Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
dougeaton

Athiesm as an escape from reality?

130 posts in this topic

Once again, true, we don't, but it's still the same as your concept of belief, opinion still has a right to exist and still has a right to be used as a empirical conclusion or 'belief'

I did choose, I was introduced to the concept of the Tooth Fairy, I was told 'there is a tiny woman with fairy wings who comes into my room at night and takes my baby teeth and gives me a quarter for them'. I had the proof, those quarters, I had my parents backing it, I choose to follow the evidence, there was a Tooth Fairy. Maybe that's a bit analytical, but it's how the human mind works. Evidence, Choose, Conclusion, Belief.

That's still not a choice. You are who you are evidence sways you. after seeing the evidence, your mind believed, with that bit of evidence and who you are, you could not have made a choice of disbelief because you would continue to believe despite a desire not to. You could express disbelief but deep down you still would. Nobody chooses to truly believe anything. They either do or don't. One can choose to be skeptical of their benefits and seek more answers and evenchually change them, but that is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's still not a choice. You are who you are evidence sways you. after seeing the evidence, your mind believed, with that bit of evidence and who you are, you could not have made a choice of disbelief because you would continue to believe despite a desire not to. You could express disbelief but deep down you still would. Nobody chooses to truly believe anything. They either do or don't. One can choose to be skeptical of their benefits and seek more answers and evenchually change them, but that is another matter.

This discussion has gotten a bit more semantic then I wish it would have gotten. Answer me this, why do Creationists continue to hold onto those views when it's quite obvious the evidence points towards evolution as the driving force behind the diversification of life on planet Earth? If you're saying the evidence leads to belief, that it's not a choice, then why does this evidence not change their 'beliefs'?

Belief is defined as being:

noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

None of those fit with how you think evidence works with 'belief'.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To escape something, one would have to reason that they are trapped--it is perceived to be so.

Based upon this, I would argue that we all feel trapped in some way.

Reality can, therefore, only be defined by our perception of things.

If you are not trapped, then your are trapping. If everyone is doing this, then we are all, in fact, slave and master to/of perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion has gotten a bit more semantic then I wish it would have gotten. Answer me this, why do Creationists continue to hold onto those views when it's quite obvious the evidence points towards evolution as the driving force behind the diversification of life on planet Earth? If you're saying the evidence leads to belief, that it's not a choice, then why does this evidence not change their 'beliefs'?

Belief is defined as being:

noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

None of those fit with how you think evidence works with 'belief'.

You were not reading my posts. I said based on your own psychology. How evidence sways you is going to be different than Somone else. For some people all they need is faith others are empirical fundamentalists, still others need to see it for themselves. I remember when I was Christian, I tried very hard to believe in the events of the christ story, I just couldn't. In the end I had to be honest with myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not reading my posts. I said based on your own psychology. How evidence sways you is going to be different than Somone else. For some people all they need is faith others are empirical fundamentalists, still others need to see it for themselves. I remember when I was Christian, I tried very hard to believe in the events of the christ story, I just couldn't. In the end I had to be honest with myself.

True enough, but the evidence in the religious sense is usually based on faith and belief, evidence from the scientific sense is what you can observe, what you can feel and prove again and again, then there's a difference.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the tedious old "science can't address my beliefs" shtick. Sorry, if something can't be addressed by the scientific method, it doesn't exist. Science is just a tool, a way of approaching our understanding of the world around is.

Rather than me not understanding rationality, you don't seem to understand science.

Believing in something that has no empirical evidence for it is irrational, and your made up definitions aren't going to change anyone's minds.

Your nonsensical remarks haven't escaped my attention in the past, but you've excelled yourself here. I stand by what I said, rationality cannot address the how and why of the whole, all it can do is expand the known territory of the whole, and then only provisionally, pending a better explanation. Unless you want to credit Stephen Hawking with some "breakthrough" insight, such as his assertion that the laws of physics allow the known universe to arise spontaneously, which I am quite happy with, if the question of how the laws of physics arose gets answered ! The answer is we don't know, and cannot know using the faculty of rational thinking. This is the brick wall telling us this is where we reach the limits of science, unless you want to keep belting your head against said brick wall. It is clear to me that Science and Rational Thinking are to many people today, what God and Holy Writ were to the masses in the past, sanctified as beyond criticism. Both have claimed plentiful victims. The mania that insists that if science can't address it, it is non-existent, is quite simply "faith", not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you want to credit Stephen Hawking with some "breakthrough" insight, such as his assertion that the laws of physics allow the known universe to arise spontaneously, which I am quite happy with, if the question of how the laws of physics arose gets answered ! The answer is we don't know, and cannot know using the faculty of rational thinking. This is the brick wall telling us this is where we reach the limits of science, unless you want to keep belting your head against said brick wall.not fact.

This strikes me as nothing more than an undemonstrable personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This strikes me as nothing more than an undemonstrable personal opinion.

Science chasing the "answer" that will supercede creation myths is like a dog chasing its tail, there is much movement and the impression of progress being made, but alas, it is an illusion. No mystery why, rationality is a tool utilising de-limited concepts, the idea of ultimate reality being de-limited seems to me an oxymoron. If I can de-limit something, there has to be more, beyond what I have defined. The realisation can dawn that the scope of science is not limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an ATHEIST'S average brain:

"Phew! That was close! I better be more careful next time and watch the traffic light before crossing the street so that cars don't hit me!" At least I learned my lesson.

This is THEIST'S average brain:

"OMG!" "That car almost hit me but it didn't! God must have saved me! Thank you God! I'm gonna have more faith in you now on!" At least that won't happen anymore because I'm going to pray extra hard to God tonight! Screw fact, proof, evidence and science! It makes my head hurt.

The next day...

Atheist: Look before you walk, look before your walk. Green light safe to cross. :)

Theist: La la la la! Hey look a red light! I don't care! I prayed hard to God last night so I'm invincible today! Hmm hm hm hm! La la la! Hey look a car is going to crash into me! So what? I have the protection of God! *Screech* *~*~CRASH!*~*~* RIP.

Atheist: FACEPALM

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you didn't put too much time into that csspwns, it wasn't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science chasing the "answer" that will supercede creation myths is like a dog chasing its tail, there is much movement and the impression of progress being made, but alas, it is an illusion. No mystery why, rationality is a tool utilising de-limited concepts, the idea of ultimate reality being de-limited seems to me an oxymoron. If I can de-limit something, there has to be more, beyond what I have defined. The realisation can dawn that the scope of science is not limitless.

Elaborate on the bolded statement.

Science is a tool, and its scope is only as limited as the collective intellect and efforts of the humans who put it into practice. The idea of an ultimate reality may itself be an illusion. I see no reason why the forces or causes that created the laws of physics would have to be a brick wall or "ultimate reality". Again, this is speculation, unverifiable personal opinion which is as pointless to debate as is the question of whether atheists, agnostics or theists are "better".

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough, but the evidence in the religious sense is usually based on faith and belief, evidence from the scientific sense is what you can observe, what you can feel and prove again and again, then there's a difference.

Sure. What one knows about science and evidence doesn't always influence their belifs. There are many excellent scientists and doctors that are indeed religous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elaborate on the bolded statement.

Science is a tool, and its scope is only as limited as the collective intellect and efforts of the humans who put it into practice. The idea of an ultimate reality may itself be an illusion. I see no reason why the forces or causes that created the laws of physics would have to be a brick wall or "ultimate reality". Again, this is speculation, unverifiable personal opinion which is as pointless to debate as is the question of whether atheists, agnostics or theists are "better".

If you cannot see that science deals in the relation between defined elements, and not in the problem of how there is a totality to be mucking around in at all, then I can say no more.

......or let me put it this way, what answer would satisfy you ( a science based one) about how the "laws of physics" happen to be ? You cannot conceive of one that ends the regression of causes. No-one can, in rational terms. But the human mind is not restricted to a rational faculty, there is a whole 'nother world there, and only when rational know-it-all-ism stops hogging the stage, does it get its chance to contribute.

Edited by Habitat
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in this thread anymore. It has just turned to another religion vs science war. Just like any other thread, neither side will win no matter how much posting you will do. Everybody has their own opinion and those opinions are very unlikely going to change. It's best to move on people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not see a point in it, but I do. It's a discussion, doesn't matter whether you sway the other person, as long as you get your point across and make it reasonable and readable without some kind of insult, it's pretty relaxing to read another view point of the world. These are just 'opinions', like someone said earlier in the thread, your world view is shaped by these things, these thoughts of a god, no god, or whether there's a god or not. Some say yes, some say no, some say who knows, and because of this, we get a more varied discussion then just 'religion versus science' and it's not like the religious don't 'believe' in science, there are just some facets of science that don't mesh with their tenets of faith.

Edited by Hasina
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you want to credit Stephen Hawking with some "breakthrough" insight, such as his assertion that the laws of physics allow the known universe to arise spontaneously, which I am quite happy with, if the question of how the laws of physics arose gets answered ! The answer is we don't know, and cannot know using the faculty of rational thinking. This is the brick wall telling us this is where we reach the limits of science, unless you want to keep belting your head against said brick wall. It is clear to me that Science and Rational Thinking are to many people today, what God and Holy Writ were to the masses in the past, sanctified as beyond criticism. Both have claimed plentiful victims. The mania that insists that if science can't address it, it is non-existent, is quite simply "faith", not fact.

I think this sentence says it all.

If you cannot see that science deals in the relation between defined elements, and not in the problem of how there is a totality to be mucking around in at all, then I can say no more.

......or let me put it this way, what answer would satisfy you ( a science based one) about how the "laws of physics" happen to be ? You cannot conceive of one that ends the regression of causes. No-one can, in rational terms. But the human mind is not restricted to a rational faculty, there is a whole 'nother world there, and only when rational know-it-all-ism stops hogging the stage, does it get its chance to contribute.

So I'm arguing with someone who makes up their own definitions of things and defends the use of irrational thinking.

I'm sure I must have something better to do with my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this sentence says it all.

So I'm arguing with someone who makes up their own definitions of things and defends the use of irrational thinking.

I'm sure I must have something better to do with my time.

Really enjoy your reasoning, Emma. Reminded me of a couple of Schopenhauer quotes:

1. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

2. The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cannot see that science deals in the relation between defined elements, and not in the problem of how there is a totality to be mucking around in at all, then I can say no more.

......or let me put it this way, what answer would satisfy you ( a science based one) about how the "laws of physics" happen to be ? You cannot conceive of one that ends the regression of causes. No-one can, in rational terms. But the human mind is not restricted to a rational faculty, there is a whole 'nother world there, and only when rational know-it-all-ism stops hogging the stage, does it get its chance to contribute.

History is filled with examples of doubters who felt that human knowledge was currently at its limits, and that it would be futile to try to reach further. Reminds me of a Bible passage which sounds pretty absurd to a modern reader:

As you do not know the path of the wind,

or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,

so you cannot understand the work of God,

the Maker of all things.

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/11-5.htm

What a tired and logically flawed strategy it is to use the fact that our current knowledge is limited to advocate for the existence of some unknowable power beyond our reach.

Your use of the word "rational" in this context is rather unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think you are generalizing. In my experience, atheists are more like myself than the vocal few you see all over the internet. Same with religious people. The extreme crazy ones do not define all of them.

Edit: Also, you comments about souls is very un agnostic. Wouldn't an agnostic be unsure of the existence of such things? I've seen some of your other threads and you had a definite bias toward theism. I don't think you're very agnostic at all. You clearly has some ax to grind with atheists.

I think agnostics can be pro theist or pro atheist, or leanings if you want to call it that. Actually Doug in some sites where atheist get beat up, he speaks up for them....is he confused, not sure, perhaps he just like to stir the pot...he does a work, but since we know him we take it all as fun.

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in this thread anymore. It has just turned to another religion vs science war. Just like any other thread, neither side will win no matter how much posting you will do. Everybody has their own opinion and those opinions are very unlikely going to change. It's best to move on people...

For some it is a hobby LOL.

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think you are generalizing. In my experience, atheists are more like myself than the vocal few you see all over the internet. Same with religious people. The extreme crazy ones do not define all of them.

Edit: Also, you comments about souls is very un agnostic. Wouldn't an agnostic be unsure of the existence of such things? I've seen some of your other threads and you had a definite bias toward theism. I don't think you're very agnostic at all. You clearly has some ax to grind with atheists.

I just happened to re-read this post of mine and I feel that I owe you all an apology for my poor grammar and typos. Please forgive me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Atheism is accepting reality, believers in religion are trying to escape. Having the belief that after you die you are anything more than an empty husk sounds like an escape to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Atheism is accepting reality, believers in religion are trying to escape. Having the belief that after you die you are anything more than an empty husk sounds like an escape to me.

In a lot of cases that is true. But you have left the door ajar by saying it "sounds like an escape". Leaving that door ajar is a wise move imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just happened to re-read this post of mine and I feel that I owe you all an apology for my poor grammar and typos. Please forgive me.

Meh, I've seen much worser....badder two...... :unsure2:

As far as the OP goes.......I wish!.... :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you didn't put too much time into that csspwns, it wasn't worth it.

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.