My God belief rekindled(?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2017, 07:31 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 06:37 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  I am not the best at establishing what my points are, obviously.

Sorry about that.

I merely wanted to comment on how atheists can be biased against religion. I think it's a by-product of the fact that we seek and easier identify with people such as ourselves, and less so with theists, for example. I think that comes naturally. But is what comes naturally necessarily right in all cases?

I'm not necessarily saying it's bad to be social insofar as you are an antitheist, in practice, if not in name, but I think that we tend to sometimes exclude alien viewpoints, not understand as much where people come from who are outside of our bubble, and this is not just a characteristic of us, it is found everywhere. But it takes awareness of the fact to correct for it.

Why do you think religion and religious people are "out of our bubble"?

There are some atheists who have never been religious. There are some atheists who live in more secular countries. There are many (most) atheists who were brought up within religion and whose families and friends are religious. We interact socially all day every day with the religious. Our "biases" tend to be based on our own years of experience inside and outside religion. There's no one here that I've encountered who says all religious people are uninteresting, stupid, or unworthy.

There's nothing wrong, though, with wanting a place where you can interact with others without having to defend or hide one of your basic worldview tenets, where you don't have to prove that you're a worthy person despite identifying as an atheist. People on this site don't "exclude alien viewpoints." If such viewpoints were excluded here, we'd never see the posts. The members do examine said viewpoints for sense and logic and pragmatic effectiveness. Not always kindly, but so what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like julep's post
28-01-2017, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2017 07:46 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
I use the term "atheist" only because I got tired of explaining "pretheist". Any talk of God is premature if the basis of your faith is some bullshit promise of a postmortem preservation of identity. I am more of an anti-dualist than an atheist. If you're selling me snake oil you gotta at least give me a plausible mechanism of action for dualism. Many have tried, all have failed. It sure as shit ain't the pineal gland. There are of course religions that don't sell that particular bullshit but they have their own peculiar scat.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 07:48 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 07:13 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Myself, I value actually trying to achieve something than merely feeling right in what I do because I don't much think it through. You feel right saying what you say, and acting like that in that situation, but what does it accomplish, really? That is the real question.

Perhaps a bit of a shock that opens them to seeing things differently? I don't believe in coddling people with irrational beliefs just to not hurt their feelings. If they are preaching bullshit then they will get called on it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 08:01 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
In most every day situations, a belief is either true or not true. We validate the truthfulness of a claim by supporting it with evidence.

I do have a bias in believing claims that are supported by evidence. I am biased toward truthfulness.

I believe 1+1=2 because it can be supported by physical evidence. I believe the statement to be true.
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples

If someone religious has a different viewpoint and wholeheartedly believes that 1+1=3 or 1+1=4 or 1+1=0 without any evidence to backup what they claim to be true, then I'm not interested in their delusion.

When you build a house, everything you do is supported by the truth of structure. If it's built poorly, it may stand for a time, but the flaws weaken and what you believed to be true will come crashing down upon you.

The same can be said of religion. Unfortunately, religious ideas are all imaginary. If they were real structures, we could easily see their failures. They wouldn't be able to build anything. They would lack foundation. They would lack as much structural integrity as they do moral integrity.

It's good to evaluate your own epistemology every so often, but just remember to evaluate it truthfully.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
28-01-2017, 08:13 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 08:01 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I believe 1+1=2 because it can be supported by physical evidence. I believe the statement to be true.

I always think these appeals to mathematics as canonical representations of facts are off-base, all facts in mathematics are relative to a particular axiomatic framework. In this case, addition is relative to the radix.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-01-2017, 08:18 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
There are no canonical representantations of facts. There are no 'facts' in a void. Facts can only be justified by their explanatory power. Religion excels in providing explanations, they are just different kinds than traditionally scientific ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 08:18 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  There are no canonical representantations of facts.

There are but they are typically banal and uninteresting. "This is a sentence." is trivially factual for example.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2017 08:43 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
Seeing that you cannot see the difference between Atheism & AntiTheism I'm guessing you must have classed yourself as an AntiTheist.
Based on your posts I get the impression you became an Atheist because you were opposed to the religious systems given to you.
Such a deconversion is not based in logical underpinnings but rather the similarity of a religious ideology to your own ideals.
If this was the case, it is only inevitable that you will revert back into religion the instant you met an ideology that conveniently matches your own.
Unfortunately Atheism does not provide ideologies & dogmas for you to follow.
For me Atheism is about being intellectually honest with myself.
Just because someone promises me cake & ice cream if I follow them doesn't mean I am going to follow them.
Believing in a promise that has never been proven to be fulfilled (for anyone else) or even how it can be fulfilled is counter intuitive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Agnostic Shane's post
28-01-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 04:12 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  ...
I came across Jordan Peterson recently.
...

I've previously posted some studies that his team has done about political correctness (both left and right wing) and how it has its evolutionary roots in compassion. Compassion mixed with authoritarianism leads to SJWs.

Quote:...
First and foremost, what I found really odd about this guy is he made me actually think about religion in a new way. Or, rather, should I say he was the first person I came across who intelligibly confirmed my own secret belief in a unity of meaning and knowledge that covers such apparently 'irrational' beliefs as religions and various superstitions as well? Maybe so.
...

Pretty much agree with what he was saying.

Jesus as a Kantian prototype, Spinoza's kinda god, a biological imperative to maintain equilibrium and even religion as hero-myths and fan-fiction ... all good.

But he has confused 'truth' with 'wisdom' and did not sufficiently emphasise the biochemical pattern recognition software (self, other and future simulators) in conjunction with our event-detection software.

:goes off to finish thesis, back soon:


(28-01-2017 07:24 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Listened up to 02:50.

Dafaq? Blink

The fellow thinks 'fair discrimination' is perfectly okay.

Facepalm
...

So do I.

As a smoker I am being discriminated against because of anti-smoking laws. I'm OK with that.

In the US, they used to believe that coloured people were not capable of being educated so they didn't educate them and that women were not capable of understanding politics so they didn't let them vote.

Sometimes discrimination is required to address an unfairness derived from discrimination.

I think that's all he was saying.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-01-2017, 01:00 PM
RE: My God belief rekindled(?)
(28-01-2017 08:18 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  There are no canonical representantations of facts. There are no 'facts' in a void. Facts can only be justified by their explanatory power. Religion excels in providing explanations, they are just different kinds than traditionally scientific ones.
I must strongly beg to differ. It's possible that some forms of religion excel at providing explanations of certain things, but the evangelical world I came out of was spectacularly lousy at explaining my existence or predicting outcomes of various actions.

Example of not explaining experienced reality: God confounds the wicked and blesses the righteous.

Example of not predicting outcomes: If you have faith as [tiny as] a mustard seed, your prayers will be answered, even to the extent that you can command mountains to be uprooted and hurled into the sea -- or that you can heal illness with a prayer of faith and a little olive oil dribbled about.

Now if you don't care whether you get GOOD or VALID or SUPPORTABLE explanations that actually advance your knowledge in at least the general direction of truth, sure, religion is terrific at providing shitty explanations. But that's just a nice way of saying it's a great bullshit generator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: