Why is it spirituality vs skepticism?

[Will Do 6,782]

42 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You are thick aren't you. I've been giving answers. Answer you seem to not want at all. I have explained it before. I have a thread dedicated to the concepts behind why it works. It is in my signature. Do I need to create a 2.0 version with small words for you to understand? Or do I need to say aliens inspired me to write it?

When a child believes in the boogie man, the boogie man is "real" to them, but its not real. Just a sleight of mind. It is just an idea in there mind that changes their subjective view of things. Same with god. Nothing different, just the ideas behind it. Here I am giving you answers. You'll ignore them, but here it is. 

All I doing is tell you and everyone else what I've learned by reducing beliefs to what they are. No one has to agree and even though Will agree to disagree and move on he failed to do so. And here we are. 

Spiritual beliefs are accepting that something is true without proof. It's an assumption. The illusion part comes from excessive belief. You believe god will catch you so you jump off a bridge, that's just stupid. People do worse. Such belief can and do have positive benefits but God is the placebo's trigger, not the placebo's effect. 

The two kinds of belief.

Now if I am done doing the research for you. I have to go to work.

So that's your response.

First an insult.

Then deflect.

Everything you've said can be applied to unbelief and you know it.

One more time.

How isn't it psychological to think belief in God is psychological?

 

 

[Xeno-Fish 109,476]

Will I am done with you. I have already answered you. It is all psychological. Why don't you just consult that book you're always talking about. You're about as much fun as Mr.walker and papageorge to converse with. Guess I was wrong about you. 

[Will Do 6,782]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It is all psychological. 

Thanks Fish. How does it feel being honest with yourself?

It is all psychological. 

Yes.

Especially unbelief, because it's wholeheartedly psychological. Entirely.

 

 

[Liquid Gardens 13,002]

11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

So when someone tells you that they're an all-around 'skeptic', remember that they have a belief system just like the rest of us, and are skeptical of others belief systems just as we are. 

What's missing here though is that just because everyone has belief systems and worldviews it doesn't mean that all belief systems and worldviews are equal.  Depending on one's worldview, we can predict when the next eclipse will occur through science or instead by reading tea leaves; stating, 'different people have different ways of determining what will happen in the future', doesn't really add much and is pretty irrelevant, and most importantly does not justify any equivalency between those different methods.

Quote

The unfortunate catch 22 is that a person's beliefs ultimately shape their identity, therefore an attack on their beliefs is in a sense a personal attack. 

I think it's better phrased as 'a non-personal attack that someone takes personally'.  After all, propositions and beliefs don't have any feelings to hurt.

Quote

Just because it releases dopamine and serotonin doesn't in any way mean God doesn't exist.

And just because you caught a cold soon after someone you knew had one doesn't 'in any way' mean that yours wasn't caused by God cursing you, just because we have a lot of evidence that house cats evolved naturally from earlier lifeforms doesn't mean 'in any way' that they aren't instead actually aliens (which would indeed explain a lot about our feline overlords), etc?

Quote

Yes, he isn't necessarily being fair with the facts, insisting it's all just chemicals and psychological processes, when there is sufficient evidence that that is not the case.

Which facts are those he isn't being fair with, what sufficient evidence?  No matter how you'd like to characterize skepticism, it's very rare that skeptics aren't interested in or deny facts or evidence, that's what they've been waiting for and requesting.

[Will Do 6,782]

37 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Which facts are those he isn't being fair with, what sufficient evidence?  No matter how you'd like to characterize skepticism, it's very rare that skeptics aren't interested in or deny facts or evidence, that's what they've been waiting for and requesting.

Likewise.

"How do you know that I do not Know?"

 

 

[Liquid Gardens 13,002]

Just now, Will Due said:

Likewise.

"How do you know that I do not Know?"

I don't know that you or anyone doesn't know, I just know that you don't have any evidence to provide.  I also know that all the things that everyone states that 'they know' can't all be true as they conflict, and that there is overwhelming evidence of people being incorrect about things they believe and it's not that rare.  Which is why the more relevant question is 'why is what you say true', since 'how do you know that I do now know' doesn't take us anywhere.

[Will Do 6,782]

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't know that you or anyone doesn't know, I just know that you don't have any evidence to provide.  I also know that all the things that everyone states that 'they know' can't all be true as they conflict, and that there is overwhelming evidence of people being incorrect about things they believe and it's not that rare.  Which is why the more relevant question is 'why is what you say true', since 'how do you know that I do now know' doesn't take us anywhere.

I understand and respect your position.

I have plenty of subjective evidence. We who have this evidence in our personal experiences share them with each other.

Psychologically, we have all conjured ourselves up at the beginning to excersise our faith sincerely without doubting, wholeheartedly without questioning. 

It's because of our faith that there is something more than belief in God being just psychological. In fact, it, psychology, ceases to be a part of belief because of the subjective validating experiences that are continual and causes personal growth progressively.

None of this is a part of unbelief. But other than unbelief being psychological, there is nothing that can be added or taken away from it. The fact that an unbeliever doesn't have any evidence speaks to the fact that unbelief is purely psychological. Because there's no evidence one way or the other, it has to be.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Will Due

[Liquid Gardens 13,002]

17 minutes ago, Will Due said:

It's because of our faith that there is something more than belief in God being just psychological. In fact, it, psychology, ceases to be a part of belief because of the subjective validating experiences that are continual and causes personal growth progressively.

I don't think that's right, psychology at no time 'ceases to be a part' of any of this.  Faith and especially 'subjective validating' experiences are functions of the brain and by definition can't be separated from psychology.

20 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 But other than unbelief being psychological, there is nothing that can be added or taken away from it. The fact that an unbeliever doesn't have any evidence speaks to the fact that unbelief is purely psychological. Because there's no evidence one way or the other, it has to be.

There can be things added or taken away from unbelief, namely evidence, which can either strengthen one's unbelief or lessen it.  The fact that an unbeliever doesn't have any evidence is perfectly consistent with his position, that there isn't any evidence to justify belief.  The number of things that could be true but that we have no evidence for is limited only by your imagination, and everyone I know, and I don't know how it can be done otherwise, behaves as if they have unbelief towards those things.  I don't know for sure that God doesn't exist, but right now he's in the same box with the leprechauns. 

I'm not sure if we're on the same page on the meaning of the 'psychological' argument, I don't really see that argument applying to unbelief in the same way as belief.

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

Skepticism is a function of the brain, so how does one separate it from one's psychological make up? Atheists--and I mean the one's who profess complete disbelief, not the one's who equivocate with "I don't believe, but"-- are in the same boat as believers in the sense that they both claim complete certainty about which they couldn't possibly have complete certainty.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[Will Do 6,782]

16 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think that's right, psychology at no time 'ceases to be a part' of any of this.  Faith and especially 'subjective validating' experiences are functions of the brain and by definition can't be separated from psychology.

There can be things added or taken away from unbelief, namely evidence, which can either strengthen one's unbelief or lessen it.  The fact that an unbeliever doesn't have any evidence is perfectly consistent with his position, that there isn't any evidence to justify belief.  The number of things that could be true but that we have no evidence for is limited only by your imagination, and everyone I know, and I don't know how it can be done otherwise, behaves as if they have unbelief towards those things.  I don't know for sure that God doesn't exist, but right now he's in the same box with the leprechauns. 

I'm not sure if we're on the same page on the meaning of the 'psychological' argument, I don't really see that argument applying to unbelief in the same way as belief.

Well I'm going to stop debating you about this now. I know it's not going to bear fruit and I have too much respect for free will to turn it into a contest that needs to produce a winner.

Besides, you and I are standing next to the same mountain but are just chopping it down from opposite sides.

The mountain will eventually be removed, and I will look forward to that moment and will relish that it took all of us together to get it done.

 

 

 

[rodentraiser 408]

I have to say, I found myself agreeing with Fish there, especially his posts on page 4.

Well, what about this then: A religion starts. It's supposed to be a religion of peace, but over the centuries it's been changed by its followers until its followers are anything but peaceful. This religion still has the same name and the same book and the same text in that book as when it first started. But is it still the same religion?

At what point as an atheist is that person rejecting the actual religion instead of just rejecting someone's interpretation of it?

And if all religion is only known, enforced, or translated through the interpretation of other people, how do you know religion really exists? And if people are acting "good" without the so-called benefit of that religion, couldn't they be considered spiritual?

I don't think we'd have a problem with this question if we were all talking about Scientology, but is Christianity any different?

Edited September 11, 2017 by rodentraiser

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

I guess some so-called atheists jump on the atheist bandwagon, but bring a hip flask with them.  

[rodentraiser 408]

22 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

To me, that use of the word 'spirituality' is too watered down to mean much. I mean who is against the general concept of doing good. Skeptics don't ever argue against that. I think in this section the type of 'spirituality' we are talking about involves at least some belief in a super-physical spirit or spirits.

True and true. But at the same time, I think spirituality is about feelings, too. That doesn't mean it's good. A person could be spiritual about how he poses the corpses of people he killed. But if I take what you said about spirituality needing a belief in something, what if that belief is the belief in one's self?

Wait a minute - I think I just said Trump is spiritual. Um.......time out here.....

 

 

[rodentraiser 408]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I guess some so-called atheists jump on the atheist bandwagon, but bring a hip flask with them.  

Well, atheism can certainly be an interpretation of what other people think it should be, too.

[papageorge1 6,380]

25 minutes ago, rodentraiser said:

what if that belief is the belief in one's self?

Then I would say it would depend on wether or not your position holds that one's self includes an in-dwelling super-physical spirit. Or is it ultimately just physical matter in motion.

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

29 minutes ago, rodentraiser said:

Well, atheism can certainly be an interpretation of what other people think it should be, too.

According to their psychological profile?

[Liquid Gardens 13,002]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Skepticism is a function of the brain, so how does one separate it from one's psychological make up? 

One doesn't and it's not necessary, as skepticism includes being skeptical of one's own brain.  Thus the reliance on evidence to resolve issues and try to take the question as much as possible outside of our beliefs.  On the other hand, faith, 'subjective validation', 'true to me', 'justifying the irrational', etc, all seem to have a much more significant overlap with psychology, and in large part is totally reliant on assumptions about it.

Quote

Atheists--and I mean the one's who profess complete disbelief, not the one's who equivocate with "I don't believe, but"-- are in the same boat as believers in the sense that they both claim complete certainty about which they couldn't possibly have complete certainty.

Dawkins is about as atheist as you get and even he doesn't profess certainty, I think the number of atheists who profess certainty are about as significant in number and relevance to 'atheists' as young earth creationists are to Christianity. 

When the fleshed out statement is, "I don't believe, but anything is possible, but I think gods are about as likely as leprechauns", I don't really see that as equivocation, since we're 99+% of the way towards complete disbelief.

[Will Do 6,782]

I'm a 100% certain of the reality of God.

Not a shred of doubt.

I know, nobody cares. 

 

 

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

26 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

One doesn't and it's not necessary, as skepticism includes being skeptical of one's own brain.  Thus the reliance on evidence to resolve issues and try to take the question as much as possible outside of our beliefs.  On the other hand, faith, 'subjective validation', 'true to me', 'justifying the irrational', etc, all seem to have a much more significant overlap with psychology, and in large part is totally reliant on assumptions about it.

Dawkins is about as atheist as you get and even he doesn't profess certainty, I think the number of atheists who profess certainty are about as significant in number and relevance to 'atheists' as young earth creationists are to Christianity. 

When the fleshed out statement is, "I don't believe, but anything is possible, but I think gods are about as likely as leprechauns", I don't really see that as equivocation, since we're 99+% of the way towards complete disbelief.

Riding the fence is riding the fence, even balanced on just one toe. I loved you circular logic about skepticism. Does that include being skeptical about one's skepticism? Just to kick your can even further down the road. If one can't trust one's own brain, how can one trust it's appraisal of what constitutes evidence? Look at the table in the back of someone else's book?

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[Aquila King 22,629]

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's missing here though is that just because everyone has belief systems and worldviews it doesn't mean that all belief systems and worldviews are equal.  Depending on one's worldview, we can predict when the next eclipse will occur through science or instead by reading tea leaves; stating, 'different people have different ways of determining what will happen in the future', doesn't really add much and is pretty irrelevant, and most importantly does not justify any equivalency between those different methods.

I agree with you completely. Not all worldviews are equal. That wasn't my point. I was simply stating that all worldviews have both beliefs and skepticism that accompanies them. That there are no 'believers' versus 'skeptics', as all worldviews possess beliefs of certain things and skepticism towards others, regardless of how justified their belief/skepticism actually is.

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think it's better phrased as 'a non-personal attack that someone takes personally'.  After all, propositions and beliefs don't have any feelings to hurt.

Eh, semantics.

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And just because you caught a cold soon after someone you knew had one doesn't 'in any way' mean that yours wasn't caused by God cursing you, just because we have a lot of evidence that house cats evolved naturally from earlier lifeforms doesn't mean 'in any way' that they aren't instead actually aliens (which would indeed explain a lot about our feline overlords), etc?

False equivalency 101: Compare something that is axiomatic to that which is not, to make it appear as if that which is in question is as obvious as that to which you compare it to.

All good things (such as food and sex) release dopamine and serotonin, and most importantly, the mere thought of such things produce these same chemicals as well. It makes no sense to suggest that food and sex doesn't exist, because after all, our mere thoughts of those things produce dopamine and serotonin. The mere fact that these chemicals are released upon thought alone does not mean the corresponding thoughts themselves hold no basis in reality.

You're literally suggesting that if a thought alone releases these chemicals, then whatever you're thinking about doesn't exist. That's ridiculous and you know it.

The only possible caveat in your corner is the fact that we have definitive proof that food and sex exist, whereas we don't have said proof of God. True, but that's irrelevant. Dopamine and serotonin are released in the minds of mainstream scientists when they believe alien life to exist out there in the universe somewhere. Yet they have no definitive proof for their claim either. Does this suddenly suggest that aliens don't exist somewhere out there, merely because these chemicals are released? No. Of course not. As I said, that's ridiculous, and you know it.

The double standards espoused by atheists can truly be quite astounding sometimes.

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Which facts are those he isn't being fair with, what sufficient evidence?  No matter how you'd like to characterize skepticism, it's very rare that skeptics aren't interested in or deny facts or evidence, that's what they've been waiting for and requesting.

Well for example, these:

• Spoiler

   

  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/the-nkisi-project
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/plant-and-cell-biology
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/sense-of-being-stared-at
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/experimenter-effects
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/research/joint-attention
  • http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/the-reality-of-esp-a-physicists-proof-of-psychic-abilities
  • http://www.imagesco.com/articles/psi/burkley.html
  • https://www.lifeleap.org/research-psychic-abilites/
  • https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201404/do-psychic-phenomena-exist-0
  • http://skeptiko.com/psychic-medium-tested-under-tightest-labratory-conditions/
  • https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html

   

   

As for why this evidence is systematically rejected by the 'mainstream' scientific community:

• Spoiler

   

  • https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/controversies
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/sheldrake-shermer-dialogue-on-the-nature-of-science
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/dogmatic-scepticism
  • https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/the-anti-sheldrake-phenomenon
  • https://www.seeker.com/do-scientists-fear-the-paranormal-1766373687.html
  • https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/17/science-journal-withdraws-paper-suggested-evidence-some-people-are-psychic
  • https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

   

   

It is insulting to suggest that the only ones who seem to give a damn about facts are atheists and 'skeptics', while anyone else who suggests that anything spiritual exists is living in an illusion. Some go so far as to say that we 'spiritualists' are worthy of ridicule, and that they 'need not study psychic phenomenon in order to reject it'.

We care about facts, just as much as you do, you simply build up your skeptical societies to adversely reject every piece of evidence we throw at you regardless.

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

I claim to be a psychotic, myself.  Sometimes I wonder if some others have just left the O and T out.

[Liquid Gardens 13,002]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Riding the fence is riding the fence, even balanced on just one toe.

Not a great analogy; barely even touching the fence is not even close to riding the fence balanced on one toe. It's not 'equivocation' regardless, atheism doesn't require certainty.

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I loved you circular logic about skepticism.  Does that include being skeptical about one's skepticism?  Just to kick your can even further down the road.

What circular logic would that be, can you point it out?  Of course that includes being skeptical about skepticism, that's what 'but anything is possible' necessarily entails.  As long as we're taking turns kicking the can, what exactly is the alternative to skepticism anyway, how would you phrase it?  What is more in line with science-based reasoning, skepticism or whatever this alternative is?

[CJ1983 211]

On 9/9/2017 at 5:26 PM, rodentraiser said:

Why can't a person be both spiritual and skeptical? After all, being spiritual doesn't necessarily mean you have to be religious. Being  a spiritual person can mean you respect other people and nature and try to be a good person. That in no way contradicts the fact that you can also be skeptical of things like aliens and Bigfoot at the same time.

do you mean spiritual as in Yoga, incense, mystical quotes over sunset pictures? that sort of thing?

[freetoroam 40,850]

35 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I'm a 100% certain of the reality of God.

Not a shred of doubt.

I know, nobody cares. 

 

 

Ah but Will , it is not about a matter of caring, it is down to a difference of opinions and beliefs.

I'm 100% certain there is no god.

Not a shred of doubt.

i know, not everyone will agree.

I do find that those who believe in a god tend to get "offended" when someone says there is no god. As  non believers goes, they have nothing to get upset or offended about.  Even when i am thrown the religious "curses", my reaction is simple = :

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by freetoroam

[Hammerclaw 29,469]

11 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not a great analogy; barely even touching the fence is not even close to riding the fence balanced on one toe. It's not 'equivocation' regardless, atheism doesn't require certainty.

What circular logic would that be, can you point it out?  Of course that includes being skeptical about skepticism, that's what 'but anything is possible' necessarily entails.  As long as we're taking turns kicking the can, what exactly is the alternative to skepticism anyway, how would you phrase it?  What is more in line with science-based reasoning, skepticism or whatever this alternative is?

I don't know. Since you posited doubts about the brain and it's power to discern, paranoid skepticism must be a natural state. I'm skeptical about pretty much everything, but rely on internal reason and logic to decide what I consider true or not so true. I guess you could best describe me as a rationalizing irrationalist, beholden to none, save my own conscience and consciousness. Gotta go, now. Nice chatting with you, LG. As usual, you're quite thought-provoking.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Hammerclaw