Atheism

Roger.

 

To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny.........In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners.

 

It's not denying. It's simply facing reality. I'd rather not live in fear and shackle myself to a belief system and rely on such scare tactics.

To think slavery ended. But it still exists in the minds of many people who cling to religion in seek of comfort. And I wonder, why? Why live like a slave, especially when you're fully capable of performing practical applications such as engineering or mathematical theories? You're allegedly a person with practicality. But with posts like yours, especially denying things like evolution, I do tend to question your intelligence and your sense of reality. To me, your world requires an utmost amount of faith to think you're better off thinking you're a product of shit as opposed to gradual change.

Perhaps, you still find it comforting to live in your own world rather than face some facts.

 

What do you know to be fact? I'm not defending what Arch said since that is between you and him but I am curious as what you think is fact? The term seems to be ever evolving.

 

The very nature of humans being fully capable of constructing ideas to cope with certain unknowable elements. Rather than seeking answers, they supplement such voids with imaginative ideas that have survived for a long time since the inception of humans being capable of thought.

But, we often muddle our thoughts and want to perceive the supernatural as being "reasonable."

That's a fact.

 

Well for those who are suffering, which most humans are in one way or another, why not indulge in the imaginative?
I get why it would bother you when someone tries to impose their feelings and beliefs on you as it would bother anyone but what do you lose in allowing them the peace that such delusions bring?
Are they in need of your unsolicited corrections?
Every person has to make their way through this life in a way that best suits them, is it really up to any of us to decide how?

 

There's always a time for individuals to engage into the imaginative. That, I cannot argue. But when people, especially grown adults, solidify themselves into the imaginative, it's no longer a means of reason. But rather, some form of escapism instead of owning up to the idea that they either simply don't know or willing to concede that they have to supplement that void with something.

Archman's a Professional Engineer in Florida and the weight of so many denizens in that state falls onto him in case those structures were to collapse by his stamping of various documents. The rational, professional side of him knows very well that there are a lot of consequences should certain structures fail to meet certain building code standards.

With that said, I know he's capable of rationalizing more than what's studied to do. Yet, certain delusions keep him...shackled for lack a better word.

 

If his rational professional side is in tact that of what consequence is it to anyone what delusions he chooses to escape into? Apparently he can do his job and if his faith helps him through his life why should any of us challenge that?
I always have to wonder do a lot of atheist truly believe there is no God? And if so why do you care if others do? Unless they are trying to force their views on you of course and even then its not a matter of fact or fiction just people respecting others personal space/beliefs.

 

Forcing their views in the form of politicians swaying and giving into that wing of the electorate. I wouldn't care about people believing in what they believe as long as they keep their beliefs on a personal matter.

But, if you've paid attention to the last 30-40 so years in American history, you'd know that it's a dangerous component. To turn this nation into a theocracy would lead it into a downward spiral.

Let's count the ways:
1. Abortion/women's rights
2. LGBT rights
3. Inserting god into science classrooms and denying scientific claims
4. Stem-cell research
5. Euthanasia
6. Economics
7. Foreign policy

All those above are solids as to why I carry a great deal of concern of the direction of this nation. When the people who hold the most influence are the very same people who would legislate laws blocking or impeding on the progress to keep this nation strong.

Granted, these individuals are part of the conservative orthodoxy, who are more likely to embrace theological measures and oppose secularism. This is a war on reason and it's highly damaging, especially when we have "The Bible Belt" and other groups.

And as for our lack of belief? There's simply no need to believe in one given that there's no empirical, sufficient evidence on the existence of God. But there's greater proof as it stands that it's all conceived by human thinking as opposed to something mystical element.

I'd be perfectly fine if people actually didn't interject their religious beliefs onto others and wear it in their hearts as opposed to on their sleeves. This isn't the cynic in me. This is just the observational side of me.

 

But it makes no sense to impose on the views of individuals because as youve seen it changes nothing it just polarizes people. And I would argue there is empirical evidence of God but not an Abrahamic God but thats another debate all together.

 

People who often assert that there is proof of a god would often shoot themselves in the foot since it fails the scientific method altogether. In other words, it's not empirical. It's just a personal idea crafted through human egoism.

But I do see you're missing the picture here. You're correct that it would make no sense in a perfect world, free of intervention. But we're under a constitutional republic and laws dictate how and what we should do to live our lives.

Absolute freedom doesn't exist. It's all an illusion as long as you're under a governing rule.

 

I think God is too much of an expansive term so from now on I'll use the term cosmic consciousness if that appeases you more. Btw a lot things were not empirical until they became so. How would one measure or assert the ionic sphere in 1308? Yet it still existed. But we've had this conversation a bunch of times to no avail so I respect your right to think how ever you like.
Here is literature that I've examined on the topic http://www.ctmu.org/
There is a lot more on the site beyond that one article.

And I'm not missing the picture as much as acknowledging that zealots on either side of this equation put people in a position to never be able to compromise on anything which leads to never ending conflict. As far as political beliefs are concerned, do what has always been done. Find like minded people to move your cause forward instead of belittling those who don't agree with you. It solves nothing.

 

I don't buy in Langan's theory of mind and reality at all. He may tout himself as "the smartest person in the world", but when you're asserting abstract ideas without the slightest idea on how certain sciences actually work for it to be proven true, then it's all about making a profit and selling the masses by playing around with numbers and minds.

This is an old psychological technique called confirmation bias. And Langan does a tremendous job at it. Remember, dualism is such a popular philosophical concept and Langan seemingly is playing a hand at it. I'm sure if he had any real weight in science, the smartest person in the world would have actually have greater influence by now. But, there are a lot of smart of people in the world, and it's not measured by numbers.

That's the critical flaw here. Again, confirmation bias.

 

I thought he was asserting what many might consider quantum mechanics. And as far as the smartest person in the world having great influence there is a shit ton of politics involved in that. I don't know if he is but every study I've read about his IQ ALWAYS puts him at above the genius mark.
My point with this discussion about atheism is that empirical evidence in the present does not predict all things nor can it. Science is an evolving discipline so if you want to say religion doesn't paint the entire picture fine but saying that there is nothingness without actually being dead leaves the argument null. Are we truly beyond just living and let live?

 

A person's IQ doesn't really determine how smart a person is. I believe we've came to that agreement two years ago in another topic regarding IQ.

IQ is a perfect measure of how well someone can do on an IQ test. For other things it is a less than perfect measure.

An IQ test measures 3 aspects of "intelligence" whereas cognitive scientists and psychologists can probably list more than 20 aspects. So it is an incomplete measure of intelligence, and intelligence is something controversial to define in the first place.

Still, there are some correlations between IQ and success (sorry, too lazy to dig up sources to substantiate it but I have seen the data before).

Also, IQ is not correlated strongly with critical thinking skills. People of very high IQ still suffer just as much from cognitive biases, for example, as people of much lower intelligence

You're correct in one way, but again, you're missing the point. Yes, we don't have all the answers, but does that mean that we would have to take the lazy way out and supplement that void with some spiritual ideas to cope with what we lack? That's arrogance right there, especially when you take an abstract idea, and endorse as something as satisfying. We're creatures searching for answers, and the proper way of doing it is not to create this fundamental supernatural idea and convince yourself that it's the best answer. It's not.

People often get offended by such statements, but tough shit. They take issue with it, they have to eat it. You can't cross-examine atheists for being more practical in seeking answers in more respectable fields. We may not know what happens after death currently, but there will be devices in the future (long after our deaths) that would help explain it.

And that leads to this...science has really stood the test of time and continues to evolve. That's why science has been a strong reliable study to prove things to be factual and make our understanding of life much easier.

 

We can pontificate on this issue until we are blue enough in the face to close our eyes for the last time.....After that, for some of us, it would have been a roll-of-the-dice gamble..........Hell, we just might wake up naked, flat-footed and isolated to face a judgement...........

 

How the atheist and pussy all came into one sentence beats my imagination.

 

If you firmly believe that your life is meant to meet a tragic end, then that's fine. But please, do not push your misery onto others. It's unhealthy enough that you're creating self-guilt and inadvertently calling yourself a piece of shit, but to go out your way and question others who would rather be honest with themselves and not be deluded?

That's a sign of a person with issues. I'm waiting for that bomb to explode and the train's never late.

 

Fact, being a form of human understanding, is ever evolving. Religion can't keep up. Truth... humans aren't really designed for it, not really relevant to finding food and shelter and raising cubs, Truth does it's thing regardless.

 

Yes.