NOT theistic faith.

 

1) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world (i.e. such as 'believing in science) would not justify assuming any more than what is needed in order to begin knowing the world. Theistic faith violates this precept.

If there is in fact a need to assume the existence of other first person ontology, this only allows me to assume whatever is needed to unpack first person ontology, nothing more.

2) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify ever holding to any such assumption if rational-empirical methods demonstrate a gross failure of the assumption to adequately account for reality. Theistic faith violates this precept.

This is where pragmatism enters into any foundationalist approach to justifying knowledge. No naturalist would continue to hold to an assumption that simply failed to work.

3) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify making any assumption that violated what we know of the world through rational-empirical methods. Theistic faith violates this precept.

Consider Stephen Hawkings here, in his description of speculative cosmological theory:

There are theories in cosmology that have as much evidence going for them as astrology - the difference, however, is that these cosmological theories do not violate what we already know of the universe.

- Universe in a nutshell

4) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify any supernatural or 'transcendent' assumption. These terms: "supernatural" or 'transcedent are defined, from the outset, in such a way that they preclude the possibility of holding to them as a 'properly basic belief' because each definition is a negative definition, devoid of any universe of discourse.

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Hogspanker
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
  By gum, Eddie, keep up

 

By gum, Eddie, keep up the good work. In a few million years something may dawn on you.

>>you don't think an opposing viewpoint should be countered with reason.

Human reason is the cause for all the shit in this world.

>>You don't approve of thinking.

Have you ever tried not thinking? If you can do it, you might "see" something. That could be scary. I doubt if you have the balls for it.

>>You're enlightened

Wrong! I'm an idiot, just like you. The difference is I know it.

>>I'm not.

You got it.

>>It would've saved some time.

That is one of the purposes of this teaching.

>>we'd all know that you're very wise

You miss the point entirely. None of what I have said comes from me.

>>Siddhartha would be proud...

Obviously, you don't have a clue about what Siddhartha is about.  I know nothing.

>>Think about it.

When I'm finished with this post, I see absolutely no reason to think about anything you have to say.

The world will ALWAYS dismiss this teaching, because it means this world does not exist, and when that is accepted, this world will simply cease to seem to be.