Posts by Seraphim23

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

I think that Slimboyfat is making a lot of sense.

The real historical relationship between science and belief in a God is far more complex than the presently common Whig history of science. On a very simple level science or that which led to modern science today, arose in part by people expecting to find laws in nature because they believed in a law giver. Many examples of this are found in history and a good argument can be made that faith in a deity boosted the beginnings of the scientific revolutions of the past, rather than impede it.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

I like to know the answer to that as well Slimboyfat! I never seem to get a straight answer to a logical point from Cofty.

Cofty said “Superstition has no place in science and science has no comfort for theism.”

Well I am not exclusively arguing for theism but that science cannot be the answer to all valid questions. Superstition may not have a place in science as it’s deemed as magic, but superposition in quantum mechanics does? Where a single particle can be in two locations at the same time? That’s not magic or beyond comprehension or rationality? Tell Schrodinger and watch him laugh just as your wave function collapses about your ears! Just because the tools give useful results doesn’t mean your any closer to a materialist or logical empiricist world view that makes rational sense, or a unified field theory that is about to trump the competitors.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

Oh I see Cofty, it’s a case that science will definitely, for certain, work it all out in the end. Well good luck with that, but I would point out that the two biggest theories that are supposed to be the best scientific understanding of the universe we have at present, completely contradict each other, so I am not sure who is more desperate here? Rationality if indeed you have it means you should realise that one or other or both of the two theories should be considered wrong, because that is what a contradiction would indicate. They both work of course very well in their own areas in terms of useful results but they are not the explanation for the whole by any stretch of the imagination and that is a big mystery for science.

However at least I have showed you why what I said was not a false dichotomy. It is sad that your only response was one of condescension but it is what I expected in absence of a discussion.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

In that case cofty show me how to prove the subjective world of consciousness scientifically or why observation changes the nature of light in the double slit experiment, where no physical contact between the observing instrument and the light is present? Or perhaps explain how it is that a world view that only allows sequential processes in a space time continuum of classical physics, explains how brain cells and neurons create something more than a mere robot that has its own freedom? Of if you do take into account quantum mechanics when it comes to the brain, how to harmonise what it says with what classical physics says, as the two hopelessly contradict each other? Science is not as objective or as clear cut as you think. At the very least the possibility that other things exist that does not, or cannot come under the explanative power of science still exists.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

Yes I know Cofty, I know, that’s why I used the word methodology. I don’t particularly elevate Christian over Muslim claims when it comes to anecdotal experiences of the ineffable as I am sure valid ones are from the same source. How to judge valid ones is not by scientific methodology unless such claims are said to have left physical evidence as well which can be tested. Even then an inference must be drawn as to if the cause of such evidence was by intelligence of the non-physical variety. For instance evolution may not be guided by intelligence, but it still might require an intelligence to create the conditions necessary for it to function. Order from chaos has never been proven to not require any intelligence at all. The argument is always where at what point the intelligence finished to let the machine run on its own as it were.

The scientific method may be said to be objective but without the subjective, science would not even be a methodology because there would be no one around to witness the objective results of experiment, let alone have understanding of those results to see how and why they make sense or to see relationships in seemingly separate physical phenomena. Without the subjective there would be no objective because it is only intellects with a subjective and internal world that can even make such distinctions as subjective and objective. Of course a purely materialist world view that elevates scientific methodology to the lofty heights of the only type of knowledge that is, or will ever be valid, doesn’t have anything to say about the subjective world at all, other than it is some kind of illusion. Funny that! Could it be that the reality of the subjective self lies in another domain of evidence?

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

Hi Still thinking, I see your point. I guess I don’t agree with the definition of atheist being a mere lack of belief in God though. I think it is that and more besides. I posted my view on that subject a bit earlier. I think some atheists would deny another as being an atheist if they admit to belief in supernatural or metaphysical reality.

Bohm I’m not quite sure what you mean but I personally think that rationality is not the exclusive property of a materialist world view. We live in a physical reality hence the normative problem you mention but that does not mean other modes of being do not exist or that evidence for them doesn’t exist. It just won’t be testable using physical tools.

Hi LisaRose, evidence for an invisible presence of god, or indeed a non-physical being that is not god is via implication; it is not normally direct, even for flesh and blood beings. There is no proof that anyone has a real consciousness inside. We might know we have one but we don’t need to prove it to ourselves about ourselves because we are it. With others we have faith that they do like we do, because evidence suggests it is the case, which is all evidence ever does, as it does not prove anything. This works for practical reasons in this physical world to go with such evidence and evolution may well be evidence for an invisible being. The mere fact that a logical process produces life at all is remarkable if it all came from some random cosmic accident. However a more rational view would be that processes that do things like create life are not the result of an accident, even if the process itself, like evolution, makes use of non-predictable or random events.

The question of how did God come to be is really the same question as how did existence come to be. You either have nothing from nothing or something from something. It can’t be the first option but the second option leads one into infinity, which is beyond comprehension, although it is a rational option. Whether that infinity is God or just existence itself leads to all options being on the table because at this point comprehension has reached its limits, and metaphors are all we have left. Such is the case in this reality, but that is not to say that other realties do not exist where more comprehensions are possible, even of that of infinity.

Where many theists go wrong is the denial of the evidence for evolution and the narrow lens they view what a God like being aims and goals would be. Where some atheists go wrong is thinking that theists are philosophically right in what they think Gods purpose for life would be if such a being existed.

Another form of evidence for invisible beings or realities is experiential. It is experienced rather than deduced. This is direct evidence for the one who has experienced it. It cannot be transferred to others except in the form of anecdotal evidence which is still a valid form of evidence just of a lower quality, speaking rationally that it. Some atheists would see this as valid, just not all.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

I’ve never understood this whole thing about blind faith anyway. Indeed it is true that some believers seem to posit faith without evidence as a virtue and it is true that if the atheist takes issue with blind faith they have a valid point. There is though a distinction to be made between scientific evidence or to put it another way, evidence that befits the scientific method, and evidence that is not amenable to the scientific method and may not even be able to be.

Many believers don’t have blind faith but faith based on non-scientific evidence. This is where ideology comes in with atheism because some atheists would vehemently argue that evidence that is not scientific, or amenable to scientific methodology, is not evidence as all. At this point no middle ground between this type of atheistic world view and `rational` believers, who do see the need for evidence, albeit non-scientific, is possible. A wedge is also drawn between atheist and atheist, as some atheists do believe in the existence of non-scientific reality. Thus atheists of the type, who only believe scientific reality and evidence, constitute a type of atheism that denies another type of atheism, one type being a materialist world view, which poses as many questions as it answers, and is thus not very `rational` in this sense. The other type includes the validity of science but does not necessarily limit all existence to science, knowing that such questions that are outside of the scientific paradigm may well be valid questions of philosophy and metaphysics, none of which has to include God, although it could, if one is a theist.

So we have a spectrum here between different types of theist and different types of atheist, with the issue of contention revolving around the need for evidence. It seems to start from some saying no evidence is needed all the way to one hundred percent material evidence is needed. Of course there are problems with both ends of this spectrum if viewed only through a materialist lens but that is another discussion. It seems obvious to me that in reality the most `relational` view and approach to understanding is not in the far ends of this spectrum but in the middle regions. It is here also where dialogue can be had and even a future for mankind if we are not to rip ourselves apart with ideological madness. I say oppose those on either end of the spectrum as irrational or fundamentalist and join those in the middle regions, irrespective if they are atheist or theist for there is dialogue there and the potential for progress and peace.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

It was wisely pointed out to me some years back that `it is people who define words for dictionaries not dictionaries that define words for people.` In a general sense this is very true and why I personally reject the definition of atheist as simply a lack of belief in a god. Agnostics often get bundled into the atheist label by atheists of course, using this definition. However two words to define the same thing is redundant and it also doesn’t track with how most people use these words, or with the people and their general attitude these terms are supposed to define. An agnostic can be said to lack a belief in God like an atheist but this is not how the terms are used in the world and obviously they are not the same things. Of course to be fair theists also often try to grasp the agnostics for themselves which is a dirty trick from the other side as it were.

Anyhow atheists to my mind should be defined differently to agnostic for obvious reasons and that would be the denial of the possibility of God, which goes beyond a mere lack of belief. Agnostics are those who haven’t decided as yet if there is a God and therefor lack a belief in God at their present state.

Supernatural things or woo woo, as it gets called by some also indicates a difference between atheists and agnostics, at least there is a trend in how atheists of this militant type and agnostics deal with it as a subject or possibility. An atheist is much more than a simple present lack of belief in God. I would argue that there are more self-labelled atheists that should really be defined as agnostic as opposed to agnostics being defined as atheist. I have yet to really hear a proper `rational` reason why I am in error with this view.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

Confusedandalone God talks to people much more than is thought and to more people than some faiths like to teach. He doesn’t do it with everyone straight away in the life spans they have on earth though because God wants people to communicate these things with others who haven’t yet experienced them. The reason is because love is the object lesson of this life and with no communication there is no love. Saying that though, God will communicate with everyone in time but Gods communication isn’t always with words although very occasionally it is. God also doesn’t pick groups to communicate with over other groups. All groups are the same in this respect. The Jewish thing with Jesus was for everyone as well using them as an object lesson at the right place at the right time. They needed help more than most because of the danger of them being so religious that violence would go with it which is still does in that part of the world.

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

Seraphim23

I think it is the conception of God that is that is the problem and the perception of what the bible is and what it is thought it is supposed to be. I think God wants people to know love first and foremost and once that is accomplished, which can take a life time, then one can know God. Knowing God before love is where the problem is I think. Take the name of God for instance because it doesn’t matter what it is because all a name is a word verbalised into sound that travels through air, like any word. However it is what the name means that would be important, because what does God need with a verbalised sound that travels through an atmosphere? Humans need these things because we are dependent on the physical environment to live. Any name would do as long as the meaning helped humans love better and if that better loving ability transfers after death to a next life of some kind, because if not it doesn’t matter anyway.

For instance humans get hung up on what we look like but it is the inside that counts but again it can take a life time to really get that one. Racists often are behind the rest on this issue but with age the futility and stupidity of such a position becomes more a case of self-interest to abandon such arbitrary and unloving judgements. The reason being because their own looks vanish and decay and so they can continue to be racist at the price of knowing that their own looks if they really mean anything must mean they themselves are bad. Of course the opposite is also true and nature the way it works it there to help them learn as it does all of us.

This is one example and perhaps it gives a clue as to why we are here. If the reason is to learn then a God type figure makes a certain sense as parents normally only care about children’s education.