The contradiction between atheism and science . (reincarnate, society, opinion, theories)

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by old_cold

From what you've said in other posts about your childhood you must have a really different definition of 'easy' than most do.
Of course what you have said in other posts (in other forums) doesn't always line up with what you say elsewhere so I shouldn't be surprised.
I am, by the way, NOT going to get into a discussion over this with you so don't expect any reply other than this.

Life as a child isn't the same as life as an adult.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

I believed for decades that I had a relationship with God. Looking back, it seems to me that I, because of my preconceived, pre-programmed ideas about the reality of God, experienced what I expected to experience. I saw God's hand in everything because I believed God was involved, felt God's presence because I believed God was there. Now, as someone who highly doubts the existence of a god, I see what I expect to see ... no "hand", no "presence", just life.

Personally, I think your summary in another of your posts of the similarities found in many religions is compelling and I do give that weight. But it seems, to me, that we see what we expect to see when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God, and I have yet to understand how one determines the true significance of our experience, or lack of experience, one way or another.

Perceptually everyone sees what they expect to see. It is called selective perception and is driven by our needs and desires. My epiphany in deep meditation was in direct contradiction to what I intellectually believed (atheism) primarily because my practice was predicated on the removal of all desire to achieve Nirvana. Calling it a shock to my system is gross understatement.

I suggest introspection into the things that currently seem to drive your life, Pleroo . . . the needs and desires that motivate your perceptions of reality. What do you most want to avoid in life . . . most want to obtain, etc. This could help you to pinpoint the drivers that pushed you away from the twisted fundy beliefs that corrupted your views of God and keep you from ANY belief in God.

[Violett]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Perceptually everyone sees what they expect to see. It is called selective perception and is driven by our needs and desires. My epiphany in deep meditation was in direct contradiction to what I intellectually believed (atheism) primarily because my practice was predicated on the removal of all desire to achieve Nirvana. Calling it a shock to my system is gross understatement.

I suggest introspection into the things that currently seem to drive your life, Pleroo . . . the needs and desires that motivate your perceptions of reality. What do you most want to avoid in life . . . most want to obtain, etc. This could help you to pinpoint the drivers that pushed you away from the twisted fundy beliefs that corrupted your views of God and keep you from ANY belief in God.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Don't let the corruption of religion by those in power turn you off of and away from God, if you truly want to have a relationship with Him.

I was actually raised pretty much atheist and found God on my own years and years later, which is why I believe I'm such a firm believer now (because I found him on my own, not because I was brainwashed).

Which isn't to say brainwashing doesn't exist, I'm strongly against believing in God only because you're "supposed" to and encourage everyone to try and find God on their own. If religion is a medium for that, great. If an organized religion is getting in your way of find Him or having a true, personal relationship with Him, then maybe it's time to reexamine the religion that you're in. Just a thought.

[Violett]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Over and over we see that any failure of the "open your heart and god will be obvious" approach is blamed on the person doing the experiment. How many times does it have to fail before we realize that it's not the people doing the research who are wrong?

Luckily we don't have to believe in modern medicine or agriculture for them to work - like everything else which is real they don't go away if we stop believing in it.

I said you have to WORK to find God. That He doesn't throw Himself at you. I didn't say all you need to do is believe.

[Violett]

Originally Posted by TKramar

The only things I've ever had in this life have thrown themselves at me. I didn't have to work at any of them. Not relationships, not education, not getting a job. Everything's been easy thus far, why shouldn't it continue to be?

Well, if you haven't found God yet, maybe this is your answer as to why. You haven't really looked or worked for it because you never have and didn't even realize that you needed to work to find Him.

[TKramar]

Then I won't find God.

And I'm okay with that.

[Violett]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Understanding psychology, I don't think I can disagree with with this....if you WANT to.
My question is why would I want to??
Regardless of your obviously limited association with atheists, we aren't all angry,frustrated, grudge-holding people with 'empty places' in our 'hearts' just needing to be filled.
I agree there are some who are or appear to be but not all of us have that background

That's fine. If you don't feel like you need or want a relationship with God, that's completely your choice. However, if you haven't tried to find Him and don't care to ever find Him, it's a little unfair of you to say that He doesn't exist because you've never actually put the work in to do so.

That would be like me saying gold doesn't exist in the ground because I've never found gold in the ground from my own experience, because I've never looked for it. you see what I mean?

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by Violett

The bottomline is that spiritual experience has been the same for many, transcending both time and culture. Scientifically, it holds water.

The experience holds water. We know, as you point out, that people have religious and spiritual experiences over time and culture. Considering our crawl from Africa, we can actually trace a lot of that back to the human species hanging out together.

But, the experience of God is not god itself, just as the experience of "wet" is not water.

It's not a matter of ignorance. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in God:

Wrong ignorance. I was referring to the ignorance of the human species, not personal ignorance. We as humans have always had questions, and a ****** always has the answer. This isn't just with religion. Alternative therapies are placebos, but people pay good money to have them performed. Psychics are blatant liars, cold-reading (if they're good) their subjects to get answers the subjects want. Religion in this case has answers to philosophical questions--answers based on wild speculation and historically used as a means of social control.

Also, a list of smart people who believe in God is an appeal to authority. The fact that one (or many) people in an authority position believe in gods is irrelevant to the actual existence of the gods themselves.

Regarding institutionalized religion, you are half right. I think humans, evolving from animals, are naturally brutal and self-serving. Sometimes religion plays on this and uses humanity to carry out whatever goals the elite are trying to accomplish. This is a misuse of religion.

Sometimes religion helps people recognize this brutal part of themselves and helps them try to transcend it. This is the most helpful thing about religion and what religion does that science cannot do. Even though you are not religious yourself, surely you can see the GOOD that religion brings to people's lives, right?

We have to understand more than simple pleasures to determine if it is "good" or "bad" to believe in gods. The delusional and withdraw from reality is undoubtedly bad. People getting along with another ins undoubtedly good. One can come without religion, however.

But...we are straying from the thread topic and perhaps should start a new thread.

I'm tracking a dozen topics as is!

Originally Posted by Violett

You are completely wrong. There is absolutely no way to "physically prove" emotions.

emotion neurotransmitter - Google Scholar

Not to mention, brain damage can severely affect personality and emotions. That's a direct physical element. We may not have exact configurations of which transmitters in which regions of the limbic system cause X emotion, but we know for example an imbalance in serotonin and\or dopamine levels can result in clinical depression. That's why the medication works in the first place.

I happen to be in the medical industry, so I know this for a fact. If this were true, people seeing a psychiatrist would get a blood test and CAT scan before being prescribed psychotropics.

We have tremendous difficulty recording single neurons or nuclei with CAT scans. And bloodtests don't measure neurotransmitters.

Because there is no way to physically prove depression, anxiety, etc.,

Neurotransmitter imbalances figure for a number of these rather well, which is why we assign drugs that counteract them.

all psychiatrists have to go on is the verbal report of their patients. If you can provide a link showing otherwise, I would be all ears.

The psychiatrist might be operating on verbal reports only (which would be silly, we have means of testing for abnormal psychology), but the causes behind many illnesses are fairly understood to a point we're able to help correct them with drugs.

in any event, much of the rest of what you said about emotion is moot because you clearly don't know much about the scientific workings. It's a THEORY

You do know what a theory is, correct? A model of all observed evidence which can make predictions. It's not a half-assed guess someone had after waking up drunk one morning.

that emotions are a chemical reaction, but, we don't know exactly how or why they work. Don't take my word for it, feel free to do you own research.

I have. I spent several years in university doing this.

LOL seriously? if I had a rash I couldn't heal, I would go to see a doctor. When I want a theory on quantum mechanics and the universe works, I ask an astrophysicist. It's 100% relevant. If you wanted a view on how God and science could possibly work in conjunction with one another, who would you ask?

My fault. I wasn't aware you were citing his argumentation. I thought you were citing him as a "source" for the reason you believe X. Difference.

We don't "need" it, it just is. Remember earlier today when we had the discussion about how there is something infinite that is, was, and has always been in existence? That's what the meta-energy is.

Again, application of Occam's Razor. Why have this "meta-energy" at all if it is plenty sufficient to have just "energy?" If our energy is required to be created, than why is this 'meta-energy' not required to be created the same. If you're going to use Special Pleading to claim that Meta-Energy always existed, the same argumentation applies towards just regular energy, and because we can verify we exist but not verify that meta-energy exists, we simply reject that claim outright.

No, again, not true. Sorry. [in reference to meditation being oxygen starvation]

Meditation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meditation is the deliverate slowing of breathing and heart-rate, which results in a lower O2 count in your bloodstream. If you fall asleep, you've failed the point of meditation. When the brain receives less oxygen, strange things begin to happen, like hallucinations. Or dreaming, depending in which wave-cycle you're in.

Thanks for that. Here is my opinion:

Most religious people are born into a religion and blindly follow whatever they are taught.

Reportedly supported by evidence. Atheism is linked not necessarily to intelligence, but to childhood religiosity. The less children go to church, the less likely they are to become religious later in life. I have that study somewhere in this garbage pile of bookmarks.

A select few question these beliefs, and some become dyed-in-the-wool atheists. However, IMO, this is just a phase

Patronizing.

and the atheists haven't taken their thinking far enough

Patronizing, ironic, and I believe most atheists would disagree with you.

and they're most likely holding a grudge against their church or church culture

Highly unlikely. Like many atheists, I didn't have much of a religious life. I lost my religiosity in 2005\2006. Before then, my beliefs were mostly controlled by what I viewed as being socially acceptable. Believe in god, pray to Jesus.

and can't see past their anger at human beings.

What makes you think we are angry at human beings? That's silly.

They hold onto their anger against religion or those who damaged them in the name of God as a defense mechanism.

Defense Mechanisms. You're specifically referring to Displacement. Withdrawing anger and applying it to a less threatening outlet. This shows a lack of understanding of atheism. It's a lack of belief in gods. As for the rest, YMMV.

They feel if they reject the beliefs of those who hurt them, those who hurt them can't hurt them anymore.

"Atheists are children." You're suggesting we can't think for ourselves, are incapable of human understanding or emotion, and secretly hold a grudge against Church\Christians\God despite one of those being irrelevant, one not existing, and one being a building.

But, if they are able to let go of their anger and take their thinking to the next level, they will discover God

This fails to explain every other religion.

and because they took the journey, their connection to God will be real and powerful and they will be true believers and not just blind followers.

Pathetic attempt. Let's get back on track.

Personally, I believe that atheism is just a phase for people who question everything, and that eventually they will come out on the other side in favor of God once they have fully thought about it.

Atheists everywhere disagree.

Originally Posted by Violett

Konraden, question for you: have you ever tried to have a personal relationship with God?

Prior to 2006. I learned something about how the world works. Now I just know better than to believe in childish things.

Yes, I realize that you think you are very smart and "above it all" and that religion is used to control people

This I can empirically show.

and God is BS, yes, yes, yes, I understand how you feel.

Your tirade above clearly shows you don't understand atheism at all.

BUT, for the sake of argument, and for scientific purposes, have you ever actually tried to talk to God and establish a relationship with Him?

Briefly in 2006. I thought there was something wrong with me. Then I got better. Good try. This wouldn't serve for scientific purposes because it only represents anecdotal evidence. Of course, when I try with all my might to believe--and I still don't, that doesn't constitute any evidence that God doesn't exist either.

I don't mean devote your life to Him or go to church or anything like that, but perhaps to spend a night talking to Him and see if you feel any differently?

Why bother? I could just as well talk to someone who will talk back, provide me with useful feedback.

Just to say that you tried and that you can 100% speak from experience that He is not there.

Except it doesn't constitute evidence of existence or non-existence.

Originally Posted by Violett

When someone says they refuse to talk to or even discuss THE IDEA of talking to God, this is what I hear:

Person: I want a girlfriend.
Devil's Advocate: Have you tried talking to a girl?
Person: No way. I think love and relationships are all BS.

same as:

Person: I want proof that God exists.
Devil's Advocate: Have you tried creating a personal relationship with God, you know, like other people have for thousands of years? Which, has actually worked for most people in their attempts to find God.
Person: No, because I don't believe in God.

Someone already pointed out this is a false analogy. The first would be changed to saying "there is no evidence that girls exist."

Following on the analogy, if a girl did meet a guy and give him subtle hints, he may not even recognize them because he's stuck on the idea that love and commitment is "BS".

"Believe it to see it." You're putting the cart before the horse.

Same thing with God. Even if God was trying to send you subtle messages that He is there for you, an atheist would reject them outright because they are stuck on the idea that God doesn't exist.

Then why not ramp up the show, give them a god-damn fiesta of evidence?

The guy basically wants the girl to do all the work. To throw herself at him.

If only it was that easy to get laid.

The atheist is the same. The atheist wants God to do all the work, to prove Himself and to sell Himself to the atheist.

It's known as the burden of proof. It would be remarkably easy for an all-powerful entity to make believe in it. Instead, this all-powerful entity relies on its spokespeople to convince others, sometimes from the earliest possible age.

It doesn't work that way and because it doesn't work that way, atheists feel self-satisfied in their beliefs.

That is a classic tautological argument.

The funny thing is, most things in life don't throw themselves at you. Not the gender you're interested in, not friends, not jobs, not most opportunities. Yet, atheists expect God to function in a way that nothing else does.

If you're well qualified, jobs get thrown at you. If you wealthy, people throw free **** at you. If you're attractive, the opposite sex fawns over you. If you have high religiosity, the evidence for gods throw themselves at you. You ma'am, are "well qualified" for religious experience.

What am I trying to say with all this? That if you want to find God, GO OUT THERE AND FIND HIM. At least, TRY to. GO out there and LOOK. If you keep an open mind, you may be surprised.

Somehow the dearth of evidence is the fault of the person who's asking for it? This is known as the burden of proof. You insist that god exists, you make the claim, you provide the evidence. I have no reason to accept anything less.

[Violett]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

And speaking of dishonesty your sentence "The atheist wants God to do all the work" is entirely false. "The atheist" does not think there IS a god... so how could he or she want it to "do" anything. What "the atheist" wants is for you the theist to give a single scrap of a shred of evidence, argument, data OR reasons to even lend credence to the idea there is a god entity in the first place.

ok, think a little more deeply about your statement. God would have to DO SOMETHING HIMSELF that the theist could present to you as evidence. Because theists have experienced God on their own, but atheists don't accept this as evidence. So God would have to do something GRAND in order for an atheist to believe he exists. Like I said, atheists want God to do all the work.

[TKramar]

Nozz, even though you're blocked, I still see your comments when quoted. Unfortunate.

I'm in the middle. I want theists to prove there is one, and atheists to prove there isn't. Until they do, I have to be completely neutral.