Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Okay. YOU don't believe. Billions of other people on Earth disagree and see no real need for "scientific evidence." I am with them.
|
How nice for you but that does not really answer a thing I have said or asked. It is more like a mix between pure cop out, and argumentum ad populum. You are merely now dodging what I have said and.... I also note.... not moving to apologize for, or retract, the misrepresentation I highlighted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
You keep going on about "evidence". I am pointing out that "evidence" in the sense you are referring to is irrelevant in regards to faith. That's why they call it FAITH.
|
Get with the topic of the thread. The thread is about evidence and not faith. That's why they call it a topic. So the only one "going on" here is you. All I am doing is sticking to the topic of the thread. Try it sometime.
All I did was point out that your comment about "choosing" to believe is very false for many people. And in response you have gone on a long haughty rant about "faith".... problems you imagine I have with theists but do not......... and more. So not once have you actually managed to address the point I have made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
It is a part of human makeup as much as sexuality is.
|
Then I repeat: Speak for yourself. You certainly are not describing me. If it is part of YOUR make up as much as your sexuality is then so be it. I can not comment on that. But if you want to extrapolate from that, without any other argument or evidence whatsoever, that it is part of human make up.... then you are just engaging in stone wall assertion and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Just as the existence of a certain percentage of the world who is asexual does not change the fact that our species is sexual by nature, the existence of a certain percentage of atheists does not change the fact that our species is spiritual by nature.
|
Nice term switch and goal post move there. In the last post I replied to you asserted that "Religion is a part of the make-up of humans.". Now you have tried to swap that for the term "spiritual" in the hope no one would notice. Newsflash: I noticed.
"Spiritual" is a much more dilute term and means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And in many of those definitions I would wholly agree with you that we are "spiritual by nature". But it would wholly depend on which definition of "spiritual" you are using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
And religion has a lot more to offer than things like "fear of death" and all that. Mythology, tradition, ritual, etc are all a part of the human story and religion has been a huge part of telling that story.
|
Then you do nothing more than relegate religion to packaging, which is something I have done myself in the past. Story telling is indeed a huge part of Human Nature. The writer Terry Prattchett highlighted this in one of his more sciencey books when he pointed out Homosapien (The Wise Ape) was probably a bad name for our species. We should have been called "Pans Narrans" (The story telling chimp).
Part of our nature very much is to live our lives by a narrative. We do not need religion for that however. Nor does this mean religion is part of our nature. At best religion is just a service provider pandering to that story telling narrative nature of our species.
So you are making my point for me, while operating under the pretense that you are debating or rebutting me. Because my point very much was that it is not that religion is part of human nature.... but that religion.... like the common cold..... exploits and assimilates things that ARE part of our human nature.
But that does not make religion part of natural human nature or make up any more than.... as I said..... the common cold can be said to be part of human make up or nature.
So yea, well done on making my point for me, and so well too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Everything in bold is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
|
Given you are harping on about "faith" and dodging all requests for "evidence".... on a thread that is about evidence and not faith.... you simply do not have the credibility, pedestal, or authority that you apparently think you have to admonish anyone but yourself on being off topic.
And that is BEFORE I point out that the things bolded that you have simply dodges as "irrelevant" could not in fact be MORE on topic to the topic of the thread. So you are simply being blatantly and willfully dishonest here to boot. SOME decorum and integrity please!
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
I need "evidence" for Faith about as much as I need "evidence" for the beauty of the music of Led Zeppelin.
|
And actually as it happens we very much do now have a working science or art and beauty which is moving towards explaining why humans find various forms of art "beautiful". So once again you are making my point beautifully for me and falling into every trap laid for you. While YOU might not want or require evidence, the fact is there IS evidence there to be had on such topics.
Contrast this to claims such as the existence of an after life and/or a god. While YOU might not want evidence for those claims and while YOU might have this magical ability to "choose" what to believe in the face of zero substantiation.... that does not change the fact that.... unlike topics such as art..... there simply does not appear to BE evidence to be had.
So YOU might not want evidence for religious claims and YOU might not evidence for artistic claims..... and both of those things are fine.... but that does not change the fact there IS evidence to be had on one but not on the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Why is this such a hard thing to understand?
|
You would do well not to equate someone disagreeing with your position, or rubbishing your position, or commenting on the utility of a position..... as failing to understand your position. You have not said ONCE thing so far on this entire forum, let alone thread, that I have failed to "understand". Not once. Ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Absolutely. It is absolutely completely irrational and unscientific for me to believe in God. AND. YOUR. POINT. IS. WHAT. EXACTLY?
|
My point could not be clearer, but I am happy to repeat it for you if you are unable to keep up. You have engaged in so many tangents and misrepresentations and rantings since my original post to you that I can imagine you have simply lost track of what my original point was. Recall by original point in post #138. Where your original shouty message was that there is nothing wrong with "choosing to believe".
And in response I pointed out that as well as that might be..... the vast majority (in fact the totality) of my experience with atheists.... which is quite wide as it happens..... is that they do not "choose" to believe at all. There are simply UNABLE to believe given the lack of ANY evidence of ANY form for the kinds of claims you and your ilk are spouting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
[/b][/u] And what is "consciousness" exactly? Philosophical question there, no science needed. I am not saying it is a default, just saying it is different. And yes, atheists are different from the majority of the world's population.  Yes, the color blind can have an UNDERSTANDING that color exist and can have a list of what colors are...but can they ever EXPERIENCE color? |
Actually yes some of them can when we stimulate the relevant areas of the brain. They might be blind in that their eyes and visual cortex are not where that stimulus comes from.... but that does not mean the relevant areas of the brain can not be stimulated. In fact those areas of the brain can be stimulated in all kinds of ways. If you look into the study of synaesthesia for example we are currently finding out how areas of the brain (such as experiencing color) can be "wrongly" stimulated by entirely different processes.... such as by usage of the parts of the brain normally associated with numerical understanding.
However all that is a tangent to the point you simply missed. Because my point is not about whether they can EXPERIENCE color or not. Just like my point is not about whether you EXPERIENCE god or not.
No, my point is that your analogy to color-blindness fails. The analogy is clearly attempting to suggest I am blind to something you can see. And the reason that this analogy fails is that the existence of color can be evidenced and proven to not just the color blind, but the blind. If the blind person comes to me saying "Substantiate the existence of color to me!" I can sit down and do it. I have the evidence to do it. I will not just say "You are blind and can not see what I can see!!!!" and then run away having copped out of his challenge.
But that is what you do. You have NO argument, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to substantiate religious claims. So you simply suggest I am in some way "blind" and run away. So your analogy is perfect to..... yet AGAIN.... make my point for me. Because while a blind man might not experience color..... in the same way you claim I can not experience the religion truths you hold to..... the fact remains that I can still evidence the EXISTENCE of the thing the blind man is blind to and I am telling him he is blind to. You: Not so much. Maybe some day.
Or put shorter: There is a difference between being blind to something that can be shown to exist...... and being accused of being blind to something someone is pretending exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
I am not talking about THE EXISTENCE OF color, but the FEELING of awe that comes when looking at a rainbow.
|
And I very much doubt that I experience any less awe at life, the universe, and everything than you do. Or than any theist does. Quite the opposite. I fully suspect I feel ALL the same things they and you do ABOUT ALL the same things you feel them about.
The difference therefore does not lie in what awe I feel or what I feel it about. The difference lies in the narrative I parse that awe through. I, unlike you and most theists it would seem, feel no need to parse that awe through a completely unsubstantiated and nonsense narrative. Nor do I feel the need to personify the object of my awe and call it "god" and act like it is a real entity with a real consciousness or mind or intellect or intention or design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Religion does exist: can we agree on that?
|
Not only would I agree on it, I can not recall ever saying a single thing that would even REMOTELY require that you need make that agreement explicit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
The existence of a thing and the EXPERIENCE of a thing are not the same.
|
Nor have I ANYWHERE suggested otherwise. Very clear it is in fact that many people in our species "experience" things that are patently not there. So "experience" of a thing is not just entirely different from the existence of the thing sometimes.... it is entirely independent of it.
Which (another case of you making the point for the "other" side) is why atheists more often than not reject anecdote and experience as evidence in discussions about the existence of god. Because no matter how much you might think you are "experiencing" a thing.... that does not mean it is actually there.
A great case in point on this very forum would be the self styled mystic who goes around saying he "experienced" god while meditating and that this is evidence to him that god exists. Yet there are other users who......... upon reading the full descriptions of ALL the things this guy
claims to have experienced.... they have experienced all the same things in meditation too...... like literally every single bit of it (and more)....... and they see NO reason at all why those experienced can be parsed as evidence for god.
So you make a distinction between existence and experience. I agree ENTIRELY With that distinction. But I would add a third distinction..... how people choose to parse experience through a narrative.
The question then becomes..... since people with ZERO belief in god do not appear to be lacking any experience you have described having........ what validates or lends credence to how you are CHOOSING to parse those experiences? Is it merely, as you have indicated in the first post I responded to, simply a choice to do so? Or would you be capable, for once, of adumbrating some substantive link between the two that adds more substance to that move other than simply hiding behind "Faith" and retreat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
"Sound" and "rational" are not the same thing. And yes, religion is irrational...AND?
The best things in life are irrational. Love, passion, beauty, humor, these are all outside of the realm of science, and yet are awesome.
|
I neither see why those things should be declared irrational.... or outside the realms of science. As I alluded to earlier in the post.... the contrary is actually true and we now have a very young but very operational area of science very much exploring scientific truths of things like beauty and humor and morality and love our responses to them.
So it would seem your declaration of them being irrational and outside the purview of science is mere assertion and nothing more, as is generally your wont and MO it would seem at this stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
The "why" we believe cannot be explained in words...
|
For you, clearly. The "why" I believe anything I believe I very much can explain in words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
it can only be experienced. Just as the beauty of a rainbow cannot be explained in words that a color-blind person can understand.
|
Again for you, clearly. But I think that would be YOUR lack of empathy, imagination, linguistic ability and more. Because I see nothing in the human condition as being an isolated island, and in fact the very art of language itself is BUILT on the foundation we have as humans to connect disconnected ideas, and describe one set of concepts by reference and reliance on others.
So while I have no doubt it is DIFFICULT To do...... I see no reason to declare impossible the attempt to lead a blind person to a strong and working understanding of the beauty of color or rainbows. If you feel you can not do it, that is fine, but I would merely warn you of the lack of wisdom of extrapolating your own limitations into objective assertions about reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
|
Nice of you to simply assume to know me, and what I can feel or not feel. In fact, as with just about all of your wanton and egregiously baseless assertions..... especially the ones about me personally...... the EXACT opposite of what you say is yet again what is true.
There is nothing that precludes me from reading a beautiful text and being just as moved as you are by it. Nor have you suggested a single reason why I might not be. In fact arguably even the opposite might be true, because I am not limited to parsing my experience of such texts through a single narrative I have for no reason at all decided is true. But I can parse them through multiple and enjoy multiple depths of such a text.
It is one of the reasons why organisations such as Atheist Ireland, of which I am a founding member, actually have campaigns to get MORE people to read things like the King James Bible. Because we can be moved emotionally and powerfully by the beauty of the text. And an understanding of the text lends many more depths of understanding and beauty later on when one comes to read the works of Milton or Shakespeare.
Nor do I actually have to BELIEVE there is a god in order to parse such texts through that narrative. I am just as capable as you of imagining such a being, personifying all of reality in the form of such a being in my mind, and reading religious texts through that narrative and parsing it in that way, and being highly moved by the image. I just do not have to give up reason and actually start believing the entity I have manufactured is real in order to do it. If YOU do.... then that is your failing, not mine.
So I have NO.... literally NO..... lack of ability to understand the things you offer emotionally as well as intellectually. It reminds me of playing with my children. With them I, and they, immerse ourselves in an imaginary world or magic and powers and beings that bears no resemblance to reality.
And while we are in the game it is real to us. What is great about the imagination of children is that at no point do they have to believe their fantasy in order to make it real to them or to enjoy it or derive every possible level of pleasure and passion from it. They have a powerful ability to immerse themselves in fantasy without losing sight of reality.
One wonders when grown ups lose that ability. Where you imagine.... and that is all it is, imagination..... I can not understand the things you present "with the heart"..... the reality is that I can do so EVERY bit as much as you. I just never lost the ability I had as a child to be able to do that..... without losing sight of what is actually real.
And in fact, what always warms and tickles my heart, is that when I immerse myself wholly in the world of fantasy and imagination with my children...... I do so so completely that it is usually them, not me, that stops and does a reality check by saying things like "You know this is all pretend right daddy?" and I have seen other users on this forum say that too.
In fact when children ask me about god, my own children or others, and my position on the matter.... that is usually how I respond to them. I tell them to think how they love to imagine in their games, and how real it seems to them WHILE They imagine it, but how they still know it is not real. Then I ask them to imagine LOSING that ability to tell the difference between imagination and reality. When they do that.... I then tell them that that is why I think many people believe in a god.
And so far not one child I have said that to appears to have gone on to become a believer. I think they SO understand what I am saying that I have hit upon a very powerful inoculation against infection from the god meme virus.
Quite often reason allows us to experience MORE beauty that purely thinking with the heart too. Take the experience of looking at a large and majestic tree. A theist MIGHT experience the beauty of it and parse that through their "awe" at the designer who placed it there. And that might be all they get from it.
I would with my heart experience the SAME awe and beauty. But then with my reason I can see deeper than the superficial beauty of the tree. My mind and reason takes me deeper to the processes, amazingly complex and sometimes even seeming to defy the very laws of physics themselves. These processes and the inter play between them are another layer of beauty that I can feed to and parse with my heart.
Then I see past that again to the long, complex and majestic process of designless and designerless evolution that led to that tree standing before me today. A process that is paradoxically beautiful in it's total simplicity, yet the total complexity of what it produces.
So yea..... you simply are not on the pedestal you imagine while you harp on haughtily about understanding with the brain and heart. I am not only every bit as much there as you, but probably in many ways far beyond. Or put another way: Get over yourself.
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.
Normally a thread where you can exhibit your poledancing skills is one I stay out of, but how you can say that your footling semantic swindle of labelling 'Nature' "God" hasn't been rebutted, I don't know. 
