Frank Merton Posted April 29, 2017 #51 Share Posted April 29, 2017 1 hour ago, DieChecker said: Those that believe and then turn away... don't always realize that God doesn't turn away from them. People that don't believe and yet receive good things, often use that as proof of there being no god. But God doesn't need your belief to do things in your life. I don't get it. Where in all that are us persuasive God is really there? Also, how do you know what God does? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 29, 2017 #52 Share Posted April 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: I don't get it. Where in all that are us persuasive God is really there? Also, how do you know what God does? Probably because of religious conditioning. Where believers see results where there are none. The same thing I covered in my thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 29, 2017 #53 Share Posted April 29, 2017 3 hours ago, XenoFish said: Probably because of religious conditioning. Where believers see results where there are none. The same thing I covered in my thread. When correlation gets high enough it is considered fact. Unless it requires the supernatural. Then it still must be fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted April 29, 2017 #54 Share Posted April 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, DieChecker said: When correlation gets high enough it is considered fact. Unless it requires the supernatural. Then it still must be fake. Would you even have noticed it if you hadn't affirmed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted April 29, 2017 #55 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Apatheism to me means even if there is some super being, it's going to do whatever it wants anyway, so my caring or not caring wouldn't make any difference. Deism and atheism are both beliefs that the mind imagines for itself, delusions of knowledge. Agnosticism still requires a god to be agnostic about. Just getting with my real life is enough without the added burden of imposing my imagination on the universe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #56 Share Posted April 30, 2017 15 hours ago, XenoFish said: Probably because of religious conditioning. Where believers see results where there are none. The same thing I covered in my thread. Well of course. In Egypt they are Muslims or Copts, depending on their family. The same here in Cambodia, where you have Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus, again depending on the family. In America it seems there are intellectuals and lawyers and Trumpers, again depending on family. The power of childhood indoctrination should not be underestimated. Few "believers" ever really ask themselves why they believe -- they believe because they can't imagine doing otherwise (and then invent excuses such as Pascal's Wager or they choose God over Satan) or something like all that. Childhood indoctrination is an evil thing -- it is taking away from the child that person's right to make up their own mind by building in a belief structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only_ Posted April 30, 2017 #57 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) On 2017-04-28 at 10:53 PM, Carnivorfox said: The focus of this thread isn't the implications of discovering alien life - it's about apatheism. Please try to stay on topic. There isn't really much to discuss about 'apatheism'. That's the issue. The only observation I could make is that people who call themselves 'apatheists' seem to spend quite some time discussing the very subject they are supposedly apathetic toward. Which makes me question the whole 'I don't care' attitude of some. If the subject is so profoundly unimportant, than why even bothering? Edited April 30, 2017 by TruthSeeker_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #58 Share Posted April 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said: There isn't really much to discuss about 'apatheism'. That's the issue. The only observation I could make is that people who call themselves 'apatheists' seem to spend quite some time discussing the very subject they are supposedly apathetic toward. Which makes me question the whole 'I don't care' attitude of some. If the subject is so profoundly unimportant, than why even bothering? I get your point and have to say I don't think you quite get it. As has been said, it strikes me as derivative of nihilism. Your standard agnostic says it is not possible to know; if that is so, then why not carry it one step further and say if it is impossible to know something, then I'm not going to waste mental energy on it. As I've already said, I see all these as flavors of atheism -- non-belief. Only someone who actually believes in God is not an atheist in this scheme. It reminds me of a similar debate that I think took place in the 1920s but maybe earlier over positivism. In this case it was whether it was worth bothering about anything (including philosophy) that was outside the then "falsifiable" definition of science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 30, 2017 #59 Share Posted April 30, 2017 17 hours ago, XenoFish said: Actually wouldn't it be the OPPOSITE of confirmation bias to believe that god acts arbitrarily and independently of our own wishes hopes and desires? Confirmation bias would be you thinking that, when you did something good, and something good then happened to you, that god was responsible Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. If you believe god acts randomly, it is hard to also believe that he acts he acts in a way that confirms this belief, because the randomness would prevent analysis or interpretation. If we follow your logic here, then you would see EVERYTHING which happened through the lenses of confirmation bias. Eg volcano blows up while you are near it You think, this is proof God is out to get me ...confirmation bias volcano blows up while you are near it You think, this is proof bad things always happen to me ..confirmation bias volcano blows up while you are near You think, wow random events occur randomly ...confirmation bias. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #60 Share Posted April 30, 2017 13 hours ago, DieChecker said: When correlation gets high enough it is considered fact. Unless it requires the supernatural. Then it still must be fake. Yes I would agree with that, but not for the reason you may think but simply because of the meaning of the word "supernatural." Anything that really exists is natural. (This is a problem in words -- if God exists then he is part of nature, if he doesn't, and is invented, he is supernatural. That is one possibility. The other is that "supernatural" means something that maybe exists but can't be explained in physical terms but is still in some manner (revelation) known to us.) My issue with the supernatural, using the second definition, is that such a revelation needs a damn lot of evidence almost amounting to proof to be convincing -- which has not been forthcoming. People believe such things because they've been indoctrinated -- probably as a child -- and cannot provide the necessary evidence and so resort to trickery (such as "faith" is a gift from God). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 30, 2017 #61 Share Posted April 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: I get your point and have to say I don't think you quite get it. As has been said, it strikes me as derivative of nihilism. Your standard agnostic says it is not possible to know; if that is so, then why not carry it one step further and say if it is impossible to know something, then I'm not going to waste mental energy on it. As I've already said, I see all these as flavors of atheism -- non-belief. Only someone who actually believes in God is not an atheist in this scheme. It reminds me of a similar debate that I think took place in the 1920s but maybe earlier over positivism. In this case it was whether it was worth bothering about anything (including philosophy) that was outside the then "falsifiable" definition of science. It is worth bothering about anything that makes your life physically more comfortable, and/or, you more happy. I think that why those who truly don't care are rarely happy people and often suffer from some form of fatalism and depression. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 30, 2017 #62 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: Yes I would agree with that, but not for the reason you may think but simply because of the meaning of the word "supernatural." Anything that really exists is natural. (This is a problem in words -- if God exists then he is part of nature, if he doesn't, and is invented, he is supernatural. That is one possibility. The other is that "supernatural" means something that maybe exists but can't be explained in physical terms but is still in some manner (revelation) known to us.) My issue with the supernatural, using the second definition, is that such a revelation needs a damn lot of evidence almost amounting to proof to be convincing -- which has not been forthcoming. People believe such things because they've been indoctrinated -- probably as a child -- and cannot provide the necessary evidence and so resort to trickery (such as "faith" is a gift from God). You are right, except that belief is the fall back, and the first, form of human cognitive process. No one has to be told about gods or tricked into believing them. We construct beliefs in gods and other supernatural things/events to explain the inexplicable, from the time we are first born, until the time we die, (unless as you have chosen to do we try to avoid believing anything) But that is a logical skill only learned and available with experience and wisdom. Once upon a time things like anti biotics could only have been explained in supernatural terms as could blood typing, let alone atomic structure or nano machines and human genomes No one had the learned knowldge of science especially physics and chemistry to comprehend these things even conceptually and no one had been taught to think in the way needed to logically consider, analyse, and understand such concepts. If they did they were unique individuals now famous like da vinci newton aristotle galileo etc. . Edited April 30, 2017 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #63 Share Posted April 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: It is worth bothering about anything that makes your life physically more comfortable, and/or, you more happy. I think that why those who truly don't care are rarely happy people and often suffer from some form of fatalism and depression. I would not make such a judgment. What is good for you is not necessarily good for someone else, and, to make one thing very clear, we are all fatalists (know we will die) but that doesn't make us all depressed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 30, 2017 #64 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: I would not make such a judgment. What is good for you is not necessarily good for someone else, and, to make one thing very clear, we are all fatalists (know we will die) but that doesn't make us all depressed. I can't comprehend anyone developing or maintaining such a mindset (even though i see it in others) so i can't argue with you on this. IMO one might as well just die if one does not consider life worth living or have a purpose for life I am not arguing about what is good, but what makes you happy and comfortable. If you don't want to be happy and comfortable then set some other parameters to live by. If one enjoys pain then ensure your life is filled with pain. As to fatalism, i guess the re are two definitions for this. One that all things are destined to happen That does not necessarily lead to depression. the second is that, because all is predetermined nothing is worth doing. because nothing we do makes a difference THAT does lead many to depression via a feeling of uselessness, lack of purpose, or importance etc. It is hard to maintain a healthy self esteem if you think you cannot make a difference in life, or that you have no choice over the future direction of your life. It also leads to stagnant societies where people accept their historic role and place in society rather tha believe they can grow evolve and improve their position and status. Ps there is a lot of psychiatric evidence that fatalism leads to depression especially in the young The results provide further support for models of depression which emphasize the role of psychosocial deficits. In this case, we found depression was associated not only with greater fatalism but also greater pessimism, lower self-esteem, more passive coping, and less social support. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125670 https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-G6DTiHXJnYC&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=does+fatalism+lead+to+depression&source=bl&ots=kOvJHeY1x9&sig=Fwf5NNbYywnf0euVm5PtLvnx0H8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW-sSrpcvTAhUCG5QKHTfPCKoQ6AEIVDAJ Edited April 30, 2017 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted April 30, 2017 Author #65 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said: There isn't really much to discuss about 'apatheism'. That's the issue. The only observation I could make is that people who call themselves 'apatheists' seem to spend quite some time discussing the very subject they are supposedly apathetic toward. Which makes me question the whole 'I don't care' attitude of some. If the subject is so profoundly unimportant, than why even bothering? The purpose of this thread was originally to discuss feelings and personal experiences about apatheism itself, not to discuss what apatheists are apathetic about (which is the existence/non-existence of a deity). It's been getting a bit sidetracked, as most threads tend to do. Edited April 30, 2017 by Carnivorfox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2017 #66 Share Posted April 30, 2017 14 hours ago, XenoFish said: Would you even have noticed it if you hadn't affirmed it? I do agree, people see what they look for. If I'm looking for God in everyday activities, I'm going to see Him there. If I don't believe in God, then I will not. I think my point was one I've made several times in the Religion threads, in at what point does something move from being Chance to Fact? I've seen things happen that correlated so well, over so many prayers and answers, that it is hard to ignore. And not just things that could be psychosomatic, but things like extra money, cars, homes... showing up when prayed for, and at the exact right time and place and necessity. Things were people recover from illnesses that they were told were 100% fatal. People actually predicting the future by prophesy. Broken people made well. Dogs and cats living together...... At what point does extremely unlikely turn into fact? I agree things do happen. People can win a million dollars by picking up a lottery ticket off the street. It can happen. But what it that person won 5 times over 5 years, and each time picked up a lottery ticket off the street? Are they extremely lucky, or, if they had prayed for such to happen immediately before that happened... Was there some other influence?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2017 #67 Share Posted April 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Frank Merton said: Yes I would agree with that, but not for the reason you may think but simply because of the meaning of the word "supernatural." Anything that really exists is natural. (This is a problem in words -- if God exists then he is part of nature, if he doesn't, and is invented, he is supernatural. That is one possibility. The other is that "supernatural" means something that maybe exists but can't be explained in physical terms but is still in some manner (revelation) known to us.) My issue with the supernatural, using the second definition, is that such a revelation needs a damn lot of evidence almost amounting to proof to be convincing -- which has not been forthcoming. People believe such things because they've been indoctrinated -- probably as a child -- and cannot provide the necessary evidence and so resort to trickery (such as "faith" is a gift from God). I'd disagree in that SOME people believe because they've been indoctrinated, but MANY, if not most, believe because of what they have experienced. Even if we assume those experiences are self-deception, it is probably the main reason people are religious, IMHO. I'd agree that the definition of supernatural is important. For a Christian, what God does is Natural, because God is Natural. I used the term supernatural because without faith, what God is and does is then NOT natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2017 #68 Share Posted April 30, 2017 12 hours ago, StarMountainKid said: Apatheism to me means even if there is some super being, it's going to do whatever it wants anyway, so my caring or not caring wouldn't make any difference. Deism and atheism are both beliefs that the mind imagines for itself, delusions of knowledge. Agnosticism still requires a god to be agnostic about. Just getting with my real life is enough without the added burden of imposing my imagination on the universe. Would that be the same as someone who is "uncaring non-religious"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWoo7 Posted April 30, 2017 #69 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) I'd burp a comment but don't want to be banned, however I doubt comment will be deleted/go-missing:I don't think agnostics regard a god much, however I do like the star kid's thoughts. Imagination, ha! a laugh that. Some will have to ponder that . . .one would imagine. Edited April 30, 2017 by MWoo7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #70 Share Posted April 30, 2017 1 hour ago, DieChecker said: I'd disagree in that SOME people believe because they've been indoctrinated, but MANY, if not most, believe because of what they have experienced. Even if we assume those experiences are self-deception, it is probably the main reason people are religious, IMHO. I'd agree that the definition of supernatural is important. For a Christian, what God does is Natural, because God is Natural. I used the term supernatural because without faith, what God is and does is then NOT natural. The plain fact is that the vast majority of believers believe because they were indoctrinated as children. Can you provide some other explanation of the geographical distribution of different forms of belief? Indoctrination can also happen to adults, although it is more difficult to achieve. I've watched CaoDai (a Vietnamese religion) pull their seance tricks and indoctrinate others. I see it as fraud -- they excuse the fraud as saving a soul by whatever means necessary. Someone's testimony that they had a certain experience is of no use. People testify to being abducted and raped by aliens. Testimony is not evidence. The experiences reported can be and are of various sorts -- pious fraud, selective memory, delusion, wishful thinking, and so on -- it is just not persuasive and in fact such things, if that is all one has, tend to persuade to the opposite -- that what is being presented is not true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 30, 2017 #71 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: The plain fact is that the vast majority of believers believe because they were indoctrinated as children. Can you provide some other explanation of the geographical distribution of different forms of belief? Indoctrination can also happen to adults, although it is more difficult to achieve. I've watched CaoDai (a Vietnamese religion) pull their seance tricks and indoctrinate others. I see it as fraud -- they excuse the fraud as saving a soul by whatever means necessary. Someone's testimony that they had a certain experience is of no use. People testify to being abducted and raped by aliens. Testimony is not evidence. The experiences reported can be and are of various sorts -- pious fraud, selective memory, delusion, wishful thinking, and so on -- it is just not persuasive and in fact such things, if that is all one has, tend to persuade to the opposite -- that what is being presented is not true. I might be wrong. I can't speak for everyone worldwide. But, I do believe that though people are indoctrinated as kids. People stay with religion because of what they experience. Really, in Protestant Christianity, the "indoctrination" typically consists of Bible stories, coloring books, singing kid songs and often.... (Shudder!!)... Arts and Crafts... OH THE HUMANITY!!! I've yet to see a church that sits kids down (Maybe the Catholics still do) and demand they recite the Lord's Prayer, and force them to learn scripture quotes. Sitting all in a line and required to be quiet and recite on command. That just doesn't happen much anymore... Not in my experience anyway. Atheists usually seem to think that all Christians are taught in a very Jim Jones (People's Temple) style, with iron fisted control of the congregation. This just isn't so in the vast majority of churches today. If today a pastor/minister/priest told the congregation to all kill themselves, probably everyone would simply leave. The uber-fundamentalist extreme right Christians simply don't exist in large numbers anymore. Edited April 30, 2017 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 30, 2017 #72 Share Posted April 30, 2017 22 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: The plain fact is that the vast majority of believers believe because they were indoctrinated as children. Can you provide some other explanation of the geographical distribution of different forms of belief? Indoctrination can also happen to adults, although it is more difficult to achieve. I've watched CaoDai (a Vietnamese religion) pull their seance tricks and indoctrinate others. I see it as fraud -- they excuse the fraud as saving a soul by whatever means necessary. Someone's testimony that they had a certain experience is of no use. People testify to being abducted and raped by aliens. Testimony is not evidence. The experiences reported can be and are of various sorts -- pious fraud, selective memory, delusion, wishful thinking, and so on -- it is just not persuasive and in fact such things, if that is all one has, tend to persuade to the opposite -- that what is being presented is not true. HUmans learn particular belief forms eg religions, because of where they are born This is true for language also. But all capable humans learn language, and as we learn language we learn to formalise our basic cognitive assumptions about our first beliefs, All very young human children believe in unseen magical agencies, because that is how we first think, using logic without data. However the specific forms of belief are taught by others around a child, as are specific forms of language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 30, 2017 #73 Share Posted April 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, DieChecker said: I might be wrong. I can't speak for everyone worldwide. But, I do believe that though people are indoctrinated as kids. People stay with religion because of what they experience. Really, in Protestant Christianity, the "indoctrination" typically consists of Bible stories, coloring books, singing kid songs and often.... (Shudder!!)... Arts and Crafts... OH THE HUMANITY!!! I've yet to see a church that sits kids down (Maybe the Catholics still do) and demand they recite the Lord's Prayer, and force them to learn scripture quotes. Sitting all in a line and required to be quiet and recite on command. That just doesn't happen much anymore... Not in my experience anyway. Atheists usually seem to think that all Christians are taught in a very Jim Jones (People's Temple) style, with iron fisted control of the congregation. This just isn't so in the vast majority of churches today. If today a pastor/minister/priest told the congregation to all kill themselves, probably everyone would simply leave. The uber-fundamentalist extreme right Christians simply don't exist in large numbers anymore. Well, yes, the indoctrination in Protestant Christianity is getting weaker, and so are the belief structures. Buddhists officially don't indoctrinate at all -- there are no sermons. Indoctrination here occurs with the parents taking the child to Pagoda and making it obvious what a good thing that is to do. Most Buddhists know very little about their religion, and when you ask questions, they simply say, "Ask a monk." Monks do take classes in Buddhism -- at least many do -- but the prevailing beliefs tend to be a mix of superstition and local traditions and a few Buddha stories about what a good guy he was. Of course everyone believes in rebirth, and most in karma and various Buddhist heavens, so there has to have been some indoctrination going on, although I don't see it. I'm an atheist because atheism is the default and no one has shown me why I should not be. As a matter of fact, my knowledge of the behavior of the religions in history has reinforced my antipathy. (I am also a non-believer in ideology, for the same reason). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now