Poll shows atheism on the rise in the U.S.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Just as soon as believers in the supernatural stop claiming that their beliefs actually really do existance.......

Um, no. That's not the way it works.

That is exactly how it works.

People can have faith in the 'supernatural' and make faith-based claims and there isn't a damn thing science can do about it. Science should stay the hell out of it. Faith-based claims are outside the scope of science.

As long as they say "I believe" that is fine.

As soon as they say "XYZ (objetively) exists.." then it is perfectly reasonable to look at het evidence

But they are not outside the scope of mysticism. Want to test a faith-based claim? Build your own contemplative 'telescope'.

I haev no interest in testing faith based claims at all.

When science tries to interfere with faith-based claims it turns into scientism. That's bad.

"Science" doesnt' interfer with anything. And Peole should not use sciecne to try to investigate beliefs - I agree.

But as above, when people start saying "I have proof purports to represent the claim as a fact rathe than a belief? then that is "faith based claims" moving into the realms of science - not vice versa.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And Peole should not use sciecne to try to investigate beliefs - I agree.

That's what people are doing when they don't bother to understand the limits of science, and when they don't bother to read between the lines of religious fundamentalist dogma. Scientism thralls are reactive not proactive.

People are lazy, ignorant, and uninformed. They can't connect the dots. They can't compare. They don't realize that science has been studying the 'archetype of mana' for over a hundred years. Oh, there is good evidence to support its reality.

But evidence for belief-based phenomena isn't "proof"... and proof will never come. Not until we radically change the rules of science to compenstate for subjective correlates such as belief, disbelief, attitude, intention, etc.

"The scientific investigations of ESP have been pursued with dogged determination for long periods of time, initially by Joseph Rhine at Duke University, later by Harold Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute, and recently by many other groups. The history of these efforts is murky, partly because there were some accusations of cheating in Rhine's laboratory, and partly because much of Puthoff's work was sponsored by the CIA under conditions of secrecy. Elizabeth Meyer gives us the clearest account of ESP research that I have seen, with an excellent bibliography of relevant documents. The results of the scientific investigations were in the end disappointing. Investigators claimed to have positive and statistically significant evidence of ESP, but the positive results were always marginal, large enough to be statistically significant but not large enough to convince a skeptical critic.

There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science. These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable. If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration."

-Freeman Dyson, Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the
Human Mind

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And Peole should not use sciecne to try to investigate beliefs - I agree.

That's what people are doing when they don't bother to understand the limits of science, and when they don't bother to read between the lines of religious fundamentalist dogma. Scientism thralls are reactive not proactive.

You missed my point entirely - which does not surprise me.

It was that when believers in religious dogma tells us that it (the dogma) is objectively true then they lay themselves open to being objectively investigated, and it is then their own fault that the claims get rejected.

If you want to have spiritual beliefs that are not lambasted by scence then keep them as spiritual beliefs and don't try to claim that they are objectively true.

reply to post by BlueMule

Not until we radically change the rules of science to compenstate for subjective correlates such as belief, disbelief, attitude, intention, etc.

Yup...I suppose that change will come sooner or later. But it's ridiculous that skeptics even exist - one almost ponders whether skeptics at the academic level even exist, or do they serve an ulterior agenda??

Occult phenomena is nothing new. It's been the interest of mystics, and the nobility in particular, for ages. So what is one to make of the modern prejudice against it?? Have they never tested it out? Learned how much belief - the subjective attitude of the practitioner - influences the result???

I don't know. Something just doesn't add up.

reply to post by dontreally

You can claim that it was actually mans wild imagination, but that's besides the point.

Specifically the belief the bibles of the world represent the mind of God.

You cannot say with immunity: God doesn't interact with man. Because history contradicts that argument. The Jews contradict it. Divine law - which coincidentally is the basis of early modern law - contradicts it.

History contradicts that argument only on the basis of faith. I would have to have faith that those historical people had those revelations. In order to have faith in that I would have to have faith there was a Christian God to begin with. It's circular reasoning. No different than saying the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God. It's faith. Nothing more nothing less.

*what Lucid said* People often present these arguments for God existence but those arguments don't extend to why it follows that Christianity represents that God over say Islam or any other monotheistic religion.

Perhaps there exists a divine relativism?

Sorry I don't follow.

Do you mean in a sense all these religions are true? That any of those paths is the path to God?

The problem with that is the fact these dogmatic religions have specific rules and moral mandates. If they are all 'true' then they are in conflict with eachother and that begs the question as to why the hell God would be so damn confusing if his ultimate interest was in moral guidance.

If it's a lie, how on earth did they ever get so many people to believe it?

No offense truly but I had to chuckle at that! This is a conspiracy site afterall

The modern evidence for something that happened 3400 years ago, granted, is lacking. But perhaps there's an academic bias against such evidence? After all, our modern academic institutions are unequivocally Hellenistic in their foundations, based on Hobbesian and Humeian thinking.

If you could collect some information and evidence to support that I would absolutely love reading it if your were to make a thread on it! Academia aside, the Christian force has been strong in society so I imagine it would be hard for that bias to have been so prevalant and persistent.

People are beginning to see religion is nothing more than a Nigerian Email Scam. It was only a matter of time. It doesn't take anything away from the existence of a higher power. It only takes away the power of false divisive manipulating control machines called Religion. It's good to see more people are waking up. It's sad to meet someone who's mind has become so spiritually addicted and dependent on these clearly false beliefs. There's really nothing you can do but keep feeding them their religion drug. To take it away would make them crumble. It should be considered mental abuse to take kids to church.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Yup...I suppose that change will come sooner or later. But it's ridiculous that skeptics even exist - one almost ponders whether skeptics at the academic level even exist,

Skeptics at the "academic level" are often called scientists.

Think about it - how much science has been disproved or superseded by "occult phenomena" (or religion, etc)?? And how much science has been superseded or disproved by science??

Occult phenomena is nothing new. It's been the interest of mystics, and the nobility in particular, for ages. So what is one to make of the modern prejudice against it?? Have they never tested it out? Learned how much belief - the subjective attitude of the practitioner - influences the result???

I don't know. Something just doesn't add up.

Yep - what doesn't add up is that people keep insisting stuff exists when there is no evidence for it - it's weird.

Originally posted by BlueMule
[
But evidence for belief-based phenomena isn't "proof"... and proof will never come. Not until we radically change the rules of science to compenstate for subjective correlates such as belief, disbelief, attitude, intention, etc.

Science already takes into account "belief, disbelief, attitude, intention, etc." - they are things that can interfere with establishing objective evidence - and this is precisely the reason why science is useful - BECAUSE it seeks to do away with unprovable "Evidence".

"The scientific investigations of ESP have been pursued with dogged determination for long periods of time, initially by Joseph Rhine at Duke University, later by Harold Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute, and recently by many other groups. The history of these efforts is murky, partly because there were some accusations of cheating in Rhine's laboratory, and partly because much of Puthoff's work was sponsored by the CIA under conditions of secrecy. Elizabeth Meyer gives us the clearest account of ESP research that I have seen, with an excellent bibliography of relevant documents. The results of the scientific investigations were in the end disappointing. Investigators claimed to have positive and statistically significant evidence of ESP, but the positive results were always marginal, large enough to be statistically significant but not large enough to convince a skeptical critic.

There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science. These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable. If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration."

-Freeman Dyson, Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the
Human Mind

lol - that's quite amusing - he "believes" that ESP exists but is untestable "with the clumsy tools of science"......well that's easily fixed - the "clumsy tools of science" wont' be as clumsy in 500 years - perhaps if ESP exists then it will be proven then.

To say that it cannot be proven is nothing more than crystal ball gazing.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Christ almighty.... nevermind... see what you want to

reply to post by HIWATT


Religion.

The ultimate conversation stopper...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



He's been putting words in my mouth since my first post here so I'm out.

Have a nice day fellas

reply to post by HIWATT


So counter it. Don't give up. Use your mind to its fullest faculty. If you feel defeated on this front perhaps you should re-evaluate your source of intellectual and moral thought.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Perhaps its for the best that fools think as you do. Carry on, foolish Gaul. Embrace your ignorance. After all, fools who persist in their folly eventually become wise.

Originally posted by dontreally

I don't know. Something just doesn't add up.

Its a kind of yin/yang thing. For yin to exist there has to be yang, and both of them dance to the hidden harmony of the Tao. For periods of enlightenment to exist there has to be periods of ignore-ance.

'Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false'
2 Thessalonians 2:11

It really isn't skeptics fault - they are being fooled by their own unconscious psi. In other words, by the archetype of the trickster. Its the sheep-goat effect on a parasociological scale.

www.tricksterbook.com...

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
It only takes away the power of false divisive manipulating control machines called Religion.

That's a childish attitude.

"All religions are true for their time; they are true as metaphorical representations of the range of human psychological and spiritual experience" -Joseph Campbell

As culture advances metaphorical representations become obsolete, not "false". It's just a matter of finding the truth in them, extracting it, experiencing it, and then updating the metaphors into forms that the new stage of culture can grok.

this bit of scripture is odd

Originally posted by BlueMule

'Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false'
2 Thessalonians 2:11

Why would god send a strong delusion – I thought tricking people was Satan’s job?
If you love somebody wouldn’t you try to give the clarity?

And the whole thing of a creator feeling the need to fool his creation is just bizarre on so many levels

reply to post by Annee

NO. Intelligence is nothing if not applied.

If you lose all logical thinking - - - because someone mentions Jesus - - - I personally find that extremely debilitating.

I certainly agree with that, Anne. I have seen some pretty intelligent people get religious, and then all logic goes out the window. Some, however, still use their intelligence, they become preachers.

reply to post by Annee

Stupid is objective.

Stupid is also a choice. One chooses to be stupid by refusing to even read anything considered occult or anything else not Christian/Muslim/Other Book Religion oriented material. A stupid person has made a conscious decision not to learn new things. And Ignorant person, however, is willing to learn, and ofter does, provided the medium is available for them.

reply to post by Annee

How do you know these atheists? I'm really curious. I have never met another atheist just walking about the mall or grocery store.

I have had Christians come right up to me and start conversations and question me about what I believe.

So true! I have never had a person approach me and try to get me into atheism, or even say, "I am an atheist." This only comes when one questions them on religious matters. A Christian though will cross the street to gain a new "convert," or, in my view, a new cult member, and they will "witness to you" all day if you let them talk. Why do Christians want everyone else to join them? Are they that insecure?

reply to post by rickymouse

By the way, they say they are Atheists if you mention god almost immediately.

That is because they do not wish to hear a sermon on how they need to give their heart, soul, and human will to an invisible deity or a dead man.
I am about as Pagan as they come, and believe me, I quickly shut up excited Christians too.