U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-19-2015, 05:30 AM
 
39,176 posts, read 10,872,385 times
Reputation: 5092

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
logically speaking: holding a belief based on what is not known or things we personally don't understand is stupid.

Using what we do know is the only logical method to hold a belief. The stance "there is something" over "there no-nothing" is more logical. On every logical level.

emotionally, we can make up any logic we want.
We absolutely love thinking outside the box, original thinking and left -field speculation. But it is important that these be kept in the mental pending tray, not only because it is wrong to hold a hypothesis as true before there is any really good evidence for it (you'd think this was obvious, but apparently it isn't) bit mainly because, when one adheres to a belief not on the basis of 'the best explanation -so far' but as 'I Know It Is True' then (as we so wearisomely often see) when evidence that requires reappraisal comes along, then it is rejected.

We have seen a whole cult set up to reject this evidence with an amazing array of hypothesis, often conflicting and reinvented, while at the same time accusing science of always changing its mind/getting things wrong, because science finds out new things that add knowledge, but nothing since the geocentric theory has been proved 'wrong'.

It is fascinating to see how this cult gets around not only hypothetical problems by reinventing the explanations (not to say changing them at the drop of hat - we saw how two conflicting theories about the fllod (mountains rising AND continents rising - implying that the mountains stayed the same height) were produces in one day and one quietly dropped when it was shows to contradict the other, but gets around the marketing problem when science is solidly against the teaching of this cult by producing its own scientists (some of whom actually do hold valid certificates) that say different (1) and (to give me an excuse to post one of those excellent vids (mind, I don't always agree with with everything he says) about the efforts to pretend that ID was nothing to do with Creationism in order to get around the Dover ruling, when legally it is declared that it is creationism, and (9as the vid shows) it is not only Creationism but is of course Genesis literalism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA

(1)on the evolution thread on the Christianity forum, the argument that evolution theory does NOT say that dogs come from cats, cows from Whales or croos from ducks was countered by a video by someone - supposedly a certificate holding scientist who said that was what evolution -theory said. And the majority of evolutionary science was covering up the truth. Which apparently is that evolution claims something that doesn't work and foments a conspiracy to claim that it is something that actually does.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2015 at 05:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2015, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,720 posts, read 5,531,975 times
Reputation: 5391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No I am not. First I do not believe there is ANYTHING supernatural, period. Everything is natural . . . some is just not yet understood. I am defending the God of the EXISTENT . . . the Source of EVERYTHING that EXISTS. You are the one proffering the God of ignorance because YOU do not know.
Deism?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 08:22 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,006,426 times
Reputation: 1366
"Pending" is fine with clarification. "No-nothing" does not match observations, although slightly more valid than Omni-dude, twice nothing is nothing. "pending" used for recruiting purposes is not my thing. "pending" used for the basis of "anti-over-organized-religion" seems silly to me.

My sect of atheism is a little different I guess. I base my "anti-over-organized-religion" on how most large organizations tend to "push" their "agenda" on other people. Sometime forcibly. And that just seems wrong to me. Also many of the ceo's seem to be sociopathic in nature. That kinda worries me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,091,096 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Deism?
Well deism would be the ineffable, unknowable, indifferent, uninvolved god.

What Mystic himself is, and he'll tell you this himself, is a panentheist. Not to be confused with pantheist.

In essence he is a naturalist like me but still wants to infer some sort of deity out of it. Although a non-supernatural, naturally explicable deity is not really a deity by the lights of the abrahamic religions and indeed, of most theists. Because if a god is subject to nature and not outside of it, what's the point? There is no salvation in that ... we are trapped in the human condition with or without that sort of god.

Most theism is a projection of the need to transcend the unpleasant / inexplicable bits of reality. Not to redefine reality to BE pleasant or explicable.

I'd take either path if either of them actually worked and comported itself with available evidence, so don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Mystic is doubly wrong -- in that he's a theist, and not even doing THAT correctly. Quite the opposite. I simply see no value either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 11:43 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,006,426 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Deism?
emtionally make up any thing you want to make yourself feel good.

From "it don't matter to me" or "omni-dude saving me". Then tag it with a name. None of them is meaningful in a study of the mechanisms the universes uses. What we do is learn the machism then make stuff with that understanding to do something. usually to kill each other, go figure.

For expamle. acclerating one, just one, particle to enegries of a universe. Mybe it will "bang" ... poof, logical needs filled, many logical needs filled. And to our suprise, many emtional needs filled too. weather one don't care to our more spiritual individuals. they can "feel good" and think that "feeling" is what defines the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 12:44 AM
 
40,098 posts, read 26,761,498 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
MysticPhD,
You are essentially using the same argument that the creationists use: "there's stuff we still don't know, therefore there must be some supernatural explanation." It's the classic God of the Gaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No I am not. First I do not believe there is ANYTHING supernatural, period. Everything is natural . . . some is just not yet understood. I am defending the God of the EXISTENT . . . the Source of EVERYTHING that EXISTS. You are the one proffering the God of ignorance because YOU do not know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Deism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Well deism would be the ineffable, unknowable, indifferent, uninvolved god.
What Mystic himself is, and he'll tell you this himself, is a panentheist. Not to be confused with pantheist.
In essence he is a naturalist like me but still wants to infer some sort of deity out of it. Although a non-supernatural, naturally explicable deity is not really a deity by the lights of the abrahamic religions and indeed, of most theists. Because if a god is subject to nature and not outside of it, what's the point? There is no salvation in that ... we are trapped in the human condition with or without that sort of god.
Most theism is a projection of the need to transcend the unpleasant / inexplicable bits of reality. Not to redefine reality to BE pleasant or explicable.
I'd take either path if either of them actually worked and comported itself with available evidence, so don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Mystic is doubly wrong -- in that he's a theist, and not even doing THAT correctly. Quite the opposite. I simply see no value either way.
Mordant has it essentially correct, Freak. The difference between us is that I started with NO EXPECTATIONS of God . . . just the inexplicable reality that God exists. It instantly erased my atheism . . . but left me with a serious intellectual deficit. I spent the next 40 years trying to explain it to my intellect. Mordant, OTOH had many expectations all of which eventually were not met. He has a thoroughly understandable (and widely shared view) that God should present SOME kind of advantage or whatever . . . or God is irrelevant. The unconditional love, joy and acceptance I encountered was so overwhelming and unambiguous . . . I didn't need a reason for God to exist. I just needed to find out why I existed.

My search led me eventually to the Christ narrative as the most evolved of the many narratives in the spiritual fossil record. The descriptions of Christ's agape love perfectly matched the consciousness I encountered and that was enough for me to BELIEVE. The idea that we are children of God completed the narrative for me. We are reproducing God . . . but we were doing a very bad job of it . . . still are. Christ was needed to bring the consciousness of God to a HUMAN consciousness so that the collective human consiousness would be forever connected to God's consciousness. He was our "designated hitter" and He hit a Grand Slam . . . loving even His torturers and murderers through horrendous scourging and crucifixion. "No greater love . . ." and it was an unambiguous revelation about the TRUE NATURE of God . . . completely opposite of the barbaric and savage beliefs of our ignorant primitive ancestors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,720 posts, read 5,531,975 times
Reputation: 5391
That's wacky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,091,096 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
That's wacky.
Mm, I don't know if I'd be THAT dismissive, but it begs a few questions, to be sure.

Why was it necessary for Mystic spend four decades -- quite probably half his life -- spelunking some non-obvious "spiritual fossil record"? Why, regardless of the sort of theistic beliefs we're talking about, are the gods always so coy -- even when they're not outright crazy and dysfunctional?

Well okay, so maybe our lives on this earth are supposed to be devoted to the purpose of divining the divine. Fine. So what does Mystic have to show for all this effort? Something so compelling that he's blazed the way for the rest of us? Something that is causing shouts of "eureka!" in the streets? Well, not so much. He's got four decades of his own time invested so he's not about to give up on it himself, but sadly, it's well-nigh impossible by his own admission to convince anyone else that his conclusions are accurate, sound, and above all, substantiated. Mystic's Jesus has rewarded his devotion with all this frustration -- Mystic is effectively all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Forgive me if this does not excite me.

Forgive me if I feel that any god worth giving the time of day to should be relevant to me in some way, should be reliable in keeping his own word, and by extension should be a truly transformative force in the world, demonstrably reducing human suffering (even setting aside the explaining god has to do for allowing suffering in the first place, if he is in fact benevolent and potent and aware).

However, as I've said many times, these concerns were only the initial motivation for me to move away from theism. I now have better and more comprehensive reasons than mere disappointment or disillusionment to stay where I am.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2015, 11:39 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,006,426 times
Reputation: 1366
my message for new atheist is learn how to form a belief. Just don't bite on every knuckle head idea.

I would suggest that gaining an understanding of emotional connections and agendas is very important. Whenever I have dug into a strong emotional response or above "normal" held belief in a claim I have always, always!! , found something that made it clear as to why. So understand "human" emotion and understand your own first.

Listen to adjectives used to describe the "enemy" to see into a person's intentions. Understand what "facts" are and understand they are not bias. People opinions on the facts are bias. Some for good reasons and some, well, not so much.

evolution is a great example of butchering facts for personal needs. evolution is the most reasonable creation story/method to show how man was assembled. It doesn't show a god or no god. It doesn't mean no god needed or god needed. All it shows is how man most likely was formed.

For the less emotional inclined, like myself, put reasonable numbers in weighting data points. If one can't do proper weight to nasty bits of life their conclusions are skewed. But proper weight means proper weight. Human suffering dictates a higher weight than non human suffering, in general that is. Don't get fooled by the "child" thrown in your face to overweight an event either. understand that marketers use a child to "emotionally" weight the events. and everybody markets their belief.

there is no "war" between a regular atheist and a regular theist. Our leaders, on both sides, are at war. Some of their reasons are even valid too.

oh I forgot. The definition of atheist does not include "anti-over-organized-religion". so I am atheist and I am anti-any-big-organization. then we can talk about what big means.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-20-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2015, 04:01 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,699,834 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
We are encumbered by the very limitations our perceptions and sensory experiences place on us.
This is a restatement of the first paragraph of your post so it can be replied to in isolation. And I entirely agree with it. The limitations we have cognitively as a species are very real and very apparent. And you do not even have to talk about things like infinity to demonstrate it. You can demonstrate failures in human intuition and reasoning quite effectively with very real world examples - such as the monty hall problem or the birthday paradox. When numbers or concepts get big or small - not even that much bigger or smaller than our common day to day experience - human reasoning breaks down remarkably fast.

The issue is that many people make a career - monetary or merely verbal like yourself on this forum - out of exploiting that - and playing "god of the gaps" in areas of genuine human ignorance - or even simply in common failure of human reasoning. Through the misuse of science buzz words the lay person can quite quickly become bamboozled and the Deepaks of this world essentially pay off large mortgages off the exploitation of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
we can make no definitive conclusions either way . . . God or no God . . . using science.
Again we are in agreement. We can make no "definite" conclusions on the idea of whether there is a god or not. But there is no requirement to do so in the first place. In science we make no "definite" conclusions on any subjects. We say in speech that we know the speed of light in a vacuum for example. In reality however what we mean is every attempt to measure that has come up with the same result - this is as close to "definite" as we can get - but we acknowledge that the next test _could_ give a different result - or somewhere else in the universe this value is different.

So we do not go around making definite conclusions in the first place. On the subject of "god" or anything else - so pointing out this fact here is useless.

What we can make definite statements on however is whether we have been given any evidence to think a given proposition is true. So far on the idea there is a god - we can quite clearly say no - you have done no such thing here on this forum ever. It has been god of the gaps from you all the way down to the bottom of the turtles - and linguistic games jumping from one definition of "god" to another as and when suits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top