Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[Hedshaker]

Gibberish never is and your word salad machine-like posts are no different. Basically your entire little swami shtick boils down to "I'm right, and I say so." :yawn:

That should be the fundamentalist motto

 

[alwight]

Yes but you can't know that transcendence actually flows on within and without you, to quote George Harrison, only within you alone unless others report the same or something very similar, beyond a mere coincidence of course.

Why would that matter? And, of course, such personal experiences of transcendence are fairly common. Though not universal.

I think it matters because many shared common experiences from the non-material world, independent and separated from the material world would be somewhat more convincing as evidence for sceptics that this other realm is perhaps true.
But I rather suspect that you don't really want that discussed because you know that it isn't typically what happens beyond occasional coincidences perhaps, people usually seem to have their own cognitive or mystical experiences as individual as they are. That for me doesn't imply another non-material realm, only what is being processed chemically in real time in our own heads, and happening here in the material world.

You can't have it both ways, either it does impinge on physical reality or it doesn't, if it does then it can be put to the test, otherwise it can be filed under "personal fantasy".

Why these arbitrary restrictions?

You may not like them but that doesn't make them arbitrary. You seem to want your beliefs to be accepted uncritically and immune from scrutiny from the physical world. Surely you have nothing to suggest that anything metaphysical is going on with our mental processes unless people did bring back very similar shared coinciding experiences into this physical existence?

The conceptual realm does "impinge" on the physical, through us. And through any life forms that physically act on their conceptualizations of physical reality (as many of them do). Even as these conceptualizations arise from the physical realm. So I don't see any rules here that would imply or insist on a dogmatic separation.

You seem to want it concluded that our mental conceptualisations happen in another place beyond or outside our own heads and physics? Not that there is apparently any useful dialog or communication with gods or perhaps other extant life-forms that happens there, just the regular (perhaps nutty?) thoughts that might perhaps more simply be thought to be isolated firmly inside our own physical heads.
So what then is the benefit or purpose of this other place do you think if we can only experience ourselves in it?

Then you are perhaps guided by the metaphysical and that alone imo will affect the physical realm in a testable way, since you are physical, presumably. If your new found reality is true then others too will likewise independently acquire the same knowledge, and not something quite different. Is that what actually happens?

Yes and no: meaning that's what happens, to a degree, but that's also not what happens, to a degree. Because all of our conceptions of physical reality are somewhat the similar, and somewhat different. So that to the degree that they are the similar, our influence on physical reality will be quantifiable (testable). But to the degree that our concepts of physical reality are different, our influence will not be quantifiable in any predictable (testable) way.

So there can be no actual experience of this other place nor will you be able to communicate perhaps unique covert ideas with third parties from within it that you don't normally meet in the physical world?
So what is the point of it other than it gives you a reason not to call yourself an atheist and perhaps the comfort of something other than this physical world?

Yet one thing is certain, and that is that our concepts of physical really do effect physical reality in a very 'real' and physical way. Evidencing the fact that a conceptual realm does 'exist', and that it does transcend the physical realm from which it springs.

I simple regard human concepts as being a product of real time processes going on in our brains which don't seem to simply delegate the conceptualising to some other place, but do it in-house so to speak. When the brain is damaged or impaired it rather tends to reflect that in the standards of the concepts then produced.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Gibberish never is and your word salad machine-like posts are no different. Basically your entire little swami shtick boils down to "I'm right, and I say so." :yawn:

So you have empirical evidence for the beginning of life and the universe?

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

No word trap. You said it yourself, magic. It's perfectly clear to non believers but theists usually have hard time accepting it. Creating something with pre existing resources is how we would use the term creation or to create but creating something from nothing is pure magic, like the proverbial bunny out of the hat. No getting around it.

And you are the one positing a creator/wizard so you are the one with the burden of proof. The absence (or hiddenness) of your creator in the material world stands on its own. I don't have to provide empirical evidence for its non existence when I merely state I disbelieve in it.

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof though, but you'll find seasoned sceptics are well used to that.

Omnipotent power is not nothing it is everything.
Not shifting burden of proof. Just pointing that your position requires great faith as well. Since it is not based on empirical evidence.

 

[alwight]

Omnipotent power is not nothing it is everything.
Not shifting burden of proof. Just pointing that your position requires great faith as well. Since it is not based on empirical evidence.

Does not believing in Odin require faith to?

 

[PureX]

I think it matters because many shared common experiences from the non-material world, independent and separated from the material world would be somewhat more convincing as evidence for sceptics that this other realm is perhaps true.
But I rather suspect that you don't really want that discussed because you know that it isn't typically what happens beyond occasional coincidences perhaps, people usually seem to have their own cognitive or mystical experiences as individual as they are. That for me doesn't imply another non-material realm, only what is being processed chemically in real time in our own heads, and happening here in the material world.

Bias isn't skepticism. And skepticism doesn't make anything more true or less true. Neither does the number of people sharing an experience.

Let's say you were abducted by aliens, experimented on in their flying saucer, and then returned to your home with no physical evidence of what had happened to you. All you have is your memory of the experience, which no one else shared. Should you refuse to believe your own memory simply because no one else shared the experience you had, and there is no physical evidence to prove to you that it happened? Do you believe that it's impossible that something like this could have happened to a small number of people, and that because it's a small number of people, and because there is no physical evidence, that they should be dismissed?

The problem here is that it's very possible for us to lean too heavily on reasoned probability because that's pretty much all we ever have, and most of the time it's good enough. We can lean so heavily on it, in fact, that we refuse to believe the truth simply because it's improbable according to our preconceptions of the probable truth of reality. And in essence, those preconceptions become a bias. A bias that our egos then becomes invested in denying the existence of, in order to protect.

There is a significant number people who have had transcendent/metaphysical experiences of one sort or another. The fact that they had them alone, and that they are relatively few in number, that their experiences were somewhat unique, and that there is no physical evidence left behind, afterward, does not alter the fact that something very "unreal" happened to them. Something that was so far outside of our common, shared experience of reality that it was perceived by those it happened to as 'transcendent', and 'metaphysical'.

Now, the rest of us can just dismiss their witness as nonsense, or self-delusion, or lies, or whatever, but I can't see any sensible reason to do that. All I can see is fear, resentment, and ego expressing itself as doubt at the expense of the witness.

Now imagine that you are that witness. What is there to do? You know something about reality that very few people know. Yet no one will believe you about it because they want to protect their own preconceived ideas about what reality is and isn't. And they don't care what happened to you.

This is how I see atheism. It's an irrational bias, protecting itself by pretending it's not a bias; but is just a well-reasoned probability. But it is a bias, and it's not well-reasoned at all. It's just a convenient assumption based on a lack of personal experience at the expense of those who have had the personal experience that the atheist lacks.

I honestly do not know what happened to those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. But my not knowing does not in any way negate their claims. Neither does my skepticism, nor my doubt, nor my reasoned probability that their experience couldn't have happened. And if I let myself think that they do, I am a fool, fooling only myself.

 

[Hedshaker]

Omnipotent power is not nothing it is everything.

So you say, as merely saying is all you ever do. But you have yet to offer the slightest hint of anything related to evidence. I'm sorry to break it to you but blanket assertion means precisely nothing at all.

Not shifting burden of proof. Just pointing that your position requires great faith as well. Since it is not based on empirical evidence.

Oh dear! Not terribly bright, are you? My position is that I do not believe your claims are real. And since you have yet to offer a single rag of evidence to back up your claims then my position is perfectly reasonable by default. No evidence, no belief. That simple. How do I need great faith to reject your bald assertion?

 

[alwight]

Bias isn't skepticism. And skepticism doesn't make anything more true or less true. Neither does the number of people sharing an experience.

Many people independently sharing the same experience is however rather more convincing to me than individuals who think that their very different conceptualisations all come from the same metaphysical place. lain:

Let's say you were abducted by aliens, experimented on in their flying saucer, and then returned to you home with no physical evidence of what had happened. All you have is your memory of the experience, which no one else shared. Should you refuse to believe your own memory simply because no one else shared the experienced you had, and there is no physical evidence to prove to you that it happened?

I think I'd simply not expect that others would somehow believe me, not that it didn't happen. If multiple people all separately had the very same experience as me then that would be more convincing to others perhaps?

Do you believe that it's impossible that something like this could have happened to a small number of people, and that because it's a small number of people, and because there is no physical evidence, that no one believes them? Including you?

If they could each separately without collusion describe what they saw (experienced ) and it matched, then that would be a good start.

The problem here is that it's possible for us to lean too heavily on reasoned probability. So heavily, in fact, that we refuse to believe the truth, simply because it's improbable according to our preconceptions of the truth of reality. And in essence, those preconceptions have become a bias. A bias that our egos become invested in denying, to protect.

You mean being biased toward a preponderance of evidence...I'm guilty, so shoot me.

There is a significant number people who have had transcendent/metaphysical experiences of one sort or another. The fact that they had them alone, and that they are relatively few in number, and that there is not physical evidence left behind, does not alter the fact that something very "unreal" happened to them. Something that was so far outside of our common, shared experience of reality that it was perceived as transcendent, and metaphysical.

OK but if they each had the same experience separately then that might be rather intriguing.

Now, the rest of us can just dismiss their witness as nonsense, or self-delusion, or lies, or whatever, but I can't see any sensible reason to do that. All I see is fear, resentment, and ego expressing itself at the expense of the witness.

In courtrooms real evidence tends to convince judges more than often conflicting human testimony, in Judge Judy's courtroom anyway.

Now imagine that you are that witness. What is there to do? You know something about reality that very few people know. And no one will believe you about it because they want to protect their preconceived ideas about what reality is and isn't. And they don't care what happened to you.

Hang on PX, why should they believe what you tell them, whatever bias they might have? With all due respect you might be a nutter?

This is how I see atheism. It's an irrational bias, defending itself by pretending it's not a bias; but is just a well-reasoned probability. But it is a bias, and it's not well-reasoned at all. It's just a convenient assumption based on a lack of personal experience at the expense of those who have had the personal experience that the atheist lacks.

In your world however there seems to be no way to be without bias, unless they simply believe whatever you tell them? :AMR:

I honestly do not know what happened to those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. But my not knowing does not in any way negate their claims. Neither does my skepticism, nor my doubt, nor my reasoned probability that their experience couldn't have happened. And if I let myself think that they do, I am a fool, fooling only myself.

Well, as it happens I was abducted by aliens once, but I don't like to talk about it because without corroborating evidence no one would believe me.

(That last bit wasn't entirely true btw)

 

[PureX]

Many people independently sharing the same experience is however rather more convincing to me than individuals who think that their very different conceptualisations all come from the same metaphysical place.

That's not rational on several counts. One, it assumes that the people who have these extraordinary experiences claim they all "come from the same place", which they don't. And it assumes, on your part, that they should.

Why do you assume everyone that claims to have been abducted by aliens must have been abducted by the same aliens, who must have behaved in the same way, each time? Why do you assume that people who have had such an extraordinary experience should recall them in exactly the same way? Witnesses at crimes and accidents are notorious for 'misremembering' what happened. And yet there is no doubt that the crime or accident to which they are witnesses, took place.

And I still don't see why you think the number of people involved matters. I can't think of any reason why it should.

I think I'd simply not expect that others would somehow believe me, not that it didn't happen.

That would be a reasonable response. But that's not YOUR response. Your response is to assume they are crazy, or lying, or both. Your response is to assume that what they claimed happened, did almost certainly NOT happen.

If multiple people all separately had the very same experience as me then that would be more convincing to others perhaps?

But that's not even possible. People can't have the "very same experience" of anything. You don't seem to understand that the experience is not the event. The experience is the perception of the event. And no two humans can perceive an event in exactly the same way. For one thing, they can't even witness it from the same perspective. And for another, everyone has a different personality and set of expectations through which they will 'understand' what they experience. And if their experiences are not even of the same event, how much more will this be true? That's why I used the alien abduction analogy.

If they could each separately without collusion describe what they saw (experienced) and it matched, then that would be a good start.

There is no logical reason that their experiences should "match". And your insistence that they must is just your own irrational bias. Which you seem incapable of recognizing even as it's being held up right in front of you.

You mean being biased toward a preponderance of evidence...I'm guilty, so shoot me.

:doh:

OK but if they each had the same experience separately then that might be rather intriguing.

How can anyone have the same experience separately? This is an impossible criteria.

In your world however there seems to be no way to be without bias, unless they simply believe whatever you tell them?

We don't have to believe "Pete" was abducted by aliens just because he says he was. But that's not what's happening, here. You (atheists) are claiming that Pete was not abducted by aliens, because there are almost certainly no aliens like those he describes. And you are basing that claim on nothing but your own excessive and irrational skepticism.

[Keep in mind that we are discussing (through analogy) personal transcendent, metaphysical experiences (of "God") and not the claims of faith-based religious dogma.]

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

So you say, as merely saying is all you ever do. But you have yet to offer the slightest hint of anything related to evidence. I'm sorry to break it to you but blanket assertion means precisely nothing at all.



Oh dear! Not terribly bright, are you? My position is that I do not believe your claims are real. And since you have yet to offer a single rag of evidence to back up your claims then my position is perfectly reasonable by default. No evidence, no belief. That simple. How do I need great faith to reject your bald assertion?

We've already established that the supernatural, which by definition is beyond the natural, can not be measured or disproven by scientific means.

You hold that you only believe things to be true that have been proven by scientific means. And that is the reason for your atheism. That is a logical contradiction because there is no empirical evidence that matter has always existed, or that it existed before the big bang. There is no empirical evidence that life began by some stroke of luck, or that by some other enormous incredulous extremely long series of strokes of luck all life and it's beauty and complexity exists.

Your position is undoubtedly not based on empirical evidence.

And before you say 'you have the burden of proof'; this thread was started to question your hopes.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

That's not rational on several counts. One, it assumes that the people who have these extraordinary experiences claim they all "come from the same place", which they don't. And it assumes, on your part, that they should.

Why do you assume everyone that claims to have been abducted by aliens must have been abducted by the same aliens, who must have behaved in the same way, each time? Why do you assume that people who have had such an extraordinary experience should recall them in exactly the same way? Witnesses at crimes and accidents are notorious for 'misremembering' what happened. And yet there is no doubt that the crime or accident to which they are witnesses, took place.

And I still don't see why you think the number of people involved matters. I can't think of any reason why it should.
That would be a reasonable response. But that's not YOUR response. Your response is to assume they are crazy, or lying, or both. Your response is to assume that what they claimed happened, did almost certainly NOT happen.
But that's not even possible. People can't have the "very same experience" of anything. You don't seem to understand that the experience is not the event. The experience is the perception of the event. And no two humans can perceive an event in exactly the same way. For one thing, they can't even witness it from the same perspective. And for another, everyone has a different personality and set of expectations through which they will 'understand' what they experience. And if their experiences are not even of the same event, how much more will this be true? That's why I used the alien abduction analogy.
There is no logical reason that their experiences should "match". And your insistence that they must is just your own irrational bias. Which you seem incapable of recognizing even as it's being held up right in front of you.
:doh:
How can anyone have the same experience separately? This is an impossible criteria.
We don't have to believe "Pete" was abducted by aliens just because he says he was. But that's not what's happening, here. You (atheists) are claiming that Pete was not abducted by aliens, because there are almost certainly no aliens like those he describes. And you are basing that claim on nothing but your own excessive and irrational skepticism.

[Keep in mind that we are discussing (through analogy) personal transcendent, metaphysical experiences (of "God") and not the claims of faith-based religious dogma.]

We all take into account people's experiences and either try them out of curiosity or, not based on our notions.

 

[Hedshaker]

We've already established that the supernatural, which by definition is beyond the natural, can not be measured or disproven by scientific means.

How convenient. Sounds just like something theist say because they know they have no evidence. But of course, if evidence for your wizard ever did come to light, you'd reject it out right for reason you state above, right? Who are you fooling? Must be yourself cause it certainly ain't this sceptic.

You hold that you only believe things to be true that have been proven by scientific means. And that is the reason for your atheism. That is a logical contradiction because there is no empirical evidence that matter has always existed, or that it existed before the big bang. There is no empirical evidence that life began by some stroke of luck, or that by some other enormous incredulous extremely long series of strokes of luck all life and it's beauty and complexity exists.

Matter is an expression of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but, and here's the "but", can change form, this much we know as fact. (take a piece of paper. Burn it. The same amount of energy exists before during and after).
The state of pre Big Bang existence is not known at this time but there is no reason to dismiss there being energy from where matter came. Sure, it's theoretical, but reasonable, and does not require supernatural magic. There are many hypothesis regarding the Big Bang even and the formation of the universe if you take the time to do some research. It's any ones guess really, but supernatural magic is just plain daft which is why mainstream science dismisses it outright.

Your position is undoubtedly not based on empirical evidence.

My position is to debunk your bald assertions.

And before you say 'you have the burden of proof'; this thread was started to question your hopes.

Asked and answered. No hope involved.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

How convenient. Sounds just like something theist say because they know they have no evidence. But of course, if evidence for your wizard ever did come to light, you'd reject it out right for reason you state above, right? Who are you fooling? Must be yourself cause it certainly ain't this sceptic.



Matter is an expression of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but, and here's the "but", can change form, this much we know as fact. (take a piece of paper. Burn it. The same amount of energy exists before during and after).
The state of pre Big Bang existence is not known at this time but there is no reason to dismiss there being energy from where matter came. Sure, it's theoretical, but reasonable, and does not require supernatural magic. There are many hypothesis regarding the Big Bang even and the formation of the universe if you take the time to do some research. It's any ones guess really, but supernatural magic is just plain daft which is why mainstream science dismisses it outright.



My position is to debunk your bald assertions.



Asked and answered. No hope involved.

No empirical evidence, you are denying your leap of faith.

 

[Hedshaker]

No empirical evidence, you are denying your leap of faith.

Leap of faith for what exactly? I haven't made any positive claims, so straw man..... :idunno: Your desperate need to shift the burden of proof is showing again, and duly noted you didn't address a single issue brought up in the previous post. Nothing new there then.

I'm thinking Granite has a point.... bot! So far you would fail a Turing test for sure :yawn:

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Leap of faith for what exactly? I haven't made any positive claims, so straw man..... :idunno: Your desperate need to shift the burden of proof is showing again, and duly noted you didn't address a single issue brought up in the previous post. Nothing new there then.

I'm thinking Granite has a point.... bot! So far you would fail a Turing test for sure :yawn:

Your positive claim as an athesist is that there is no God, or supernatural power above and beyond the material world. With that conviction, there comes leaps of faith. Such as matter as you state is energy and it could not have come from somewhere else other than the material existence it is in.

This beliefs holds that this power always existed in one material form or another in the place we call the universe. Your one constant for all of eternity is this power. You have no scientific proof that this is true. This belief holds that this power exists beyond a cause, i.e. the only uncaused phenomena is this power. This belief holds that this power became everything for no good reason, only by chance. And you find this to be based on reason and empirical scientific evidence.

But as you say you now, that you make no absolute assertions, you realize you are agnostic at heart. Free to stand on no convictions, ready to call anyone who has has any experiences with the supernatural as crazy, a liar, or stupid.

 

[gcthomas]

Your positive claim as an athesist is that there is no God, or supernatural power above and beyond the material world. With that conviction, there comes leaps of faith. Such as matter as you state is energy and it could not have come from somewhere else other than the material existence it is in.

This beliefs holds that this power always existed in one material form or another in the place we call the universe. Your one constant for all of eternity is this power. You have no scientific proof that this is true. This belief holds that this power exists beyond a cause, i.e. the only uncaused phenomena is this power. This belief holds that this power became everything for no good reason, only by chance. And you find this to be based on reason and empirical scientific evidence.

But as you say you now, that you make no absolute assertions, you realize you are agnostic at heart. Free to stand on no convictions, ready to call anyone who has has any experiences with the supernatural as crazy, a liar, or stupid.

Atheism is not a positive belief that there is no god, but the negative one of a lack of a belief in the existence of one. Some atheists take this further and positively believe in the absence, while others recognise that proofs of absence are in general hard to find. The latter could be called agnostic atheism.

And few atheists view all theists as crazy, stupid liars, but do suggest they are mistaken. Some people are, however, crazy stupid liars, and they get called out.

 

[Granite]

Leap of faith for what exactly? I haven't made any positive claims, so straw man..... :idunno: Your desperate need to shift the burden of proof is showing again, and duly noted you didn't address a single issue brought up in the previous post. Nothing new there then.

I'm thinking Granite has a point.... bot! So far you would fail a Turing test for sure :yawn:

:cheers:

You owe me a quarter for each usage.:smokie:

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Atheism is not a positive belief that there is no god, but the negative one of a lack of a belief in the existence of one. Some atheists take this further and positively believe in the absence, while others recognise that proofs of absence are in general hard to find. The latter could be called agnostic atheism.

And few atheists view all theists as crazy, stupid liars, but do suggest they are mistaken. Some people are, however, crazy stupid liars, and they get called out.

So for clarity: The truth claim that God doesn't exist can easily be seen as built on belief that has not been proven with empirical scientific evidence.

Do you think resorting to name calling proves intelligence?

 

[gcthomas]

So for clarity: The truth claim that God doesn't exist can easily be seen as built on belief that has not been proven with empirical scientific evidence.

You are putting up an Aunt Sally to knock down there. It is theists that are making a belief based truth claim, while atheists claim that there is too little evidence to support such a claim. Nothing more.

(Also: proofs are for mathematicians, and are not part of the scientific mindset.

Do you think resorting to name calling proves intelligence?

 

[Granite]

So for clarity: The truth claim that God doesn't exist can easily be seen as built on belief that has not been proven with empirical scientific evidence.

Do you think resorting to name calling proves intelligence?

You're trying to see if there's a way to prove a negative.

To answer your question: No but sometimes it saves time.