Disqus - Latest Comments for 5ive

Re: A Lesson from Scooby-Doo that Atheists Can Learn

5ive — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:13:23 -0000

While I agree with you on the question at friendly atheist, you have a logical problem with what you state above, "The fact is that atheists in general fail to produce proof that all experiences of God in the history of humankind have been false." See, the experiences of God are almost always unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be disproved and are not worth anyone's time to attempt to do so. Which is why many people (not just atheists) tend to discount them as psychological phenomena instead of authentic experience. Furthermore, it is not up to anyone else to disprove something. It is up to the person pursuing the hypothesis to prove its basis in reality. Since religious beliefs cannot be disproved, they cannot be proven as an acceptable part of reality. I hope that made sense...
Also, your example of the 300 people in the room is a good one. However, I would also say that there are oodles of theists that would jump to the conclusion that those people never had an authentic experience as well, due to the fact that that supposed experience violates natural law. It is also very scientific to try to disprove something. That is what science does. It tries to prove things false. So you take something like, "300 people saw a ghostly thing in a room" and say, let's see if they really did, let's try to disprove it. The same way you say ," things residing on the earth tend to be drawn toward the earth when dropped from a height." Let's if they really do, let's try to disprove it. When you think about it, science does not really "prove" anything, it can only disprove things. That is why religion has no place in science and vice versa. religion=mind, science= outside world.

Re: A Lesson from Scooby-Doo that Atheists Can Learn

5ive — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:19:07 -0000

I realise that it could be interpreted as contradicting myself in reference unfalsifiability and proving something wrong. That is the premise of science :try to prove it wrong. See more on that below. Let me know if I was unclear or just led to confusion. I swear this all makes sense in my head, I just don't always get what I want to say across.

"The rhetoric employed is to switch the burden to the religious person to devise a structure of evidence of God."

The burden of proof is always placed squarely on the purveyor of the hypothesis. For instance, let's say I make a claim that I can levitate without any device other than my mind. But maybe it only works when no one is watching. This is wholly unfalsifiable and not worth a nickel. There is no way you could ever prove me wrong. Now let's say that I can levitate when ever I see a dog. This can be proven false. It is falsifiable. Just show me a dog and see if I levitate. God works like the first scenario. He can always hide behind any number of excuses, "God works in mysterious ways" covers pretty much any condition one can think of. You cannot prove God wrong, this makes it not anyone else's responsibility to try to do so. Rather, the believer needs to bring forth some evidence that can be proven wrong before it can be accepted as part of the real world in a scientific manner.

But these evidences will not go far to meet the atheist claim for evidence. Why? Personal experience regardless of how often, how predictable, and how powerful it is socially and psychologically is rejected outright under the ubiquitously vague use of the term “delusion”.

Predictable, that is the perfect way to use science. Science provide accurate predictions, otherwise it gets tossed out. look at ether and cold fusion. They ceased to make accurate predictions, they got thrown out. Think about Newtonian gravity and the Einstien's gravity. Einstien's theory made better predictions. I am totally open to seeing accurate predictive success in religion, yet have seen none.

"Accepting that even one in 10 billion experiences of God in human history was an authentic experience of a being that science cannot substantiate ruins the premise that all experiences of God are delusional. Then what? If one, perhaps two? If two then perhaps four? and so on. Not to suggest a slippery slope is a good way to go, but the door of probability is swung wide open. This is why Hitchens, et. al. must go with an all or nothing argument.
The thing is that when there have been personal experiences that can be verified, they always have had a scientific explanation. I have yet to see of a verified (and not by the catholic church) proof of god. SO that very idea means nothing until there is some sort of falsifiable evidence of a god's existence.

It is also why I think agnosticism which nods to the probability of God’s existence but does not care for it as a basis of human living is a far more rational position to take. But we know what Dawkins and Hitches think about agnosticism and it’s not all that positive.
I am unfamiliar with what Dawkins' view of agnosticism is, but Hitchens is just a bitter nut who saw a good way to sell books. (my very personal, cynical opinion of him) Though I am pretty sure that Dawkins has said if someone could provide falsifiable proof of a god, he would change his mind.

"So the issue that I am raising is that the evidence for the existence of God is quite satisfactory and has been for centuries of those who claim to have had religious experiences with a real existent as opposed a fabrication of psycho-somatic proportions. "
I see the misunderstanding I was having here. I do not find the evidence to be satisfactory and you do. For evidence to be satisfactory for me ( and the scientific community) it must be: Repeatable, falsifiable and provide an accurate prediction of future behaviour according to natural law. I have not seen evidence for god of this nature. But again, it is tedious and dull to go through and disprove every single instance of religious possibility. Much like trying to go through every single little ghost experience. There is just not the time or resources to do so. And what would be the point? There has been no adequate proof so far since gods seem to lack a predictive nature about them in general. It is not up to the doubter to prove something, it is up to the believer to prove something true. That has yet to happen.
"My position is that religion and science ought to be continual conversation partners correcting each other when appropriate and effectual since both are integral components of human experience. "
I fully agree with this. Religion is an incredible psychological tool that just fascinates me to no end. Which is why it is really neat to be able to talk with people of differing views through places like the internet. There is so much yet to learn!
I personally could describe myself as an agnostic atheist. that is that I hold no belief in god, yet allow for the possibility (not probability as you stated above) should repeatable evidence arrive. Much in the same way that I am open to the idea of dragons, imps, fairies, aliens and other possibilities that lack repeatable evidence.

Re: A Lesson from Scooby-Doo that Atheists Can Learn

5ive — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:07:13 -0000

"You and I are probably on very close opposite sides of the fence - the fence being an affirmation of “the God thing”."
And yet I have no desire to come to blows with you and you seem to lack that desire as well... amazing what we can do with our gift of speech, no?

"The problem is that this has taken the form of “my knowledge is better than yours” as atheists and Christians continue to do no more than whip out their respective phalluses and compare size! "

Hehe...I have issues with that as well. I really think that is just human nature, to pick a philosophy and defend it, even when it ceases to be useful. If you have any inkling towards psychology, I would very much recommend a book called, "Mistakes were made, but not by me" about cognitive dissonance. It goes a long way in explaining that particular human behaviour.
I am curious about the evidence for the existence of God that you find satisfactory. Have I missed something or does that evidence not meet my guidelines for satisfactory evidence?

Re: A Lesson from Scooby-Doo that Atheists Can Learn

5ive — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:11:09 -0000

Okay. Now I know you really have to read that book. But you really, really have to be open to questioning yourself and what you think and remember. Or at least think you remember. It is written by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.
It had me questioning almost everything I thought. Changed my thoughts on some things but I remain with the same basic life philosophy as I had had for the last few years, but then again, according to cognitive dissonance theory, that is exactly what I should have done. Making that book that much more frustrating.
It will explain why you say "atheism helped me believe again".
I honestly don't think of religion as a delusion, just a really amazing psychological tool that many people seem to resort to when pressured. It is no more delusional than talking to oneself unless a person takes it too far.It is also not surprising that is what people do under pressure when one is indoctrinated into a that belief system from birth. A person stands little chance of leaving religion when they receive big wooden rosary beads and a board book chronicling the 14 stages of Jesus when they are only 1 year old. Not saying this occurred to you, but it is pretty normal where I live.

Are you familiar with Quine's web of belief? That is sort of at the center of cognitive dissonance. Have you ever taken a philosophy of science course? I would very much recommend it, not just to you, but to anyone interested in how science works. But take it from a secular school to avoid any bias.