Do You Know Why You Don't Believe? (beliefs, experience, atheist)

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

Then you are accepted into heaven.

So proof would speed your entry to Heaven, and that's a bad thing, apparently.

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

So proof would speed your entry to Heaven, and that's a bad thing, apparently.

It's like blaming society for a child who does not earn their PHD by the age of two. Don't think of the end result as the only benefit, the journey is actually more important than the destination. You will get to heaven, there is no doubt, but what path you take is unknown.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

Exactly! What's the difference between us then? What controls your view of humanity, the earth, and the universe?

You have to have something to base your belief's on? And what do you base your belief of the universe, time, and life on? Even the scientists themselves will tell you that they don't have either figured out.

You don't care whether God exists. You don't care because, to you, God hasn't done a thing for you. Doesn't He know you wanted to be rich? How did He mess that up?

I don't care because whether or not He exists, my life will play out the same way, not because He hasn't done anything for me. You really need to stop with the inserting your biased ideas about what I think into what I actually say.

I base my beliefs about the universe on evidence.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

Once again you think the universe, the earth, and life is supposed to be about what you think is best for you.

Think of a young child crying after getting their shots. Do you think the child knows what's "best"?

No, the point of what I said was that things lose meaning if you start calling them whatever you want. I can call anything "God", but what's the point? It's still not the same thing you call "God". It doesn't help my understanding of anything, just gives it a different name. Again, stop inserting your biased ideas of what I'm saying into what I'm actually saying.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

It's like blaming society for a child who does not earn their PHD by the age of two. Don't think of the end result as the only benefit, the journey is actually more important than the destination. You will get to heaven, there is no doubt, but what path you take is unknown.

Hmm... That's kind of like saying if someone brings you food, it violates your free will to get it yourself. There is importance in "the journey" of discovery, and I think I understand your case to be that proof would cut short this important process. I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree here - will ponder that - but I still maintain that even so, it's not about free will but about development. The degree of freedom one's will has is not compromised by certainty.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Runt

And yet there have been many mystics and religious individuals who claim to have had experiences---both sensory and supersensory---of God. Some of the more interesting examples include textual accounts such as the hierophanies and theophanies of Moses and Ezekiel in the Bible (burning bush and God upon the throne-chariot) and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Christian and Muslim love mysticism---particularly with certain forms of Sufism---and the "consolations" experienced by Teresa de Avila and many Catholic women, both in Teresa's time as well as today. who read her treatise on prayer. Most simply, the sense that the Holy Ghost, God or Christ is speaking to one during prayer or even everyday tasks is a common example of the kinds of sensory and supersensory experiences people claim to have today.

All the accounts of christ speaking, feeling christ, feeling god, faith healing and the like fall into the same categories as psychic powers, astrology, telekinisis and telepathy. That is to say they are a pseudscience. We know today that we can monitor your brain and move a mouse cursor simply by detecting your thought patterns. We also can tell if you are looking at a picture, or singing or reading. We can stimulate with magnetic fields your brain into feeling various ghost sensations or use the same fields to complete inhibit your ability to speak.

The brain is a wonderful tool and is being explored scientifically. The magic of neuroscience and quantum physics excites me and motivates me to always learn more. Pseudoscience mere fascinates or flirts with science. It is a trick like David Blaine or Kris Angel putting on a show. While I enjoy their work and illusions and riddling out how their magic is performed I would never base my life on any of these tricks. Hence I disregard pseudoscience.

It saddens me when people spend more time on pseudoscience then on true science. Some are experts on UFOs and The City of Atlantis and have invested 100s if not 1000s of hours attaining that level of understanding on what is a work of fiction. That same tenacity and determination if devoted to science could change the world we live in, even its but one theory at a time or even a simple correction to an existing theory.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,

Movever, the world has become fascinated with Pseudoscience and not with science itself. Documentaries on ghosts, Susan Northrop who can channel your dead relatives and the like are becoming an infatuation. A return to an era of intellectual and societal darkness. Our world we exist in today is more driven by science and technology then at any other time yet the understanding of science and the scientific principle is declining.

Originally Posted by Runt

It is only when we try to repeat these experiences, to subject the idea of God to scientific testing---that people fail to produce tangible evidence for the existence of a divine reality. While I'm certainly not about to argue that the experiences religious individuals claim to have had are genuine---I'll be honest and say that while I believe they have indeed had experiences, I'm an atheist and don't believe those experiences were actually of the divine---I do recognize that claims have been made, and some people truly believe that they had the experience they claim to have had.

I also believe they have had their experiences. We know now that electrical current and magnetic fields can affect your brain.(These two are actually intermingled and either can produce the other but I digress) We also know chemicals can affect the brain. Coffee, Nicotine, Alchohol, Psychotics such as mushrooms and LSD. We also know that a normal brain functioning just perfectly causes us to hallucinate or see things that aren't there or to miss things that are there. All with good reason I would imagine.

Originally Posted by Runt

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with you. On the other, if mystical experiences are delusions, they're pretty impressive and widespread ones, since so many people claim, at the very least, to have had their prayers answered.

Come now, you and I both know how religious individuals respond to this very criticism. Some feel God HAS revealed himself---to everyone---and that people who disagree are just in denial. Others argue that God is helping everyone become enlightened but some just aren't ready yet or aren't listening. Yet others argue that God cannot or will not force world peace upon the humanity because that either interferes with our free will or because even conflict and suffering are a part of God's great, mysterious plan.

My main criticism to the above is:
1) If God has a plan, to enact that plan either necessitates manipulating humanity into playing our parts in that plan, or it's possible that God's plan can fail, which suggests God is not perfect or even omnipotent.
2) If God is helping everyone become enlightened, but some people die before they have reached that point, then God has failed to enlighten a person and therefore, again, is not perfect, omnipotent, or quite possibly even beneficent.
3)If God has revealed himself, but it is possible to be in denial about his existence, then he hasn't revealed himself thoroughly enough. We should be compelled to accept his existence; denial should not even be possible, although defiance may be.

For me to consider god's plan and why he has or has not taken action we would first need to show a reasonable theory of gods existance. So far the best argument is something must have had to cause the big bang but is logically not relevant as then something would have had to cause god. If our universe had a beginning and there are theories that it did and did not but argubly the theory that it did carries the most weight and is currently commonly accepted the we must seek out why. I can accept a theory of god but not the theory of a personal god.

As I have said before humans have an unnatural fascination with themselves. We were the center of the solar system, then the universe and we've always been the center of gods attention.

Originally Posted by Runt

This is a question I've always been curious about, as well. I wish someone would figure out a way to measure the amount of demonstrable benefit and harm religion has done to individuals and society over history and compare the two to determine which is more significant. I'd also be interested in comparing the above figures to those of various secular ideologies, to see how religion compares to capitalism, to communism, to democracy, to fascism, to humanism, and so on and so forth. It would be quite a task, however, to untangle religious from political or motivations in any of the above categories.

Well religions that forbid medical care exist in america today and are clearly harmful to the individual and their kids.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

All the accounts of christ speaking, feeling christ, feeling god, faith healing and the like fall into the same categories as psychic powers, astrology, telekinisis and telepathy. That is to say they are a pseudscience.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying "People have experiences of X, Y and Z, therefore X , Y and Z exist". I was saying people have experiences---which seem very real to them---which lead them to believe that X, Y and Z exist. I agree that science provides a better means of assertaining whether or not a hypothesis is valid. However, certain hypotheses, such as ones involving the existence of supernatural realities X, Y or Z, cannot be tested via the scientific method. And yet the experiences that led to the formation of these hypothesis remain. One individual may doubt their experience; another may have found the experience so compelling that they do not doubt, or their doubts are very weak and their conviction very strong. That's why I was saying earlier, if I personally were to come across a flaming but not burning bush that spoke to me and told me it was God, I would be convinced I was hallucinating or dreaming. Another individual---Moses, for example---might believe. Now, that's an extreme example. Another example is prayer. The few times I've tried to pray, and felt I "heard" a response, I wrote it off as my own consciousness speaking. Other people may have the same experience of "hearing" a response during prayer, and interpret it as the answer of God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. Now, I know what assumption I consider to be superior---my own---but I also admit that I haven't felt what the other people are feeling. Maybe their experiences are ontologically different than mine and are so compelling that they are utterly convinced they're experiencing contact with the divine. That's why I don't believe, but don't condemn others for their beliefs.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

It saddens me when people spend more time on pseudoscience then on true science. Some are experts on UFOs and The City of Atlantis and have invested 100s if not 1000s of hours attaining that level of understanding on what is a work of fiction. That same tenacity and determination if devoted to science could change the world we live in, even its but one theory at a time or even a simple correction to an existing theory.

If you haven't already---and I suspect you have--you should read Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". It's on the very topic you're speaking about, and it's very funny.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

For me to consider god's plan and why he has or has not taken action we would first need to show a reasonable theory of gods existance. So far the best argument is something must have had to cause the big bang but is logically not relevant as then something would have had to cause god. If our universe had a beginning and there are theories that it did and did not but argubly the theory that it did carries the most weight and is currently commonly accepted the we must seek out why. I can accept a theory of god but not the theory of a personal god.

I'm definitely with you here, except I can't even accept a theory of god. :P

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

As I have said before humans have an unnatural fascination with themselves. We were the center of the solar system, then the universe and we've always been the center of gods attention.

That is part of the reason most theistic religions have rung as false to me. The notion that we were created somehow in God's image, that the universe was created for us, that the world was created in such a way as to result in our development, and so on and so forth, seems so incredibly... well... I can't think of the world I'm looking for, but "human-centric" is the basic gist of it. That just seems like such a petty purpose for a being supposedly as amazing as God.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Well religions that forbid medical care exist in america today and are clearly harmful to the individual and their kids.

I have no problem with said religions, provided the only people who abide by their requirements are adults. But forcing children to adhere to such dangerous rules is child abuse, in my opinion.