Any other atheists about? :3

[Attis]

Some people see leprechauns, trolls, faeries, gnomes.. You name em. They SEE them; they FEEL them, they HEAR them.

What you see is not what is. You see something because you're either inducing an state in the brain that allows you to generate them, or you're brain is doped up on something. Remember, your perceptual events are far from reach of your volition, so in this case, we cannot conclude there are really these things which you see. In this case, we can measure the change in brain states that look very much like a hallucination since such hallucinations also stimulate the areas of memory in the brain.

Therefor, they control our perception.

Nope, you're simply turning on your memories in such a way that the visual cortex is getting the signal to show them. We call these flashbacks and hallucinations.

Ultimately, our senses simply give us signals. Then our fantasy, our conception, shapes these signals to images we can understand. And who's to say who's right and wrong?

A neurologist. :3

By the way, to me, this feeling of 'the divine' is a sense. 'Something's gonna happen; I can feel it.' To me, that is a sense. Of course; the latter is merely a mathematical deduction of current events, but still. A warning signal goes off, and that, to me, is a sense.

Feelings not coupled to reason ought to be disregarded by virtue that they themselves are not valid proofs.

-- Brede

[Kimberly]

Um, just a moment. Wouldn't that be saying that something like love should be disregarded? Or do you cite electrochemical nuances in the brain (I think? Tis been a while since I heard a scientific explanation for the concept) or something like that as explaining that state/feeling?

What of knowing someone you have never seen?

What of 'wanting long hair again' when you have never had long hair? For this matter what of knowing that you are in the wrong body when you have no basis to know this?


For me there seems to be a lot of reason to think that a purely scientific view of existence is missing out on a lot of things. I think a purely scientific view point would find me quite deranged, and yet, am I really? ... See that is the basic problem, the neurologist can only understand what they know. That is the limitation of science really, if it can not be repeated it does not exist as presented. Which really is a sane way of viewing things but one ends up turning a blind eye to many things with that view point, I think.


Regardless, it is quite fascinating how our viewpoints differ, tis a shame we have this tendency to think we are right

Blessed Be, or if you prefer, live free and prosper.

[Maebh]

For me there seems to be a lot of reason to think that a purely scientific view of existence is missing out on a lot of things.

Exactly, as human we are more than a body,or a brain, or chemical reaction or electricmagnetic currents. So Neurologists can measure and try explain the physical part of the mental and may be some of the emotional. But what do they do about the spiritual? Ignore it? Dismiss it? Because they cannot measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Their attitude reminds me of the people in Plato's cave: because they are chained with their back to the fire they can only see the shadows on the wall, thus their perception is limited to a 2 dimensional world. Do our cells have memories? Do the atoms in our body know where they come from? If the scientist admit that we are all made of stars dust, why won't they open to the possibility of feeling and experiencing that connection in  themselves and through it to the universe as a whole?

LL&R

Maebh

[Dryad]

What you see is not what is.

Thank you. That's exáctly my point. What we see is not nescessarily what is.

[JaneX]

You all may be wondering why I am an atheist. I can explain very simply that I am an atheist because Nature shows no sign of design, no need for design, and that humans currently are better off dealing with themselves than to attempt to deal with that which they cannot clearly define.

Moreover, even though I am an atheist, I don't make it my business to bash other's religions, faiths, or ideas. I think people beat themselves up enough already, and I don't think it's necessary for me to be the grand pooh-pooh'r of what others do with their lives.

-- Brede
[/quote]

Well even though, I see myself as a spiritual persons, that simply means that I see and practice faith issue of my religion as to the personal relationship with the God I pray to.... There is no religion per say that transcends the individual and can become a societal construct upon which to develop a government or society. Once you do that transition from private to public, you have made a grave error as I see it.

But than my observations are at best myopic and like my faith beliefs of little value beyond my own use.

[Alison]

What you see is not what is. You see something because you're either inducing an state in the brain that allows you to generate them, or you're brain is doped up on something. Remember, your perceptual events are far from reach of your volition, so in this case, we cannot conclude there are really these things which you see. In this case, we can measure the change in brain states that look very much like a hallucination since such hallucinations also stimulate the areas of memory in the brain.

It's interesting that you assume your viewpoint is the only right answer.  People that think that there isn't any 'divine' being confuse me..  But I do respect the fact that you're entitled to that opinion, and I don't think less of you for it.  It's greatly insulting that you're comparing someones love for a God or a Goddess to a hallucination or "doped up".   You said earlier:

I don't make it my business to bash other's religions, faiths, or ideas.

But you did just that, several times in this thread.

[Kendall]

My christian perspective (which is my birth religion my family lineage celebrated: of the Mormon variety) that I grew up with really went down hill more the last few years. I pick this one out since I have some negative feelings having had come from there. Also living in a highly large populated Baptist area.

I am sure not all christians do the things that I have heard, but this is what I heard from my mother and people I interact with at work (many times customers), spending their newly acquired money from the relief or insurance). I live in Mississippi where Hurricane Katrina plowed through a few years ago. The church belltower that "miraculously" had survived hurricane Camile, which became a religious symbol that god was watching over the church (despite the rest of the church being demolished) was annihilated.

After Hurricane Camile
After Hurricane Katrina

Despite $81.2 billion (2005 U.S. dollars) in damage, 1,836 people lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina and in the subsequent floods, what gets me the most upset of everything is whenever I hear someone mention that it was a "blessing" because they received a new home, roof, car, tv, computer, or whatever financial recovery money provided from insurance or federal aid. It quite sickens me.

The Bible I have read explains this was caused by the 'wickedness' of the people living there (aka story of Noah)(Sodom and Gomorrah). My mother thinks this is why New Orleans was flooded.

Or the relatives of someone that died think that god was "calling" there relative home, or it was time to go to a "better" place.

I drive down the road; 3 NEW 20 million dollar (each) huge churches going up just within 2 miles of my house.

No thanks, I will pass.

My explaination : nature somewhat randomly creates weather patterns, and sometimes distructive hurricanes when the elements are just right.

Not some blessing, because of wickedness, or even prediction from Nostradamus.

I can take being bashed. Its one way I can learn and find the errors in my way. I am sure I said something wrong. I just shake my head when I hear something like that (which I have heard maybe 20 times from different people).

[Tiffany Elise]

Ken/Kendra;
  Thank you for posting the pictures and the foolishness as well. I am not one of those who go about getting foolish with the events of this world.
  The word of God says that men's hearts would fail them for fear and for "looking upon those things that happen on earth."
  Those who try to use these events to justify their views and condemn others are just about void of common sense.
  These things were indeed prophesied but not in the light as spoken by those who attend the supercenters of heresy known as the modern day Christian church.
Tiff

[cindianna_jones]

KK, thanks for the dish of reality.  Bingo.

Cindi

[nancyj]

Is Atheism not absolutely a form of belief?

Njc

... because Nature shows no sign of design, no need for design, and that humans currently are better off dealing with themselves than to attempt to deal with that which they cannot clearly define.

-- Brede

While I certainly concur with the latter part of your statement, I must ask you to consider the first part more carefully. It is a bold assertion.

The universe exists. It works. Whether or not anyone understands how or why, it works, and has for what is generally considered by smarter people than are currently posting right now/here, to have done so for 13, 15 billion years, like that, and shows no definite signs of collapsing or expanding into a crunch or bang singularity any time sooner than than that.
Now you can take a cursory look at physics, and you will find that the conditions for even having an inhabitable universe are very close to what is known as a vanishing probability. Too close to 'impossible' for comfort, you might say.

Does that not indicate design in some sense?

(NB: I do not consider the word 'design' to be in any way dichotomous with 'evolution' or the science involved with any study of this stuff, at any level. IE: "Intelligent design" tends to be a cover term for teaching a form of faith as if it were something more.)

Njc

[ChildOfTheLight]

Now you can take a cursory look at physics, and you will find that the conditions for even having an inhabitable universe are very close to what is known as a vanishing probability. Too close to 'impossible' for comfort, you might say.

Oh, really?

What conditions do you have in mind, and what are the probability distributions on them that lead you to this conclusion?

[cindianna_jones]

To attribute to god that which we do not understand, simply because it is complex, is irrational. I believe that faith based on the mystical qualities of god is dangerous. It bites us in the kiester all the time.

"Have a little faith baby."  Perhaps someday we'll be able to figure it out.

Cindi

[Steph]

In its broadest sense, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, sometimes called nontheism. As a philosophical position, atheism has also been defined as the belief in the nonexistence of gods, and as the rejection of theism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic

Yep that would be me...

My belief is that "Life is a choice" and we live our lives based on choices that we make in accordance with an expected outcome.

Steph

[Seshatneferw]

Now you can take a cursory look at physics, and you will find that the conditions for even having an inhabitable universe are very close to what is known as a vanishing probability. Too close to 'impossible' for comfort, you might say.

Well, yes. On the other hand, you might also take a cursory look at probability theory and consider the concept of conditional probability. In those terms, P(inhabitable universe) << P(inhabitable universe | we are here to debate the issue).

In plain English, it does not matter how improbable it is to get an inhabitable universe: if it didn't happen this way, we would not be here. Since we are, we know things happened this way, but that does not tell us why it happened that way. The reason may be pure chance -- who knows, maybe there are a gazillion of uninhabitable universes lying around. Or, of course, the reason may be because God wanted it this way. Choosing between the two (or something else) is a matter of faith, not science.

  Nfr

[cindianna_jones]

Re; inhabitable universe....

That's all opinion my dear.  Nucleic acids, you know the things that make up life forms, exist everywhere in the universe.  They are created in novae.  A star's death creates the fundamental building blocks for life... everywhere. It is simple physics and not all that hard to explain.

To say that something has a nil possibility to exist, in the face of the actual existance of said thing, and then attribute that to god, is in my opinion, not a reasonable assumption. 

I find it amazing that some will use the science we have collected over the centuries to make assumptions "proving" the existence of god, yet refute new science that we are collecting!  I'm not talking about anyone who has contributed to this thread... I'm talking about the religious zealots we tend to run into.  You know... the types that want to prohibit research or deny postulations and sound theories because it flies in the face of what they believe.

Is it so fundamentally wrong to change your perspective when new facts are produced?  Sometimes I think that I was born on the wrong planet!

Cindi

[nancyj]

Yes Cind, it's "opinion"; remember our back 'n forth on Hawking's riff: 'Time does not exist...', where you made the assertion that 'cause we can measure it, yeah it DOES', well that one (as well as your asserting: "And in time will come the demise of all matter.")
are harder opinions to swallow, I think, than my answer to your deal:

'well you inhabit a universe, THEORETICALLY, so it's inhabitable...' LOL

moving right along:

NB: One of the basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit, "from nothing, nothing comes". It's a tremendous leap of faith to believe that the inhabitable world(s) emerged from nothing. "The universe" came accidentally into existence (this time) as a quantum singularity. Against ALL ODDS, look it up...

"To say that something has a nil possibility to exist"

I said it was CLOSE to that. I will return with some math on it if you like.

"in the face of the actual existance of said thing, and then attribute that to god, is in my opinion, not a reasonable assumption. "

I am accused here of attributing what to "God", now?! Quote me on it. It isn't there in what I have typed. I am merely constructing arguments.

Remember this riff?:

God does not believe in theism or deism
there is no essential anything
*there is no there, there*
except for 'here'
and vice versa

existence qua existence
does not, cannot exist
it's an illusion
smoke and mirrors,
a show

Geez. Egg me on, whydoncha.

(She's crafty, y'all  )

It is simple physics and not all that hard to explain.

No, it's insanely complex physics and is next to impossible to explain. Smarter people that you or I, by a long, long ways struggle with this stuff their whole lives and actually do the fricken math.

I think I've ultimately decided that I'm not quite dogmatic enough to be an atheist.

Yep. Or, it's hard to have that much faith, isn't it.

"It's a tremendous leap of faith to believe that the inhabitable world(s) emerged from nothing."

And an "Atheist" (or at any rate all the ones I've spoken with have said something to that effect) is presupposed to not have such a level of faith as that; or, define Atheist, there might be a lot of variants of that religion, and we'll start over.

2. Why would a superior being create a world just to let it get on with things without his intervention?

For the simple fun of an act of creation. Why Not? You create a work of Art, put it out there, see if it works. I am not seeing a problem there.

You have imagined "God" as some sort of 'dada' or 'mama'. You have limited "God" according to your experience.

[The Middle Way]

I was looking at a book, Programming the Universe, which looks at such a question in terms of information systems.

From very few bits* out to what we got nowadays, Hoo Boy! Funny how that worked out.

(*: just a Big Ol' On/Off Switch, even?)

[xeno]

I believe I am somewhere in between agnostic and atheist, because I don't believe there is a way to actually prove god exists or doesn't exist, so I usually just stay the heck out of it...religion has never been a good thing for me...plus its back-stabbed me enough times too...

[Butterfly]

I represent myself as an agnostic. I have read the Bible (both Old and New Testament), parts of the Koran (translated), and readings from the Buddhist and Hindu faiths. Basically the conclusion I've come to is that no one has it all right, and who am I to make a decision what is correct?

Do I believe there is something greater than I am? Maybe. Am I willing to say that there isn't? No way. That would be assuming a superior intelligence that I am not capable of.

[Seshatneferw]

Basically the conclusion I've come to is that no one has it all right, and who am I to make a decision what is correct?

You are the only one who can make that decision for you. Of course, if you choose to keep your options open, that's fine too.

As for myself, I choose to believe in the Christian God. It is my choice, though, and I also believe -- even more deeply -- that it does not matter whether the God I believe in exists or not.

  Nfr