Atheism is incompatible with science

[danydandan]

26 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

I agree.  In order to be an atheist, one must be either willfully blind or stupid.

Not really. But how do you justify such an opinion?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

14 hours ago, Horta said:

On 4/2/2019 at 12:25 PM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I reflect from your post here, and I’m reminded of how I see my ‘belief’ of ghosts, (and UFO’s, and aliens and their crafts ((two different things for me)) and Karma as well) and I realize, that is an interest and if I go further, a hobby for me. So, I see no point in trying to convince others. I have a wish to discuss it with fellow believers, or shall we say, enthusiasts in it. I think, there’s a difference there. I think one has an exclusiveness to it, and the other a will of inclusiveness to it. 

My own unique spiritual belief, I wish it can help others, but it satisfies and guides me alone and that’s enough for me.  I feel that trumps over my beliefs and enthusiasm for the other unprovable things, because I use it as a need, and not as ‘entertainment’ so to speak. 

But in the end, whether it’s a need or a hobby for me, I think objectively, it’s not something I can pass around as such. I wonder, if everyone should consider that. (In that in itself, I guess can be seen as an objective wish, but it shouldn’t be.)   

 

Hi Stubbly. I believe in ufo's too, have seen one that I'll probably never be able to explain. Though for me, it doesn't necessarily mean it is unexplainable because I can't explain it, and I see no reason to make the leap to aliens. Though I can understand why some do.

I'm with you on that. That's why I made the distinction in my post. Much that I'm fascinated in a probable cause of maybe life off this planet, I cannot say I have witnessed or experienced alien encounters or seen a space ship, because I don't think I can clearly identify it as such. UFO's on the other hand, well, things I can't explain, and feel, there is room to yet explain them. I can find out it was a new test military plane, and feel, ok, mystery solved. I just don't like when one says they saw a UFO, others think they are claiming they saw a flying spaceship. I feel, I have seen things in the sky, I can't explain (and I like the mystery in that.  ) but yeah, I'm not going to go off claiming they are space aliens or something. 

And I also like to find out what they are, hence I even have started a thread years ago, in the UFO section here, to see if anyone else seen something like I did, and wonder if it could be explained away. 

Quote

I generally have no problem with people's beliefs. I often find them interesting. Only when they insist that everyone else should believe it too, or that it makes scientifically derived understanding wrong. Then it requires something reasonable to support it IMO.

Get no argument from me!!! I feel the same way. 

Quote

I have and still do know people who believe in fairies. Or perhaps better put "nature spirits". Very garden proud people who believe that there are certain ways to attract or even gain favour these "nature spirits" and they'll help your plants grow. The type of people who talk to their favourite plants lol. It'll take a bit for me to believe that, but who knows, and I generally see it as a bit of harmless eccentricity.

In my adult life of working retail, and living here and there, ................ I believe I have met a few of them. And, to be honest, I am like, 'ok........................ gotta go!' And they usually don't have the right kind of proof, and expect me to believe them, even when they don't. 

Again, que in the  'ok....................... gotta go!' mode.

Quote

In the end I'm not sure we have the control over our beliefs that we think we do. I know that certain things can make us reevaluate them and possibly change them. Though underneath all of that, the the reason why some things appear believable to us, or not, I'm not sure is completely understood yet.

I like that, what you said that I put in bold. I agree. Beliefs, I feel, tend to be from things we find happen to us and spark the beliefs. Seriously, we can't control our beliefs, then it wouldn't be a belief, right? Yes, I think it changes due to our reflection of it, but yeah, we believe, because of reasons. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

I agree.  In order to be an atheist, one must be either willfully blind or stupid.

Or genetically wired that way.

 

[Aquila King]

48 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Not really. But how do you justify such an opinion?

The same way he justifies every one of his opinions. By how hateful and bigoted it is towards an entire people group other than his own.

[Aquila King]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

According to some, God hates us all. Hell, I've taken the Lord's name in vain, and fooled around as a young single guy, and disrespected my Dad a time or two. Guess I'm going to Hell too?? 

Why would an almighty God even care about any of that? Seems rather petty, even for human standards.

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

The same way he justifies every one of his opinions. By how hateful and bigoted it is towards an entire people group other than his own.

Oh arrogance in ignorance.  Got ye!

Edited April 4, 2019 by danydandan

[Lord Harry]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Not really. But how do you justify such an opinion?

Because the existence of God is self evident from the complexity of the universe itself. To deny that there was a Creator is the height of hubris and ignorance. 

[Lord Harry]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

The same way he justifies every one of his opinions. By how hateful and bigoted it is towards an entire people group other than his own.

Without "hatred" and " bigotry" there would be no means of rallying ones own to enact well needed reform. 

[Aquila King]

11 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Without "hatred" and " bigotry" there would be no means of rallying ones own to enact well needed reform. 

Hatred and bigotry are synonymous with evil. They're just different brands of it.

There is literally zero rational justification for it in any way, shape, or form.

[Aquila King]

16 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Because the existence of God is self evident from the complexity of the universe itself. To deny that there was a Creator is the height of hubris and ignorance. 

"The universe is too complex for me to understand how it could exist, therefore something created it" is literally what you're asserting here, which essentially says: "I don't know (ignorance) therefore, God."

[Horta]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

... but you can't fool it into thinking it's actually drinking wine.

that can magically turn into the blood of jesus, or elvis...or something.

[Habitat]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I do see it here often though. Habitat is probably the most prominent example. Should any science challenge the superstitions he has chosen to explain unusual happenstance he starts with ad homs on the presenting poster, the noted scientist and the science involved. Will too, painting any non believer as a hater. But I'd say your right. Their own doubts are the most likely fuel for such irrational behaviour. 

Desperation to kill off you own doubts, is what causes you to spout this stuff. You come from a background of religious indoctrination you regard as harmful, and that may well be true. But that does not mean the polar opposite of such indoctrination, is the "right" attitude. You are trying to enlist science to support your extreme anti-religious impulses, but alas, in truth, that support is not there, ultimately. So you really disrespect science in the process, disrespect the posters who earnestly believe their experiences are valid, all in the cause of freeing yourself from residual doubts that there may be something of truth in the religious. It is a bit sad to watch, actually. A form of anti-religious mania. You are not helped at all, in your struggles, by the many here that claim scientific rigour, but are quite mute when you spout as established science, what is no more than speculation by people who happen to have a science background. Shame on them. They too, have the same compulsion, and make no mistake, they, like you, will trash science, where the "cause" of being rid of doubts is concerned. 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, danydandan said:

Must I post a link to a meta-analysis of these studies that state it's BS, again? 

You can do so.

And i could post (again)  the meta studies of thousands of studies across the world which prove your study wrong  (if indeed it proves/claims  what you claim it proves) 

 Approx. 85% of all cases showed a positive correlation, with the highest correlation being in the most rigorously peer reviewed studies 

Only about 8 % showed any negative correlation, and the rest were statistically insignificant 

Plus, of course, there are the (Now reaching)  tens of  thousands of individual studies from around the world,   of which i give some examples, which prove not only the correlation but establish causation 

To me you are like the expert from the sixties  arguing that smoking is not harmful, and producing statistical studies to "prove" this 

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, danydandan said:

Considering it was completely ignored initially, I really couldn't be arsed. If people want to live in ignorance so be it. 

But if anyone is actually interested I'll repost it.

"Of the 266 articles published in the year 2000 and identified by the Medline search, only 17% were relevant to claims of health benefits associated with religious involvement. About half of the articles cited in the comprehensive reviews were irrelevant to these claims. Of those that actually were relevant, many either had significant methodological flaws or were misrepresented, leaving only a few articles that could truly be described as demonstrating beneficial effects of religious involvement. We conclude that there is little empirical basis for assertions that religious involvement or activity is associated with beneficial health outcomes."

https://academic.oup.com/abm/article-abstract/24/1/14/4631506?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Apologies @psyche101 you actully posted this first.

You did note, i suppose, that his paper is now almost two decades old? 

It cites a few hundred studies. Only in English and only looking at religious rather  than both religious and spiritual/belief based correlations.  Today yo can find many thousands of such studies from across the world, and as stated one meta studied looked a t well over a thousand and gave the results i have posted 

if the belief stated  in your source, was still current belief, then modern medical schools and universities would not be including the knowledge that belief and religious back ground MUST be considered in any integrated case management of a patient. 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What is "Good"? That is a good question. 

In Christianity, it is spelled out in some direct, and some subtle, ways. I'd point directly at Jesus as the model. But, it is not as simple as that, because Jesus wasn't recorded doing everything that a modern person would/could. Would Jesus eat fast food? Would Jesus wear flashy clothes? Would Jesus listen to Gangster Rap? Would Jesus own a gun? Not easy questions to answer.... 

Many Humanists believe that "Good" is what society says it is. However since we all live here on Earth, and any one of us can travel to the other side of the world in a day or so... Our cultures/societies get mixe. And now that we have to be tolerant of other's cultures, and not require them to assimilate... The "Good" of the collective society isn't as simple and straight forward as it was. An example would be that a Muslim might see nothing wrong with, might even cheer, a revenge killing. 

I'm going to stick with the time tested definition of Good myself.

Good is a conscious and considered action which is intended to bring a positive outcome(  healing, increasing human potential. building or constructing something of value either physical or spiritual)  etc. Bad or evil is the opposite

Thus yes, good is largely cultural, but as a bottom line can be objectively assessed by the outcomes

In the past, the grandparents who walked out into the snow so their family would have enough to eat were doing a good thing 

Today this would not be the case, BUT grandparents who decided to be euthanised so their family could have a better life MIGHT be considered to be doing a good thing if their intent was selfless and positive     

[Horta]

20 hours ago, Habitat said:

You only disagree (somewhat conditionally) with the P101 babble about the "solution" being at hand, when I put you on the spot. He has been peddling this guff for ages. You have never disagreed with it. And there is no "team" ? Try to be a little more honest.

If psyche really feels the cause of existence itself has been sufficiently explained, then yes I disagree with that as do you. 

As to the science he offers, no I don't disagree with that. It's informative and interesting. To the extent that I can understand it, I agree with it. Where I don't understand it, it would be a bit foolish to claim it is wrong. All I can do there is try to further understanding. If the only way to further understanding required some "mystical" process, or if science derived things this way, I would have a problem with that in principle.

It also seems quite fair to conclude that science as it is understood so far, not only doesn't accept the proposition of ghosts or of a separate soul/consciousness, but rules it out. With the caveat that science doesn't "prove" anything. Understanding can change. 

So to disagree would have the requirement of explaining why, which I cannot do. 

This is different to making claims based on mysticism. Your claims about it might be right, but it does conflict with science at this stage and all you offer in support is your own personal logic and "mystical" vagueness. Your claim that a scientific understanding of how or why we exist  is an impossibility is the claim I take issue with the most. It amounts to no more than your personal belief.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

It also seems quite fair to conclude that science as it is understood so far, not only doesn't accept the proposition of ghosts or of a separate soul/consciousness, but rules it out

I would be very doubtful any real science would make that claim, it being very much a case of "that we know of" needing to be appended.

3 minutes ago, Horta said:

Your claim that a scientific understanding of how or why we exist  is an impossibility is the claim I take issue with the most. It amounts to no more than your personal belief.

I pointed out that rational explanations that depend on causality must fail. Mysticism is a science, really, except you are not just an observer, but the experiment ! So in a way, science can arrive at a satisfying answer.

[+Liquid Gardens]

58 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Plus, of course, there are the (Now reaching)  tens of  thousands of individual studies from around the world,   of which i give some examples, which prove not only the correlation but establish causation 

I think I'll stick with my 'proven' shorter life then, I'm not convinced that the increase in my lifespan is going to exceed the time lost to religious attendance.

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If you are trying to disprove God, then you're still trying to prove a negative. Which is impossible. So the best you can do is come to a conclusion and base your opinion on that.

I find observation negates the need to believe in a God at all, removing God from the equation quite effectively. 

Until there's a reason to consider a creator, there seems no good reason to make one up. It just convolutes any learning process. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But they use actual facts to support their faulty conclusions. The evidence they use is (mostly) solid. It is just that they cherry pick what facts to use, and how to present them. The fact 99.99% of everyone else comes to a different conclusion does not in any way prove their evidence is false.

I don't see that with the likes of Sheldrake or Chopra. They tend to just make rubbish up and use scientific terms to fool the ignorant. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Possibly. But, only due to Human nature. Just like science and politics clash. And politics and education. Can you have Science outside of Politics? Yes you can. We don't have to have Science dictated from a politician, do we? But do some politicians believe they HAVE to try to change science? Yeah. Because... Human Nature.

Its a flawed system though. I have mentioned before that I think a democratic process is a leadership failure. Mainly because of what you have isolated above. I honestly think like any job, that the position should rely on qualifications. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The JW I think only disallow Blood Transfusion. The number of people who likely die due to that ban is probably pretty low.

Its got to a point where court intervention has been involved, which seems pretty serious to me. If its reached that point, it seems very likely that the practise is reasonably common. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Not that I agree with them on that point, but they are more Fanatical/Fundamentalist in several other ways. Namely going door-to-door and handing out literature. 

That's really bad for kids too I can say from personal experience. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yes, proud of them....

I feel its a reflection of your guidance. 

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Using the Ad Homin method is basically a last resort, IMHO.

I agree. It's Habs modus operandi though. I see more and more of it from the religious posters when they lose an argument, but then again, paranormal and aliens on earth supporters are pretty much the same. 

[Horta]

5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

In my adult life of working retail, and living here and there, ................ I believe I have met a few of them. And, to be honest, I am like, 'ok........................ gotta go!' And they usually don't have the right kind of proof, and expect me to believe them, even when they don't. 

Again, que in the  'ok....................... gotta go!' mode.

Lol. I agree re people who think their beliefs are facts and everyone needs to agree.

I often don't feel that way with belief in general though. Sometimes it is the eccentric things like this that I find endearing. I remember hearing of a couple of women in Iceland who ran an "elf farm" where for a small fee, if your lucky, you might see an "elf"! .

I think that's great, to have a bit of "magic" like this. Although if it was accompanied with the claim that not worshipping the elves meant you were going to hell for eternity, or if leaders consulted their favourite elf re mobilising forces, it would be different.

Quote

Beliefs, I feel, tend to be from things we find happen to us and spark the beliefs. Seriously, we can't control our beliefs, then it wouldn't be a belief, right? Yes, I think it changes due to our reflection of it, but yeah, we believe, because of reasons. 

I see it as being complicated underneath it all. Our reasons are often the justifications we use for our belief. It's a bit like why we love someone. We can find all sorts of reasons why but underneath it all, I don't think any of us really can choose this or really understand why. It just is. The same as we can find all sorts of valid reasons to dislike someone, but the fact that we feel the way we do is something that just happens, and although we might be able to rationalise it or even put it aside, I don't know that the feeling itself to begin with is under our control.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Horta

[Horta]

33 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I would be very doubtful any real science would make that claim, it being very much a case of "that we know of" needing to be appended.

That is appended to every scientific conclusion. It goes without saying. Science can always be wrong, that's integral to it's method and philosophy.

Quote

I pointed out that rational explanations that depend on causality must fail. Mysticism is a science, really, except you are not just an observer, but the experiment ! So in a way, science can arrive at a satisfying answer.

Because it would lead to infinite regress? I only differ that the same logic isn't necessarily applicable to the universe. Genuine randomness would have been considered something illogical at one stage. Yet now we have no trouble accepting it in logical explanations.

 

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Meh... a couple hours a week to go sing and listen to someone talk about the Bible? I got time for that.... Especially if the afterlife is real, and Christianity is correct. Then it is a small price to pay.

You have ration and reason. My experience is that such is not commonly associated with religious inclination. 

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The physics that refutes life after death? Can't say that I'd even care... If I buy into that, and attack it back, that's just me feeling attacked and reacting. When if you have Faith, there's no reason to even consider that an attack. It's someone trying to tell you the color of the apple matters, when you're going to peel it and smash it down anyway. 

Brilliant answer, as it's not an attack at all. 

11 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Some people don't like Ketchup....

Exactly. Your a very good ambassador for faith. It would be good to see others pick up from your examples.

 

[Lord Harry]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Hatred and bigotry are synonymous with evil. They're just different brands of it.

There is literally zero rational justification for it in any way, shape, or form.

I was being ironic.  You were the one who said I was a hateful bigot.  Apparently the irony of my post has escaped you.

[jmccr8]

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Doesn't  matter what you THINK.

I KNOW  

Hi Walker

This has always been your premiss and as of yet has still not evolved past the claim. I expect there are many things you know but that does not mean that everyone agrees in the interpretation of said knowledge.

17 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i find it hard to believe that you do not accept your everyday experiences as real, unless the y can be verified by another, and unless you  have transferable proofs that the y are true  Most of us are capable of knowing what is real , by using the evidences for reality .

I don't question why or what I did and as long as it doesn't cost me time or money I don't give a rat what anyone does with their day.

I build things and people drive, work or live in them, I even get paid to do that and nobody questions me about it unless they want me to do the same thing for them. Gee how boring right I don't have to use reality checkers to determine if I am really here or not, here's a reality checker don't pay your bills and see how many people come looking for you.

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I think you ONLY use this standard to apply to other people and experiences you BELIEVE are impossible

I think you're projecting and I tend to look at everybody and everything with the same attitude of potential.

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree that superstition is not the answer.  Dealing with reality is required  And yes it can be difficult to achieve an objective perspective, but not too difficult  I also agree that there is no one size or one right answer. Such experiences come in many forms. Some are imagined, some are perceived, yet some are genuine

Your claim is mine is real and everyone else's could be real or imaginary if they can prove what they had for breakfast maybe it's real. None of it is testable so you are safe in that hazy place of maybe.

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Just because the entity i encounter is real, doesn't mean everyone's is.

 And vice versa; just because one person is deluded, doesn't mean  that all encounters are the result  of delusion  

Circle dance and nicely done with that curtsey.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

20 hours ago, Horta said:

One thing I do have a problem with in the normal explanation people usually offer, is that it is a feeling of unbounded "love". To me, this sells it way short of what it felt like. Though I suppose it is the closest word that people can find to help explain it.

 

Pretty sure the "it" you referred to above is the experience you had that was similar to the dude's in the video you posted yesterday. 

In my opinion, this type of experience is common but varies in degrees between persons. The thing that differs is how these experiences are interpreted. When it happens, one might tell the tale in religious terms while others like yourself will use other terminology. But the experiences are identical. In fact, I see this as being evidence that God really is within us all working there to guide us. Belief in him being completely irrelevant to it happening.

And you're right about "love" being short of describing it. I think it's because to one person, "love" is an overwhelming tearfull expression of emotional connection while to another "love" is a swift kick in the a$$.

After telling her about this post, my wife just told me: "That's how it works". 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Will Due