Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheistic Beliefs?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    In the same way that we want there to be something to satisfy hunger. :rolleyes:

    That is sort of the point. The amount a person desires food has nothing to do with whether or not there will be food for them.

    Equally the amount a person desires the love and protection of a supernatural deity (personally I would see deities as mapping to our concept of parental figures, the provide some what the same function, providing love, security and authority) has really nothing to do with whether or not the universe will provide such a thing.

    It does on the other hand go a long way to explaining why some humans would believe the universe does, even if it doesn't


  • Options
    #123
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    No seriously, what does that intuition tell you? I'm not citing that as proof, but it's a strong indicator. It doesn't make the essentially faith-based naturalist case any more persuasive.
    I just don't make that same connection as you. I don't think it's a strong indicator of anything other than a desire to be something other than, well, more intelligent animals.

    Why is that desire stronger amongst those who have less? It may be a generalisation but I think it's reasonably valid to say that religion is more prevalent amongst the poor of the world - i.e. those for whom the prospect of something other than their everyday lives is so appealing.


  • Options
    #124
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    I dislike a particularily smug tactic many believers use to dismiss the view point of non-believers. They ask them to state their beliefs and then automatically dismiss their opinion as a negative or non-belief. But its only a non-belief from the point of view of the believer. If I asked most people if they believe in Dragons they would say "no of course not" but that is hardly a negative belief.


  • Options
    #125
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Húrin wrote: »
    In the same way that we want there to be something to satisfy hunger. :rolleyes:

    No seriously, what does that intuition tell you? I'm not citing that as proof, but it's a strong indicator. It doesn't make the essentially faith-based naturalist case any more persuasive.

    How is it a strong indicator?


  • Options
    #126
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,575 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    This all makes for some interesting reading!!!

    I would call myself an Atheist.

    I'll try and answer Blue's question of my beliefs as an Atheist (hopefully it answers your question anyway!)

    I believe that religion was generally born out of a lack of understanding, and fear (and also hope I suppose)

    Races such as the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians didn't understand how things worked so they invented Gods to explain why things happened.

    Come forward a little to the slave Jews. A leader tries to unite them, and in order to inspire them tells them that they have just 1 God, who is more powerful than all of the other Gods combined. The slaves wanted something to grasp onto, and this was as good a thing as anything else, and so the mono-theistic religions were born.

    Every other mono-theistic religion since then is essentially just a cult that caught on, whether by fluke or by the sword.

    I admire some buddhist and Krisna beliefs on how to live your life as they seem to me to promote a more positive way of living, whereas Christianity, etc... tells you constantly you are a sinner and that you have to repent.

    My essential belief if I had to sum it up is "When you die you're dead, so enjoy the life you have!" It might be hard to take for some people but I feel it gives me a very positive take on the world, my family and friends.

    I reject the idea that if we had no religions then what stops us from doing anything from murder to rape...to me that says something decidedly more worrying about the religious people who argue that point (if a theist didn't have a God to watch over them then would they just run amok and do anything that came to mind?)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    spacecoyote wrote: »
    This all makes for some interesting reading!!!

    I would call myself an Atheist.

    I'll try and answer Blue's question of my beliefs as an Atheist (hopefully it answers your question anyway!)
    Cool! I too have enjoyed reading what several have contributed to this thread.

    Also, an earlier poster (cocoa?) mentioned quantum theory. Whoa! What little I have read about it suggests that quantum technology has had recent and useful applications, but few claim to fully understand the theory per se. For example, at a nearby university (University of California, Irvine), they have somehow created (or developed) a test tube of nano-tech things (or whatever they are called), that can solve mathematical problems. It was claimed by the researchers involved in the project that their technology was informed by quantum theory, although such technology was in its infantile stages of development. The same researchers suggested that someday there just might be a breakthrough in computer CPU speed and capabilities when a living chip was created (or developed). This makes me wonder about creation, per se, in the theist sense, in that quantum theory and its application (technology) may force many of them to rethink their position that only God could create life? (Of course, this does not cover all theist positions, but certainly some...).

    I also appreciate the craic when thinking about quantum research and the plots of the Matrix and Terminator films.:D

    Like many Irish, I was raised Catholic, but I've drifted away from the Church, struggling with what to believe or not believe. So today I do not know what to call myself, and will reserve placing a label after my name until I learn (and hopefully understand) more. I am drawn by the scientific method, as well as Derridian deconstructionism as possible guides, the latter strongly challenging dichotomous perspectives (e.g., overly simplistic mores, norms, beliefs, and perspectives of right and wrong, of being and nothingness, and how that may inform the way we view life and the nature of the universe, etc.).


  • Options
    #128
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Quantum computing has exactly zero to do with creating life, not sure what this living chip you refer to is about. And if you think scientific evidence is likely to shake the beliefs of theists then lol

    Hell, even if we had a machine that could churn out thousands of new lifeforms from basic atoms the religious could still say they´re souless abominations, only God can make life.


  • Options
    #129
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Zillah wrote: »
    Quantum computing has exactly zero to do with creating life, not sure what this living chip you refer to is about.
    Not sure if we are discussing the same thing, but as said above I'm in the learning mode, with little understanding as yet about quantum theory or technology. I've only read a little bit about quantum theory, research, development, and computing. After your comment, I found a few exciting articles and books that relate in some ways to this topic:

    Early research leading this way with the neuro-chip:
    http://mr.caltech.edu/media/lead/102797JP.html

    More recent, yet still dated, with as fast as things are changing:
    http://www.livescience.com/health/060327_neuro_chips.html

    Bacteria developed to act like computers:
    http://www.livescience.com/technology/050428_bacteria_computer.html

    Nano, quantum, and molecular computing:
    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lLvo1iMGhJgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=nano+computing&ots=5wx-8u1xx4&sig=MRQvoEAOHnfk3uFotyrRhtjHx28#PPP1,M1

    Nano-computing using simple neural processing elements:
    http://www.lems.brown.edu/~yb/nsc03.pdf

    Nano-computing and the development of chemical and biological nanosensors:
    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14978344

    Still looking for the UCI research source that discussed how quantum theory and technology was suggesting a living CPU for computing. Methinks it may have appeared in a non-scholarly source, like the New University newspaper that my boatmate brings home. She attends nearby UCI.


  • Options
    #130
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Dave! wrote: »
    How is it a strong indicator?

    The idea of an urge or instinct that has no purpose at all is not plausible.


  • Options
    #131
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of an urge or instinct that has no purpose at all is not plausible.

    There is a quite reasonable and plausible evolutionary explanation for why that intuition would development in humans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of an urge or instinct that has no purpose at all is not plausible.
    How do you figure?

    There's plenty of examples of vestigiality in human anatomy, so why could there not be vestigial instincts?


  • Options
    #133
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    uncleoswald wrote: »
    I dislike a particularily smug tactic many believers use to dismiss the view point of non-believers. They ask them to state their beliefs and then automatically dismiss their opinion as a negative or non-belief. But its only a non-belief from the point of view of the believer. If I asked most people if they believe in Dragons they would say "no of course not" but that is hardly a negative belief.
    Its not really a smug tactic -your non belief makes no sence to me.

    I accept it. To me atheists who keep trying to rationalise their atheism thru science for the rest of us are trying to rationalise it for themselves.

    If I asked people if they believed in black holes and they said they did and gave me a book.............:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #134
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of an urge or instinct that has no purpose at all is not plausible.
    Occams Razor would suggest it more plausible that people want to believe in something bigger than themselves, rather than the idea that because so many people believe it* - it must be true...

    * "It" of course being hundreds of different takes on a god


  • Options
    #135
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    Occams Razor would suggest it more plausible that people want to believe in something bigger than themselves, rather than the idea that because so many people believe it* - it must be true...

    * "It" of course being hundreds of different takes on a god
    and William of Ockham was a 14th Century Franciscan Friar and I am glad to see people still find his work so inspirational.


  • Options
    #136
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of an urge or instinct that has no purpose at all is not plausible.

    It isn't entirely useless, it's pattern seeking and wishful thinking for which there are evolutionary reasons.

    There was an interesting paper in Science last October which I think may be somewhat relevant. Here's some detail on it...

    http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/seeing_is_believing_unless_it_isnt


  • Options
    #137
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    We really do need a Occam's Razor thread, it comes up all the time, it has nothing to do with simple solutions being preferred or the solution with less assumptions (in a strict numerical count) or anything like that.
    wikipedia wrote:
    This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such; it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

    For example once you have a theory that explains where cannonballs land using the initial speed and angle of elevation, it says choose that over another theory which uses speed, angle and time of day. One of its most apt uses today is in when confronted with "theistic evolution", the "evolution by natural selection" explains everything, the extra "God nudging it along" explains nothing extra, and here Occam's razor says use the former.


  • Options
    #138
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    CDfm wrote: »

    If I asked people if they believed in black holes and they said they did and gave me a book.............:rolleyes:

    Semantics once again. This belief is not the same as faith without evidence. It rests upon the understanding that there are models, experiments, observational evidence, etc, of black holes. Most importantly, these are reproducible - if you want to take the time you can go out and do this for yourself. But I'm getting the impression you'll just ignore this distinction to suit yourself.


  • Options
    #139
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    CDfm wrote: »
    and William of Ockham was a 14th Century Franciscan Friar and I am glad to see people still find his work so inspirational.

    Inspirational me foot. It's the idea which is important, not the man, and just because he has one good concept doesn't automatically lend validity to the rest of them. In this case we're just using what's useful and discarding the chaff, and with a 14th century friar you could probably bet your ass there was sackloads of it.


  • Options
    #140
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MackDeToaster wrote: »
    Semantics once again. This belief is not the same as faith without evidence. It rests upon the understanding that there are models, experiments, observational evidence, etc, of black holes. Most importantly, these are reproducible - if you want to take the time you can go out and do this for yourself. But I'm getting the impression you'll just ignore this distinction to suit yourself.
    Just because something is created in a laboratory doesnt mean they exist IRL- the only thing that was proven was that something was created in a Laboratory.Isnt there an Irish engineer somewhere who produced a short paper with an alternative theory which could not be refuted. We know they exist cause a teapot got swallowed by one:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #141
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    pH wrote: »
    We really do need a Occam's Razor thread, it comes up all the time, it has nothing to do with simple solutions being preferred or the solution with less assumptions (in a strict numerical count) or anything like that.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

    For example once you have a theory that explains where cannonballs land using the initial speed and angle of elevation, it says choose that over another theory which uses speed, angle and time of day. One of its most apt uses today is in when confronted with "theistic evolution", the "evolution by natural selection" explains everything, the extra "God nudging it along" explains nothing extra, and here Occam's razor says use the former.
    The earth is flat:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CDfm wrote: »
    The earth is flat:D

    Yes, yes it is. Good boy.


  • Options
    #143
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Yes, yes it is. Good boy.
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one -so if you take that logic you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box.


  • Options
    #144
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one -so if you take that logic you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box.

    No. You obviously don't understand Ockham's Razor very well. How does it imply that the Earth is flat? It doesn't say anything about the easiest answer being the correct one.


  • Options
    #145
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one -so if you take that logic you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box.

    You really need to read up on a few things. There is a big difference between "all things being equal, the simplist example is usually the correct one" and "the easiest answer".

    Your flat earth example, unlucky for you, is not the simplest explanation when all things are equal. In fact you got to jump through a few extravagent loops to actually believe that as being the simplest explanation.

    If I might answer the op's question, I don't believe in God. So, yes, I'm an atheist. Yes, there are things I believe in and yes, I may have little or no personal knowledge of or about them. However and it's a big however, these "beliefs" of mine, such as what someone said above, say, about black holes, quasers, quantum theory-just because I effectively "believe" in them, doesn't make them the same as a faith belief. I could very easily get more information about them from scientists. I could see how their theories worked which are open to be demolished...as long as you have that vital piece of contradictory evidence. My belief is fluid and changes according to how much I know and want to find out about something.


  • Options
    #146
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    pH wrote: »
    We really do need a Occam's Razor thread, it comes up all the time
    Go for it...
    CDfm wrote: »
    The earth is flat:D
    Clearly it's not just me that misinterprets it!


  • Options
    #147
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its not really a smug tactic -your non belief makes no sence to me.

    I accept it. To me atheists who keep trying to rationalise their atheism thru science for the rest of us are trying to rationalise it for themselves.

    If I asked people if they believed in black holes and they said they did and gave me a book.............:rolleyes:

    Nope, I really am trying to rationalise it for others (see the original poster and thread title.) There is an infinite number of things in this universe that I don't believe in, it's just that God is the one that I'm expected to rationalise for other people. And because their starting point is "I believe this and you don't it somehow becomes a "negative-belief" which is fairly frustrating and shows a lack of understanding for my point of view at its starting point.

    I could turn it around and say you DON'T believe you live in a Godless universe and therefore your entire life is based on a negative-belief. But that would show a lack of understanding on my part.

    Can't we all just get along?


  • Options
    #148
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CDfm wrote: »
    Occams razor would suggest the easiest answer you have is the correct one -so if you take that logic you discount ingenuity or thinking outside the box.

    Jesus.


  • Options
    #149
    Svenolsen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭Svenolsen


    The onus should be on the people who "believe" to prove what they claim.

    If I believe that my cat "Fluffy" created the whole Universe it is up to me to show what evidence is there to back up my claim.

    Atheists are portrayed as "oddballs" by believers.

    All the evidence indicates that it is the believers who are the oddballs..
    .


  • Options
    #150
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    It is naive to think that atheists do not take anything on faith. I have all sorts of biases and odd beliefs most of which are such a part of my thinking i don't even realise they exist.

    Taleb here says

    "To me, anybody who invested in the stock market who is critical of religion is a hypocrite".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    bou
    Registered Users Posts: 158 ✭✭bou


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    But the question is do they believe in gods, which quite a number of Buddhists do, which hardly makes it an atheist religion.

    In Buddhism there are not gods as in anything like the western concept of gods.

    Here's a very brief view from a Tibetan Buddhist perspective. There are considered to be six (or five) realms of samsaric existence where sentient beings are born according to their karma. One of these is the realm of gods. It is just another aspect or mode of samsaric existence where one can turn up due to karmic conditions. The beings there are not enlightened and upon dying will reincarnate in another form, another mode of existence. They are nothing like creator gods or with dominion over people. You might be a god in the future or have been one in the past. Better though to leave samsara.

    Deities in Vajrayana Buddhism are something else entirely. They represent aspect of enlightened mind. Vajrayana practitioners meditate on deities as a skillful means to overcome obscurations and realise their enlightened nature. There is more to it than that and its difficult to explain.

    Buddhas are enlightened beings and have gone completely beyond samsaric existence. They do manifest in ways to benefit beings. Bodhisattvas have attained a high level of realisation having overcome samsaric tendencies but choose to remain in samsara to benefit beings. All beings in samsara are buddhas but don't recognise that and are caught up in the cycle of existence.


Advertisement