A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I know a couple of psyche nurses who talk to trees because they believe that spirits live in them. I know it seems like no problem, and no one is getting hurt, but, they are both starting families. Those kids are going to be taught this stuff.

Theres really no guarantee that said nurses will pass on their beliefs, though that is usually the case...

sounds very wiccan to me...

I know there is no way to enforce rational thinking on people, and i wouldn’t want to if i could. I would rather talk about what standards could be used to come to rational beliefs and see if their beliefs meet their own standards for what they would accept from another person.

I don't see any reason to accept someone elses beliefs... i was raised a Christian, and to this day my mom gets pissed off when i tell her i am not one... *shrug*

Perhaps IF someone elses beliefs ring true in a person's heart one may accept anothers

The line always seems to be when one person’s beliefs physically effect another person’s body or their property. But what about mental harm? Couldn’t it be a good thing if people were taught to be more rational in their beliefs?

depends on what one considers rational i suppose... an atheist finds no rationality in believing in something they have no proof of... whereas someone who believes in God finds that rationality in experience and purpose of life

Then theres religionists who basically take their beliefs from their parents for the most part... they have grown up believing whatever they were taught, and rarely deviate from those beliefs... in many cases said people will actually lose their family and friends if they decided to believe something other then what their religion says... in which case said belief is actually toxic... and i have had much experience with that kind of religion

Could there actions become more rational as a result? What if people weren’t mindless sheep who believed in fairy tales and superstitions? Maybe they wouldn’t be so easily lead?

again you're talking about religion here, not just a belief in God... everyone walks their own path, but in many cases that path is chosen for them.

I, like yourself walk my own path... i am lead by no one and never have been

Not everyone who has a belief in some deity is a mindless boob that believes whatever someone else tells them to believe

a reply to: Akragon

Eh perhaps wiccan, or another Pagan faith. I know Christians who do that too. IF they believe in the "Good neighbours" they tend to talk to the spirits.

Any religion that controlls your day to day over logic is bad. Talking to spirits? How is that harmful? Not everything in life need be logical, or provable.

I am sure woodcarver would not understand my beliefs and my day job. Yet I'm a fairly sane individual, who's highly paid, and never been to court

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Eh perhaps wiccan, or another Pagan faith. I know Christians who do that too. IF they believe in the "Good neighbours" they tend to talk to the spirits.

Any religion that controlls your day to day over logic is bad. Talking to spirits? How is that harmful? Not everything in life need be logical, or provable.

I am sure woodcarver would not understand my beliefs and my day job. Yet I'm a fairly sane individual, who's highly paid, and never been to court

No, i probably won’t.

A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

What's up with Michael Moore?

Thought his kind died out about 12,000 ya?

Over hunting or a comet.

I've noticed a bit of confusion on people being atheistic and having belief for things without having the rigorous proof atheists demand of religion.

I feel the need to clarify something. There's a difference between believing like religions seem to demand, and belief in a more functional use.

Take Christianity, it requires that you believe without doubt. There is no room for doubt in the religion of Christianity. If there was, then Christians wouldn't lose their # over the concept of being not sure god exists and being unwilling to fully commit to the belief.

That is not the case for other definitions of belief. There's a difference to the belief that after looking both ways, seeing no one coming, having a red light, and using a cross walk that you'll most likely be safe.

Here's the thing, I don't really believe things 100%, though there are things I believe close enough it might as well be 100% for all daily living intents and purposes. Thing is, my senses, my very mind, my memory, everything has some level of fallibility that makes error possible. I have to rely upon them to live, to make decisions, and to take care of the things I care about, but I am under no obligation to because of that to believe those things 100%. I'm taking a gamble with every decision that my senses and understanding is close enough to accurate that my action will turn out well. I'm hoping that my education, awareness, experience and mental faculties are on par with the challenges presented before me.

So no I don't believe anything in the sense required by religion. I always leave room for error whether it be personal error or the error of others.

Do I believe things in the more loose use of the term? Sure, there's a lot I put my faith in, if I didn't I couldn't cross the street, or eat anything. I'd be catatonic. Sadly that faith can be and has been shattered many times. Food poisoning is a bitch, and I've almost been hit crossing the street while following all the rules at least twice assuming my memory isn't being faulty.

Is actually where my issue with religion is. I don't understand how people can speak with such conviction that their beliefs are true, period, end of story and refuse to accept even a little doubt. That very concept is just something I cannot wrap my head around. Believing strongly in something I understand, but to claim ultimate knowledge on something...

I just don't believe you can "know" anything, not truly, you can only "know" something in the meaning of "it seems most likely based upon previous observations, the evidence presented and a good solid foundation of reasoning and logic."

Is actually where I have a bit of an issue with the strongly religious... It feels a bit arrogant to me to speak with such conviction that you're somehow gifted with some supreme insight over everyone else, and if they dare believe otherwise they are wrong and you are right irrefutably.

I'm happy with I'm not sure, I've some guesses, some ideas, but ultimately I don't know.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Barcs

Thanks for explaining that, I’m still a bit confused about the Atheists position though. If Atheists believe in some things do they not require supporting evidence for those beliefs too then? And if so does that not make those same beliefs facts rather than beliefs? Or are there things the Atheist believes that can’t be proven?

No need to capitalize atheist, it's not a proper noun unless you are referring to a specific atheist organization by name. Anybody can literally believe anything without evidence, whether they are theist or atheist. The only difference is that the atheist lacks belief in god. It is a belief position it has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with lack of facts for the affirmative position (that god exists). Atheists can believe in fairies, aliens, werewolves, afterlife, soul, literally anything as long as it doesn't include a god.

Science can neither prove or disprove God, and I realise as the proposer the burden of proof is on me. But if I can’t use science to provide supporting evidence how else can I prove it? Moreover if there is no proof either way why not take the Agnostic position and remain neutral? It seems to me that Atheists have jumped to a conclusion with no supporting evidence either actually.

There is no neutral when it comes to theism vs atheism. You either hold belief that god exists, or you don't. You can't believe and lack belief at the same time. If somebody calls oneself an agnostic, they are still technically an atheist because they lack that affirmative belief in god. Atheist/theist is a belief position. Gnostic/Agnostic is a knowledge position. Agnostic just means not having knowledge, it isn't a neutral position in between atheist and theist. That is a trick used by theists to make atheists seem unreasonable. It's a false dichotomy. It is also impossible to prove something in the universe does not exist, without complete knowledge of the universe. You can't prove things don't exist, so it is not logical to ask for that, whereas it IS possible to prove something does exist, so the failure of theists to do this is not our problem, it's just one reason why we are skeptical of god's existence.

Hope I didn't over complicate that.

a reply to: Woodcarver

SO I am going to have to ask AGAIN. What is so harmful from what you saw those nurses doing?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Woodcarver

SO I am going to have to ask AGAIN. What is so harmful from what you saw those nurses doing?

The problem with teaching kids things that are demonstrably untrue, is that they will later make decisions based on this faulty information. Decisions that will affect their life and their relationships with other people in the world.

Humans seem to naturally divide themselves based on the untrue assumptions that they are taught to believe in. If we didn’t teach kids this lie or that lie, how much better off would we be as a whole? That is the big picture issue.

If you want me to break it down to the particular instance of these adult nurses, who actually believe in tree spirits, here you go. They will teach their kids this same nonsense. It may take, or they may not buy into it. If it takes, these kids will be extremely gullible. They will have problems assesing reality from fantasy. As their parents do.

a reply to: Barcs

It is a belief position it has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with lack of facts for the affirmative position (that god exists). Atheists can believe in fairies, aliens, werewolves, afterlife, soul, literally anything as long as it doesn't include a god.

Don’t you see the contradiction in what you’re saying here? On the one hand it has nothing to do with facts, on the other it is a belief based on lack of facts for the affirmative. Why doesn’t the same apply to whatever else an atheist believes? It seems to me then that atheists hold a bias against the idea of god.

What you had to say about Gnostic/Agnostic however versus theism/atheism made sense. Point taken there, however.

You either hold belief that god exists, or you don't. You can't believe and lack belief at the same time.

I disagree with the above though, it is entirely possible to take a neutral stance and not believe one way or the other. Why should I believe or disbelieve in something? I or anyone else can simply say they don’t know and thus have no opinion or belief one way or the other.

If I say life, the universe and everything in it is ample evidence of god the absolute, you would say how can we be sure when we don’t fully know what or why it is? If we don’t know then isn’t that Agnostic? As you just defined it agnosticism is lack of knowledge, not knowing something. The real position of theists and atheists alike then should be Agnostic and the rest considered personal belief. Except in the case of the Gnostic who again in turn we can choose to believe or not believe. Or not hold a belief in one way or the other.

a reply to: surfer_soul

It isn't a contradiction. One atheist can believe in such things, like myself, because they have personally experienced them. What one doesn't do is pretend that they can prove it to other people.

From that POV, one feels that they "know", so one isn't agnostic.

a reply to: daskakik

So the same can be said of the gnostic who knows god.
I’m not trying to prove anything by the way, just trying to explain my POV and understand that of others.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
So the same can be said of the gnostic who knows god.

Exactly.

I’m not trying to prove anything by the way, just trying to explain my POV and understand that of others.

The pov of some is that you have to prove something for them to believe it.

a reply to: Woodcarver

There isn’t a problem with talking to trees or people believing that they can understand them some how. As long as no harms done. I think I understand your point though.

The problem with belief is the harm it can do to oneself or others, through indoctrination, suggestion or full on mkultra style brainwashing. People can also become deluded of their own accord and develop mental illness. OCD or Anorexia for example. I saw a documentary the other day about young people in a mental health ward. One girl talented in so many ways had Anorexia, while on one level she knew she had a problem, on another she was powerless to change and do anything about it.
Her problem was so bad, when the nurse was trying to get her to take a small amount of nutritional drink. She began violently shaking through her whole body, even while her hand was reaching out for the bottle. It took her twenty minutes just to take a sip.

So belief can be a powerful thing. It was her fear of getting fat, and her belief that not eating and plenty of exercise would prevent that, which lead to her developing such a problem in the first place...

Then we have the Placebo and Nocebo effects. Or indeed the Biology of belief. Let’s not forget beliefs can be a force for good and positive outcomes too. I keep hearing about how people are drawn to positive attitudes etc...

That’s why I think it’s important to have these discussions and try to get to the root of what drives us, so we can live better lives. (I also feel most people are mentally ill to some extent or other) I find it a shame that certain pychotropic substances that can have profound effects on ones beliefs and have been proven to help with PTSD and such. Remain illegal while other substances that generally numb the patient and can have harmful side effects are encouraged by big pharma and governments. In this way we’ve not come much father than electric shock therapy.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm sorry, the nurses speaking to the spirits in the trees were teaching kids what again? Do you know if they picked up that idea as adults, or as childretn?

How did that affect their daily life? They are NURSES, viz qualified health professionals.

Look, I'm a professional Scientist. I am no a creationist (my faith does not have the universe created by the gods, it happened, that is typical Indo-European mythology). But I believe in spirits, souls, and Gods. Yet I hold a PhD an Bachelors with honors in chemistry, two post graduate diplomas (Bioinformatics and Hazard assessment) and a Masters in Business. I am certified in cGMP, ISO, and hold a Black belt in Six Sigma, along with a PMP. Then there are the patents from my work in the Pharma industry. So my faith does not affect my day to day. Why do you thus assume others are not equally able to function?

a reply to: surfer_soul

Yes, looking back I didn't say it very well. I should have just said that facts are irrelevant with atheism/theism because they are belief positions. By saying it's lack of facts in support of the opposing position, I was really giving my personal reason for not believing (I'm a skeptic), so it sounded like I was speaking for all atheists. I didn't articulate that very well, I apologize.

Anyways, I was trying to explain that atheism is just the lack of one belief, it doesn't dictate anything about any other beliefs they hold or the reasons why. Some atheists just believe something because it feels good or they like the sound of it. Buddhism is a fairly good example of atheists that believe unverified things. However, I'd wager that most atheists are simply skeptics who don't buy into things that lack supporting evidence. I've met religious atheists, they are usually pretty cool people.

I disagree with the above though, it is entirely possible to take a neutral stance and not believe one way or the other. Why should I believe or disbelieve in something? I or anyone else can simply say they don’t know and thus have no opinion or belief one way or the other.

I honestly do not think it's possible, since atheism is defined by the lack of belief in god. Therefor anybody who is neutral does not hold belief in god, therefor lacks it, even if they claim to not know or think it's not possible to know. In the same respect, people aren't neutral when it comes to things like fairies, vampires, werewolves, aliens, etc. What you are describing is an agnostic atheist. They admit they don't know if god exists, but lack belief in god until evidence or valid reason to believe is discovered.

The real position of theists and atheists alike then should be Agnostic and the rest considered personal belief. Except in the case of the Gnostic who again in turn we can choose to believe or not believe. Or not hold a belief in one way or the other.

Yes, that's pretty much the jist of it. Most atheists and theists are agnostic because they don't actually KNOW, but there are people from both sides that claim to have knowledge on it, even though I doubt anybody really does. That's why you have gnostic theists and agnostic theists, as well as gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. From my perspective everybody is agnostic and doesn't have knowledge about god, but I could be wrong.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm sorry, the nurses speaking to the spirits in the trees were teaching kids what again? Do you know if they picked up that idea as adults, or as childretn?

How did that affect their daily life? They are NURSES, viz qualified health professionals.

Look, I'm a professional Scientist. I am no a creationist (my faith does not have the universe created by the gods, it happened, that is typical Indo-European mythology). But I believe in spirits, souls, and Gods. Yet I hold a PhD an Bachelors with honors in chemistry, two post graduate diplomas (Bioinformatics and Hazard assessment) and a Masters in Business. I am certified in cGMP, ISO, and hold a Black belt in Six Sigma, along with a PMP. Then there are the patents from my work in the Pharma industry. So my faith does not affect my day to day. Why do you thus assume others are not equally able to function?

awesome!! Someone as educated as you surely understands the standard of evidence that would be required to believe in things like spirits and gods, so i can’t wait for you to present this evidence that compels you and makes it possible for you to believe in these things. Because you wouldn’t just believe in things with no good reason right? Unless... you do just believe in these things and have no compelling reason to do so....

Waiting patiently.....

a reply to: Woodcarver

Someone as educated as myself understand that there are two forms of Knowledge.

(a) Intellectual knowledge (εἶδειν eídein), which is based on verifiable data
and
(b) Spiritual Knowledge (γνῶσις, gnôsis) based on gut feeling.

So yeah I would believe in things I can't verify. Only someone who is self important will not admit, that there is a chance, that there are Gods.

I do not have to present evidence for deities. I am not forcing that belief on you. Just as those nurses talking to spirits, are not causing any harm. What is harmful is zealots who insist their way is the only correct way. Be that creationists who try to block education in evolution or be that atheists who call all those who are spiritual, mentally inferior or unbalanced.

Again my faith, did not stop me earning a PhD, nor has it stopped me from bringing several dozen experimental pharmaceuticals to Phase 1 and beyond for clients. This is because, my faith has no bearing on how I do my day job, nor does my day job have any bearing on my worship of my many gods. Quite simply they do not need to intersect.

Now you seem to be a individual who at least thinks he is smart. Show whee my faith needs to be of any concern to my job?

a reply to: Noinden

I think the question is, why do you believe in things that you need to separate from the verifiable world? How do you discern what to accept on faith and what needs to be verified? And what constitues proper verification?

Why do you feel that some beliefs do not need to be verified?


Why do you think i would be surprised that a person with credentials can believe in things that don’t make sense? Most of the world has strange beliefs. Apperently this type of belief can exist in minds that have been taught to be rational and follow proper procedures to discern fact from fiction. I am highly interested in understanding how this is possible. I am a retired engineer myself. I have met many smart people who cannot explain why they believe in the things that they strongly believe in. My guess is that it is inherently part of our evolutionary process

a reply to: Woodcarver

The same question could be why do you feel that everything needs to be verified?

As I said, repeatedly. This is a gnosis (or these are gnoses if you feel it is multiple beliefs), they are spiritual knowledge, and as a consequence they are based on gut. They could be wrong. That is the gamble you take with spirituality.

Again, why do you see this to be a problem. I'm a functioning adult, I don't force my beliefs on others. Yet all spirituality apparently offends you. Why is that?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Woodcarver

The same question could be why do you feel that everything needs to be verified?

As I said, repeatedly. This is a gnosis (or these are gnoses if you feel it is multiple beliefs), they are spiritual knowledge, and as a consequence they are based on gut. They could be wrong. That is the gamble you take with spirituality.

Again, why do you see this to be a problem. I'm a functioning adult, I don't force my beliefs on others. Yet all spirituality apparently offends you. Why is that?

Take a stab and try to answer the questions.