Wilco and atheism

[Sunken mountain]

We

[Good Old Neon]

You joke this off-handedly away, but how can you delve so deeply into debunking belief, religion, it's sourge upon a free-thinking civilization, and still say, Amen.

 

The question was raised whether religion does hold value. This revelation from you is like the dumping of bags of letters to Santa on Gene Lockhard's judge's stand, freeing Edmund Gwynn.

 

Don't forget that football.

 

 

Christmas, insofar as I

[Good Old Neon]

I'll tell you right now why we believe what we believe: Experience. What you experience in your life will determine how you see the world. It doesn't take neuroscientists to figure that out, just common sense. And since we all experience different things, we will believe different things, hence it is ridiculous to argue over whether a certain belief is right or wrong because there is no right or wrong in this case. (didn't I say this on like page 5 of this thread?)

 

I

[Good Old Neon]

I

[M. (hristine]

My point regarding neuroscience is this, by stimulating parts of the brain, we are now able to recreate out of body and religious experiences in the lab -- that, in and of itself, is strong evidence that religious experience lives inside the brain. As the science advances, and we continue to map the human brain with better and more advanced technology, we will, in all likelihood, gain an even greater understanding of its inner workings

[TheMaker]

I' date=' as an atheist, would say the principles expressed here offer a good example of how atheists aren't "arrogant" as is so commonly suggested except the way in which you make every single argument IS arrogant. Even Bill Maher says certainty on the side of atheism is just as bad as certainty on the side of religion.[/quote']

 

First of all, nobody is advocating certainty, at least as far as I can tell. I haven't seen any fundamentalists leaving comments here (most would never dare to participate in a conversation like this one) insisting that god is great and that he has all the answers. All I've been promoting is free inquiry and healthy skepticism, often citing examples of how observation, reasearch and reason can provide comprehensive answers to complex questions. If one thinks that this is an example of "arrogance," then one must be terribly stupid. On the other side of the coin, religion really doesn't attempt to explain anything at all. Not in any substantive way, at least.

 

I don’t find TheMaker’s posts to be arrogant' date=' I think they’re brutally honest – and, as is usually the case, in place of engaging his posts on an intellectual level, his detractors simply throw personal insults around.[/quote']

 

I appreciate your appraisal, Neon. I also appreciate your measured tone and the clarity of your arguments, both of which are admirable and quite necessary components of discussions like this one. My posts are written quickly and conversationally, so I don't see any reason to censor myself or make unnecessary concessions to politeness. One of my goals is to drag religion itself across the coals, and I would be terribly upset if I weren't offending at least a few people with my remarks. Depending on how long my day has been, yeah, I'll drop an F-Bomb here and there. Don't like it, guys? Stop reading my shit. Pretty simple.

 

Athiests don't like to admit that non belief in a deity also requires the leap of faith that a believer requires to take the opposite side of the argument.

 

Since a deity's existence or non-existence is non-provable' date=' a definite statement for either side requires a leap of faith.[/quote']

 

Boy, you're really reaching now, aren't you? Non-belief is not quantifiable in the same way that belief happens to be. Would you also argue that it takes a rather tremendous leap of faith to withhold belief in Zeus and Hera? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Snuffleupagus? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Where does it end?

 

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. This is a very straightforward concept, and I am positively staggered that it manages to confound so many people whose minds have been so poisoned by religious "thought."

 

The simple fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing in nature points to the existence of any sort of god that has been imagined by man to date. Everything in the bible, especially the blood-soaked, rage-fueled Old Testament, is utter fucking nonsense. The Koran is violent, derivative tripe. These texts are clear products of their time. Their frankly appalling moral ideals are tethered to their respective centuries and are informed by barbaric, outmoded ways of thinking. It does not require anything remotely close to a leap of faith to arrive at such conclusions. It simply takes a 21st Century mind and the ability to read.

 

With all due respect' date=' outside of your own head, your experiential belief in god proves nothing insofar as the actual existence of a god is concerned.[/quote']

 

Bingo. This is equally true of a schizophrenic's experiential belief in, say, CIA agents who follow him around and wish to lock him inside a giant birdcage to punish his misbehaviour. (For the record, I know a man who believes this particular scenario to be true with every inch of his being. This does not prevent his belief from being anything more than a tragic delusion.)

 

Indeed - the point of the story of Santa Claus is to toughen up kids against the crushing blows that life will deliver for the rest of their days.

 

Right. The idea of a benevolent' date=' loving creator figure serves much the same purpose, only adults are encouraged to believe in one 'til their dying day.

 

You joke this off-handedly away, but how can you delve so deeply into debunking belief, religion, it's sourge upon a free-thinking civilization, and still say, Amen.

 

Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Christian conventions are so embedded in western society that it's practically automatic for people of every stripe to say things like "Hallelujah" and "Goddamn" and "God bless you" and "Jesus fucking Christ on a motherfucking cross, all covered with his own disgusting blood and feces?"

 

Nah. Couldn't be.

 

It probably has something to do with all atheists' secret desire to embrace Christ and live a holy life of etc.!

 

And on the subject of Christmas, I don't actively celebrate it, but I do occasionally give and receive gifts. Since they're nearly always given in the spirit of generosity, and not religion, I don't have very many qualms with this ritual.

[markosis]

I

[TheMaker]

So you're admitting that belief can be incorrect on its face, then, or at least wrongheaded/ill-conceived?

[markosis]

So you're admitting that belief can be incorrect on its face, then, or at least wrongheaded/ill-conceived?

 

Of course, any belief can be ill-conceived. A KKK members beliefs are surely ill-conceived. I'm saying I don't think we need to map that persons brain to figure out why their racist. It is through their own experience that they come to those beliefs.

[kwall]

The simple fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing in nature points to the existence of any sort of god that has been imagined by man to date.

i would suggest that the mere presence of highly ordered systems (e.g. the solar system, dogs, amoebas, dna, etc) points to the existence of a creative force at work in the universe somehow.

[Good Old Neon]

So brain and mind are one in the same?

Nothing exists besides matter?

What is consciousness?

Where is memory stored in the brain?

 

Is it possible that such neural stimulation may actually reveal the neural correlates of the non material?

 

In a word

[Winston Legthigh]

Boy, you're really reaching now, aren't you?

Why are you so threatened by the fact that you can't prove the non-existence of God?

 

Also - both you and Neon seems to have difficulty grasping the difference between "evidence" and "proof"

Both of you claim that there is no evidence of God. That's silly - there's plenty of evidence. There's merely no proof.

 

Example: In a murder trial, the only evidence submitted is a splotch of blood on the floor. It's not proof of any crime committed, but it's certainly evidence.

 

Evidence submitted for God's existence might be the Earth itself. Some may be moved to interpret this evidence as an argument towards the existence of God. Others, such as yourself, would conclude that it has no weight, and in fact none of the evidence offered would move you towards belief. That doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. It merely means that the evidence doesn't equal proof.

[kwall]

Evidence submitted for God's existence might be the Earth itself. Some may be moved to interpret this evidence as an argument towards the existence of God. Others, such as yourself, would conclude that it has no weight, and in fact none of the evidence offered would move you towards belief. That doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. It merely means that the evidence doesn't equal proof.

excellent.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Christmas, insofar as I

[Central Scrutinizer]

My point regarding neuroscience is this, by stimulating parts of the brain, we are now able to recreate out of body and religious experiences in the lab -- that, in and of itself, is strong evidence that religious experience lives inside the brain. As the science advances, and we continue to map the human brain with better and more advanced technology, we will, in all likelihood, gain an even greater understanding of its inner workings

[kwall]

You simultaneously claim Christianity is hypocrisy and then espouse it and promote it because it serves you. Now who is exploiting faith for your own purposes?

to be fair, what we call "christmas" isn't really a christian holiday. the celebration of the winter solstice predates christianity. early christians just stuck the name, "christmas", on this existing festival. some christians refuse to celebrate it because of this. nearly all the traditions associated with it (e.g. gift-giving, tree-trimming, etc) have nothing to do with christianity.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Of course, any belief can be ill-conceived. A KKK members beliefs are surely ill-conceived. I'm saying I don't think we need to map that persons brain to figure out why their racist. It is through their own experience that they come to those beliefs.

Belief is tested and forged, just like a relationship. Just like science.

 

to be fair, what we call "christmas" isn't really a christian holiday. the celebration of the winter solstice predates christianity. early christians just stuck the name, "christmas", on this existing festival. some christians refuse to celebrate it because of this. nearly all the traditions associated with it (e.g. gift-giving, tree-trimming, etc) have nothing to do with christianity.

I think everyone realizes this. The point is, by its definition, it acknowledges the birth of Christ. Instead you should let your kids regale to the latest Rankin and Bass Festivus TV special.

[Winston Legthigh]

excellent.

Speaking of belief, I can't believe that you and I are on the same side of an argument!

 

Regardless, I just have this to say - the argument is out there that belief in a deity is a crutch of small minds. That's fine and might be true in certain situations. I don't think it's universally true. There are many great minds that are theists. Conversely, I offer that the need to have an absolute answer in an unprovable situation is in the same ballpark of the previoiusly mentioned small mind.

 

The fabled flying spaghetti monster is often brought up. Does it exist? I don't know - I'm doubtful. I have no reason to believe that it does, yet I can't prove that it doesn't. Seems unlikely. Does bigfoot exist? I'm doubtful, but I'll take Jane Goodall's word that it's certainly possible.

[kwall]

My point is, we continually understand the what of creation, the nature of being, the neurology -- how we work. We get not closer to the why -- Christian scientists and even atheisting ones become more amazed -- through their scientific observation -- at the what and more mystified about the why.

Outside of the fact that we exist in the here and now, there needn

[M. (hristine]

Damage the brain and you damage the mind

So, if you drop a radio in water, radio signals cease to exist?

[kwall]

I think everyone realizes this. The point is, by its definition, it acknowledges the birth of Christ.

i'm not sure it does, apart from calling it "christmas". i know plenty of people who celebrate xmas without even once mentioning jesus or anything else spiritual.

[kwall]

Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther were better thinkers than either Neon or The Maker . . .

uh oh. stand back everyone!

[TheMaker]

Actually, this isn't excellent at all, kwall. It's simply naive and designed to obfuscate the meat of most arguments against theism.

 

First of all, it should be crystal clear to everyone following along at home that I am not remotely "threatened" by your naivete, Winston. I am simply confounded by your insistence that I do the impossible.

 

You cannot prove a negative in practical terms. It's true that a lack of evidence can never disprove a given hypothesis, but a large enough number of negative instances can make it so improbable as to be eliminated from serious consideration.

 

A prime example might be as follows: there is no trace of the unicorn in the fossil record, nor has a unicorn ever been observed in the wild; therefore it can be reasonably assumed that unicorns do not exist.

 

You're essentially asking why I'm "threatened" by the fact that negative proof is an absurd concept. I might turn the question around on you and ask why you continue to ignore that it's just as impossible to conclusively disprove the existence of Zeus and Cthulhu and Snuffy as it is to disprove the existence of god. I suspect the reason has something to do with the fact that a part of you realizes that god is no less absurd than any of those other ridiculous false notions, and that there is no good reason whatsoever to believe in him.

[Winston Legthigh]

You're essentially asking why I'm "threatened" by the fact that negative proof is an absurd concept. I might turn the question around on you and ask why you continue to ignore that it's just as impossible to conclusively disprove the existence of Zeus and Cthulhu and Snuffy as it is to disprove the existence of god. I suspect the reason has something to do with the fact that a part of you realizes that god is no less absurd than any of those other ridiculous false notions, and that there is no good reason whatsoever to believe in him.

But you don't even know if I believe in God or not... (I don't).

[kwall]

Actually, this isn't excellent at all, kwall. It's simply naive and designed to obfuscate the meat of most arguments against theism.

damn it. foiled again.