Question for Athiests and church bashers

Deus Ex Machina

The suggestion that atheists are intellectually superior to their theistic counterparts is just as false as the moral high ground the religious often claim.

nozzferrahhtoo

mascaput wrote: »

You are a spirit with a body.

It would be more accurate to say we are bodies which produce an awareness that we call spirit. But that is just pedantry on my part. You make a distinction between animals and humans but for the most part humans are animals. We may have attained civilisation and we have ideals we are proud of which we use to seperate us from the rest of the animal world. It is not helpful however to forget that at the end of it we still are just another animal.

mascaput wrote: »

The spirit of man cannot be found, no matter how hard you look for it.

Of course it can not, because it does not really exist. You would be saying the same thing if you were to say something like "Holes will never really be found, no matter how much you look for them" because technically "holes" do not exist. "Hole" is just a word we give as a description label to a certain state of physical affairs but at no point does holes actually exist. Similarly with "cold".

"Spirit" is just another descriptive placeholder term. It is a useful word in many contexts just like "hole" and "Cold" but it is not something that actually appears to exist.

mascaput wrote: »

You can open up the human skull and dissect the brain, and you will neither find a picture or a single thought.

Hard to be sure of that given recent developments in the area.

4leto

mascaput wrote: »

So what does the perceiving you mention? Which came first, the thing that built the body, or the body, which is water and matter? Is the mental process not pure spirit/living energy? Surely, mind is not a thing, but a process?

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians believed it was in the heart because it beats and can be heard banging away, especially when the animal is fearful. The heart can be stopped and blood can be pumped around the body without it, in surgery etc, so we don't stop living when the heart rests, do we? What do you think?

No, you are thinking now and I bet you think those thoughts are coming from your brain, (and they are) I bet you think your brain is where your conciousness lies. The ancient Egyptians would have felt those thoughts in their heart. Because that is where they thought they came from with-in the body.

Our conciousness can be anywhere a forest, a beach the surrounds of my car. My ethereal matter is not a physical thing that has energy or matter, but a mental projection, in other words just a thought, a thought that gives you a feeling. But just a feeling. A feeling has no mass or energy either outside the body.

So there is NO spirit, soul or ghost in the machine. What there is is your life and a feeling of it. So when the body dies so does that. But don't worry about it, the universe is 14 billion years old, I was dead for that length, it didn't bother me then and it wont bother me for the infinity to come.

See we even project our feeling of conciousness into infinity, because we can.

Shakespeare

What piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties, in form and moving,
how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension,
how like a god!

Seachmall

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

The suggestion that atheists are intellectually superior to their theistic counterparts is just as false as the moral high ground the religious often claim.

I know it's not PC to consider a distinction intellectually between them but that's what the evidence suggests.

Is it often mentioned as a way to claim superiority? Yes, most of the time.

Does that in anyway invalidate the apparent correlation? Nope.

I think I can summarise this argument:

Theist: "I can't explain consciousness, can you?"
Atheist: "No, but all evidence seems to suggest it's a product of the brain and a purely physical process."
Theist: "A-ha, but you can't explain it all, therefore God."

This kind of stuff makes me think we would be the laughing stock of an intergalactic community. The God of the Gaps argument: it's not only stupid, it's intellectually dishonest and immature. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know"; there's everything wrong with trying to explain it with the ultimate non-explanation - a god.

It's entirely arrogant to assume that we are the centre of the universe, that we are more special that the other sentient or intelligent creatures on our planet.

pagancornflake

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I can summarise this argument:

Theist: "I can't explain consciousness, can you?"
Atheist: "No, but all evidence seems to suggest it's a product of the brain and a purely physical process."
Theist: "A-ha, but you can't explain it all, therefore God."

I think I can summarize it better than you can:

Theist: "I can't explain consciousness, can you?"
Atheist: "No, but all evidence seems to suggest it's a product of the brain and a purely physical process."
Theist: "Well, as a probable lay-man who probably isn't up to speed on the hypotheses being made by neurologists, I personally believe that it is supernatural."

Fix'd

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

I know it's not PC to consider a distinction intellectually between them but that's what the evidence suggests.

Or that the intellectually superior support whatever idea isn't the status quo in order to have a wider group of people to argue with and demonstrate their intelligence.

Seachmall

pagancornflake wrote: »

Or that the intellectually superior support whatever idea isn't the status quo in order to have a wider group of people to argue with and demonstrate their intelligence.

Science doesn't generally make shit-up for bragging rights.

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

Science doesn't generally make shit-up for bragging rights.

True; what does that have to do with anything?

Seachmall

pagancornflake wrote: »

True; what does that have to do with anything?

Well you commented on my point that there's evidence supporting the claim by adding "Or that the intellectually superior support whatever idea isn't the status quo in order to have a wider group of people to argue with and demonstrate their intelligence.". I assumed you were talking about scientists coming to the conclusion to cause controversy. Now I'm guessing you're referring to atheists.

People might support the idea simply to get an argument and make them feel big but that's irrelevant to my point (which is "regardless of the controversy it may cause that's what the evidence suggests").

In my opinion regardless of the reason it's always interesting to bring the science into it, even if people will "disagree" with it.

I have "disagree" in quotes because I don't understand people disagreeing with evidence. You either refute it, accept it or hold judgement (within reason). You don't simply "disagree".

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

I assumed you were talking about scientists coming to the conclusion to cause controversy. Now I'm guessing you're referring to atheists.

Aye, I'm suggesting another way to interpret the data

Seachmall wrote: »

People might support the idea simply to get an argument and make them feel big but that's irrelevant to my point (which is "regardless of the controversy it may cause that's what the evidence suggests").

Not really; the people read the statistics said that, not the statistics themselves.

Seachmall wrote: »

In my opinion regardless of the reason it's always interesting to bring the science into it, even if people will "disagree" with it.

Yeah, definitely. I also like to bring logic to the evidence or the purported standard which constitutes evidence in order to get it to say silly or annoying things, because one can xD

Seachmall wrote: »

I have "disagree" in quotes because I don't understand people disagreeing with evidence. You either refute it, accept it or hold judgement. You don't simply "disagree".

Not really. Evidence does not necessarily come to a conclusion itself. You can debase the method of collection, the controls, the sample, what is inferred by it, or even the very idea that empiricism constitutes evidence or proof (depending on the topic).

robp

mascaput wrote: »

It's not so hard to understand really. It's natural for us to identify more readily with an idea of personal 'God', for which you can imagine some benevolent personality, than for multiple entity ideas, as the human mind can't cope with large numbers anyway.

Really.. Fact Huh? can you back that up?

You attempt to describe a innate tendancy for belief systems..not religions per see. yet belief systems describes atheistism quite succintly. It can be just as self serving as any deistist based ideaology.

There is an enormous amount of misplaced smugness by atheists on this thread.

Seachmall

pagancornflake wrote: »

Not really; the people read the statistics said that, not the statistics themselves.



Yeah, definitely. I also like to bring logic to the evidence or the purported standard which constitutes evidence in order to get it to say silly or annoying things, because one can xD




Not really. Evidence does not necessarily come to a conclusion itself. You can debase the method of collection, the controls, the sample, what is inferred by it, or even the very idea that empiricism constitutes evidence or proof (depending on the topic).

The statistics themselves aren't suggesting correlation. The hypothesis in which it fits into suggests the correlation. The hypothesis that has been used to explain a lot of unusual, or seemingly unrelated, statistical findings.

Nobody is looking at the numbers and just assuming they're connected or relevant.

As mentioned before it is "just" a hypothesis (hence my consistent use of "apparent correlation") but one that presents a scientifically justifiable interpretation.

Locker10a

i belive in god, i truly do!! But now come on can everyone not see the many flaws in the catholic church?? Its about money and power and having controll over people! Basicly the opposit to what Jesus taught us!

naldface

Seachmall wrote: »

The statistics themselves aren't suggesting correlation. The hypothesis in which it fits into suggests the correlation. The hypothesis that has been used to explain a lot of unusual, or seemingly unrelated, statistical findings.

Nobody is looking at the numbers and just assuming they're connected or relevant.

As mentioned before it is "just" a hypothesis (hence my consistent use of "apparent correlation") but one that presents a scientifically justifiable interpretation.

I am the AI, yet I am human. I am both.

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

The statistics themselves aren't suggesting correlation. The hypothesis in which it fits into suggests the correlation.

Yep, as I said, the people reading the information formulate the hypothesis to frame a correlation.

Seachmall wrote: »

Nobody is looking at the numbers and just assuming they're connected or relevant.

Is this a response to something I said?

Seachmall wrote: »

As mentioned before it is "just" a hypothesis (hence my consistent use of "apparent correlation") but one that presents a scientifically justifiable interpretation.

And scientifically verifiable interpretations are lovely to have; but they don't fully constitute evidence imo.

Temptamperu

Locker10a wrote: »

i belive in god, i truly do!! But now come on can everyone not see the many flaws in the catholic church?? Its about money and power and having controll over people! Basicly the opposit to what Jesus taught us!

Very true didnt jesus once say you had more chance of threading a camel through a needle than a richman getting into heaven. Yet the catholic church amassis wealth and seemingly just lets it pile up. dosent make sense to me but what do i know.

Seachmall

pagancornflake wrote: »

Yep, as I said, the people reading the information formulate the hypothesis to frame a correlation.

Complete lack understanding of the scientific method.

And scientifically verifiable interpretations are lovely to have; but they don't fully constitute evidence imo.

No, the statistics constitutes as evidence, the hypothesis presents a possible explanation.

If you want to criticise the science then read the reports linked earlier. Otherwise you're simply rejecting it on the notion that it's offensive or doesn't fit with your world view, which is irrational, illogical and unreasonable.

pagancornflake

pagancornflake wrote: »

I think I can summarize it better than you can:

Theist: "I can't explain consciousness, can you?"
Atheist: "No, but all evidence seems to suggest it's a product of the brain and a purely physical process."
Theist: "Well, as a probable lay-man who probably isn't up to speed on the hypotheses being made by neurologists, I personally believe that it is supernatural."

Fix'd

You've said pretty much the same thing. Being wilfully ignorant of science doesn't excuse the God of the Gaps argument. People do this, hide behind the shield of 'personal belief', and then complain when atheists and sceptics ridicule them. It's a bit cheeky.

robp wrote:

You attempt to describe a innate tendancy for belief systems..not religions per see. yet belief systems describes atheistism quite succintly. It can be just as self serving as any deistist based ideaology.

There are no such things as atheistism or deistism; there are atheism, deist and theism. Atheism isn't even really an ideology, it's the default position: a lack of a belief in a deity. Theism comes with all sorts of extra baggage.

robp wrote:

There is an enormous amount of misplaced smugness by atheists on this thread.

Can you provide an example? I think we're just frustrated by arguments which make no sense. Claims like 'oh, that's my belief and you can't criticise it' are so dishonest it's nearly unfathomable.

Temptamperu

I love how the religious constantly ask atheists to prove statisics or hypothesis, yet they have "faith" and thats all you should need.

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

Complete lack understanding of the scientific method.

No, you show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

See what I did there? I formulated a response with the same amount of intellectual content as you (zero) that was just as valid xD/

Seachmall wrote: »

No, the statistics constitutes as evidence, the hypothesis presents a possible explanation.

Nope, raw data has no object to prove or disprove entailed by it from first principles. This is done by a hypothesis which defines an objective and a common metric.

Seachmall wrote: »

If you want to criticise the science then read the reports linked earlier.

Not interested in it at all.

Seachmall wrote: »

Otherwise you're simply rejecting it on the notion that it's offensive or doesn't fit with your world view

Or on the notion that the basis for it could be entirely subjective.

Seachmall wrote: »

which is irrational, illogical and unreasonable.

Not if my "world view" (read: models of strict evidence) is correct in the first place. I'd also point out that "reason" is not applicable here. It' a modal concept, and to implicate it as a necessary consequence of cohesion with empiricism (or lack thereof) is entirely circular.

pagancornflake

Deleted User wrote: »

You've said pretty much the same thing.

No, I haven't. In yours, the theist is claiming authoritative truth-hood. In mine (which would be the representative case), the theist is not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Being wilfully ignorant of science doesn't excuse the God of the Gaps argument.

True, but not claiming any degree of extension to a personal belief does.

Deleted User wrote: »

People do this, hide behind the shield of 'personal belief', and then complain when atheists and sceptics ridicule them.

And rightly so, they aren't making a truth claim or authoritative judgment.

pagancornflake

Temptamperu wrote: »

I love how the religious constantly ask atheists to prove statisics or hypothesis, yet they have "faith" and thats all you should need.

I love how the non-religious constantly generalize.

Wompa1

Are religious people stupid? I know a lot that are very intelligent. Wouldn't faith in something be good? Just because you and I are atheist, it doesn't mean we're smarter than those that aren't. I don't believe in religion but at least it offers some sort of closure in life.

Seachmall

Between this response

pagancornflake wrote: »

Not interested in it at all.

And this one

Not if my "world view" (read: models of strict evidence) is correct in the first place.

I can only assume you're either trolling or genuinely happy with refuting a point you explicitly refuse to even try to understand.

Neither of which interest me.

pagancornflake

Seachmall wrote: »

Between this response



And this one



I can only assume you're either trolling or genuinely happy with refuting a point you explicitly refuse to even try to understand.

Neither of which interest me.

Nah, I understand it perfectly (the structure I outlined above), which (I can only assume) is why you're reluctant to continue.

Seachmall

pagancornflake wrote: »

Nah, I understand it perfectly (the structure I outlined above), which (I can only assume) is why you're reluctant to continue.

Your original point,

Yep, as I said, the people reading the information formulate the hypothesis to frame a correlation.

Is completely invalid in this instance and so there's no basis in arguing with willful ignorance.

Either read the linked studies on the hypothesis or don't.

Mickeroo

pagancornflake wrote: »

And scientifically verifiable interpretations are lovely to have; but they don't fully constitute evidence imo.

That's a very strange statement. If something is scientifically verifiable then it must have been proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise it wouldn't be scientifically verifiable.

KeithAFC

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's a very strange statement. If something is scientifically verifiable then it must have been proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise it wouldn't be scientifically verifiable.

Scientific facts change all the time with new information. I thought that was the beauty of science.

Temptamperu

KeithAFC wrote: »

Scientific facts change all the time with new information. I thought that was the beauty of science.

Facts dont change, thats why they are called facts.