We Are All Atheists (+/- 1 Religion)

George-ananda · May 10, 2012

jarofthoughts said:
I will take a closer look at the website later (as I'm off to work), but I'll say for now that I am very sceptical about claims like this, and all the 'evidence' I've seen for an afterlife thus far has not stood up to scrutiny. Mostly they are based on anecdotes and there is a very good reason anecdotes are not accepted as evidence in science, which is the standard it would have to pass for me to include it as valid.

Well frustratingly to you and I there is no way available to scientists to study spontaneous paranormal phenomena the way scientists can study inanimate chemical processes in a laboratory. But it's still a legitimate question to ask if all of these reported phenomenas have a natural explanation or not.
Parapsychologists study anecdotal and experimental data and analise it with a scientific mind. They collect and present the data, consider hypothesis normal and paranormal; consider the arguments for/against each hypothesis, and draw conclusions (usually that we can't say 100%). To me this is the best science that can be done.

jarofthoughts · May 10, 2012

George-ananda said:
Well frustratingly to you and I there is no way available to scientists to study spontaneous paranormal phenomena the way scientists can study inanimate chemical processes in a laboratory. But it's still a legitimate question to ask if all of these reported phenomenas have a natural explanation or not.

Well, hallucinations are not uncommon (I've had very vivid ones myself due to medication while hospitalized a couple of years back), some people lie, some people adhere to wishful thinking, and stories get exaggerated in the telling.
These are just few of the reasons why science generally ignore anecdotes.
As long as we have not yet established that there even is anything supernatural it is only logical to base our explanations on natural causes.
When they bring a ghost or something into a lab so that we can do tests on it maybe I'll be a bit more lenient, but for now I see no evidence to suggest that such entities, or corresponding afterlives, are real.

George-ananda said:
Parapsychologists study anecdotal and experimental data and analise it with a scientific mind.

I highly doubt that is true about the majority of those calling themselves parapsychologists.

George-ananda said:
They collect and present the data, consider hypothesis normal and paranormal; consider the arguments for/against each hypothesis, and draw conclusions (usually that we can't say 100%). To me this is the best science that can be done.

What data?
What hypothesis?
Based on what?

sonofskeptish · May 11, 2012

Interesting article...
Why clever people believe in silly things | COSMOS magazine

idav · May 11, 2012

sonofskeptish said:
Interesting article...
Why clever people believe in silly things | COSMOS magazine

Cause clever people aren't exempt from being insane.

painted wolf · May 11, 2012

Clever people can't help being human... and humans have notoriously faulty processors.

wa:do

A Troubled Man · May 12, 2012

George-ananda said:
Parapsychologists study anecdotal and experimental data and analise it with a scientific mind.

Scientists usually reject the anecdotal for what it is; anecdotal. Parapsychologists misuse anecdotal evidence, hence they are engaging in logical fallacies.

No, that is not a scientific mind.

They collect and present the data, consider hypothesis normal and paranormal; consider the arguments for/against each hypothesis, and draw conclusions (usually that we can't say 100%). To me this is the best science that can be done.

That is what is called Pseudoscience. Sorry to hear you support such nonsense.

George-ananda · May 12, 2012

sonofskeptish said:
Interesting article...
Why clever people believe in silly things | COSMOS magazine

I read the article and it's the same old things skeptics always say and make me roll my eyes.

It seems like anything materialists don't accept is given the term 'Silly'. I can see through the arrogance.

One example given was the paranormal. He's saying belief in the paranormal is silly. How arrogant. At the most you can intelligently say is that the evidence is debateable. In fact many sceintists would use the term highly probable. And many clever people have had paranormal experiences so they speak from experience.

All these so-called skeptical writers are doing is preaching to their own agnostic/atheist materialist believing choir. The rest of us see them as close-minded insecure people defending their narrow world-view.

A Troubled Man · May 12, 2012

George-ananda said:
At the most you can intelligently say is that the evidence is debateable.

And yet, it has been explained time and again there is NO evidence to debate.

In fact many sceintists would use the term highly probable.

Scientists (real scientists) reject the nonsense of paranormal woo woos.

And many clever people have had paranormal experiences so they speak from experience.

Appeal to Authority fallacy.

The rest of us see them as close-minded insecure people defending their narrow world-view.

LOL!

George-ananda · May 12, 2012

A Troubled Man said:
And yet, it has been explained time and again there is NO evidence to debate.

From Wikipedia: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

All alleged paranormal events are evidence. The evidence can then be debated.

A Troubled Man said:
Scientists (real scientists) reject the nonsense of paranormal woo woos.

Define 'real scientists' . Are 'real scientists' only those that have the close-minded psuedo-skeptic view? Many, many real scientists have studied the paranormal and would differ with your statement above.

Sir William Barrett, Dr Peter Bender, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor John Bockris, John Logie Baird, Lord Dowding,Professor Arthur Ellison, Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore, Arthur Findlay, Professor David Fontana, Dr Amit Goswami , Professor Gustav Geley, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav Grof, Dr Arthur Guirdham, Dr Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright, Professor Ernst Senkowski, Professor James Hyslop, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Professor William James, Professor Brian Josephson, Dr Elizabeth Kublier-Ross, Sir Oliver Lodge, Drs Jeff and Judy Long, Mark Macy, Ron Pearson (engineer/physics) Joseph McMoneagle, George Meek, engineer, Dr Raymond Moody (left), Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris Nertherton, Dr Karlis Osis, Dr Hall Puthoff, Dr Dean Radin, Peter Ramster (Psychologist), Edward C Randall (Lawyer),Dr.Konstantine Raudive , Drs J.B. and Louisa Rhine, Professor Charles Richet, Dr Kenneth Ring, Dr Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy, Dr Michael Sabom, Dr Hans Schaer, Professor Marylyn Schlitz, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart, Dr Ian Stevenson, Dr Claude Swanson, Emmanuel Swednborg, Professor Russell Targ, Professor Charles Tart, Professor Jessica Utts, Dr Van Pim Lommel, DR Jan W. Vandersande, Professor J.W. Crawford, Professor Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Wallace, Dr Helen Wambach, Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon, Professor Fred Alan Wolf, Drs Julie & Boccozzi Beichell, etc.

paarsurrey · May 12, 2012

sonofskeptish said:
Basically, we are all atheists when it comes to the religion of others.

So here is my question

I don't agree with you.; the reverse is equally or more truthful.
Basically, we all must be Theists; there is no reason, as far as I think, for one to be Atheist.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
No intention to hurt anybody's feeling; I express what I sincerely think to be truthful.

Tristesse · May 12, 2012

paarsurrey said:
I don't agree with you.; the reverse is equally or more truthful.
Basically, we all must be Theists; there is no reason, as far as I think, for one to be Atheist.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
No intention to hurt anybody's feeling; I express what I sincerely think to be truthful.

I don't believe in any god(s) am I a theist? If so, you have an odd definition of theist.

Storm · May 12, 2012

Tristesse said:
I don't believe in any god(s) am I a theist? If so, you have an odd definition of theist.

No odder than the definition of atheist in the op.

Tristesse · May 12, 2012

Storm said:
No odder than the definition of atheist in the op.

Actaully, yes, even odder. The definition of an atheist is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, and so, if a christion does not believe in allah as their deity, they lack a belief in that deity, so, they are an atheist with regard to islam. While, I simply lack belief in any deity, so to claim I have any belief in a deity is a bigger stretch than to claim that someone who is montheistic is atheist with regard to other deities. I admit, that the OP is perhaps over stretching the term atheist, so I don't necessarily agree with it, but when it comes to defintions, the claim that everyone is a theist is much more strange.

Storm · May 12, 2012

Tristesse said:
Actaully, yes, even odder. The definition of an atheist is the lack of belief in a deity or deities, and so, if a christion does not believe in allah as their deity, they lack a belief in that deity, so, they are an atheist with regard to islam. While, I simply lack belief in any deity, so to claim I have any belief in a deity is a bigger stretch than to claim that someone who is montheistic is atheist with regard to other deities. I admit, that the OP is perhaps over stretching the term atheist, so I don't necessarily agree with it, but when it comes to defintions, the claim that everyone is a theist is much more strange.

I really disagree. Theists who don't believe in God, atheists who do.... either way, it's completely inane.

Tristesse · May 12, 2012

Storm said:
I really disagree. Theists who don't believe in God, atheists who do.... either way, it's completely inane.

I don't entirely agree with the OP's claim myself. But if I had to say which claim was more odd it would have to be that we're all theists.

Storm · May 12, 2012

Tristesse said:
I don't entirely agree with the OP's claim myself. But if I had to say which claim was more odd it would have to be that we're all theists.

Eh... I think they're equally stupid. It's not really worth arguing over, though.

FearGod · May 13, 2012

sonofskeptish said:
When it comes to the religion of others, it is easy to apply common sense and reason, and quickly discount their beliefs as false, and more often than not, downright ridiculous and absurd.

But when it comes to our own religious beliefs, we are somehow capable of suspecting critical thinking, and believe things that we would otherwise consider to be absurd.

Basically, we are all atheists when it comes to the religion of others.

So here is my question

Using a religion you do not believe in, what do you think makes otherwise rational human beings capable of believing things that they would otherwise consider to be false or absurd?

Your view that all of us are atheists,because we have many beliefs,and everyone think that
the others are wrong and his religion is the right one and so on,don't make sense.

We have some groups of people who are using drugs and the others don't use drugs.

The one who are using drugs are deviated from the straight path,but they don't know that they are doing so.

if a killer have a faith that killing someone for money may cause a big suffer and tragedy to
his family,then he won't kill him,whereas we can see criminals who can kill thousands without
thinking what tragedy that they may cause to the families when some of their love ones killed.

So do you think those criminal are in the straight path.

Even though there are many religion choices,there is one right and the others are wrong,then
it is your problem if you can see that yours are right,but that will not mean that the others are wrong.

Me Myself · May 13, 2012

jarofthoughts said:
Well, a statement or an explanation is either correct, or it is not.

That´s true.

but also false

I can tell you, it is nighttime.

Now, if I am telling you this, your first assumption may be that when I wrote this it was nighttime where I live, but it doesn´t need to be the case. I may have wrote it in day time and still be correct, because I could be saying that it is night time without saying WHERE it is night time.

likewise, if I say itis nighttime now, I may be right in Ecuador and wrong in China, even if I post this in a chat that has both ecuadorians and Chinese people in it and everyone reads it at the sime "time", it will still be both "correct" and "true".

Ultimately, you could say that it is both right and wrong, but the most accurate thing to say is that it is : inaccurate to say "it is nighttime"

Likewise, many religious statements could be judged as being a vague representation felt quite literaly at the time, that may not be 100% correct, but that can also not be 100% wrong. so saying how correct it was may be the best case scenario.

All this said, you don´t really have to believe in all religious claims to believe in all Gods. I believe that almost any God you can speak of probably existed or exists, that doesn´t mean this I worship such god nor that I believe that his prophecies are ture nor need I believe that anything that people say are his propphecies really are his prophecies. So, even though I could be said to be one of the "least atheist" persons, I most definetely know I am not of all religions. I am of "all" in a sense, but it is more accurate to say I am of none, and even more accurate to say I don´t care.

I have believes common to many religions.

It would be unaccurate for me to say that I am NOT a Christian, because I pray to Christ and feel I follow him. It would most of the times also be unaccurate to simply say that I am a christian, because my blieves are so different from what anyone puts in his mind when you say someone is a "christian" that without througout explqanation, that true statement becomes behemently measleading, and ina significant way, incorrect.

So to sum it up, I conclude in the way I started.

I agree that that things are either correct or incorrect.

But I also disagree.

paarsurrey · May 13, 2012

Tristesse said:
I don't believe in any god(s) am I a theist? If so, you have an odd definition of theist.

I did not provide any definition of an atheist. I meant by default one must be a Theist, till one doubts for some reason or for some invalid reason and becomes an atheist.

jarofthoughts · May 13, 2012

Me Myself said:
That´s true.

but also false

I can tell you, it is nighttime.

Now, if I am telling you this, your first assumption may be that when I wrote this it was nighttime where I live, but it doesn´t need to be the case. I may have wrote it in day time and still be correct, because I could be saying that it is night time without saying WHERE it is night time.

likewise, if I say itis nighttime now, I may be right in Ecuador and wrong in China, even if I post this in a chat that has both ecuadorians and Chinese people in it and everyone reads it at the sime "time", it will still be both "correct" and "true".

Ultimately, you could say that it is both right and wrong, but the most accurate thing to say is that it is : inaccurate to say "it is nighttime"

Likewise, many religious statements could be judged as being a vague representation felt quite literaly at the time, that may not be 100% correct, but that can also not be 100% wrong. so saying how correct it was may be the best case scenario.

All this said, you don´t really have to believe in all religious claims to believe in all Gods. I believe that almost any God you can speak of probably existed or exists, that doesn´t mean this I worship such god nor that I believe that his prophecies are ture nor need I believe that anything that people say are his propphecies really are his prophecies. So, even though I could be said to be one of the "least atheist" persons, I most definetely know I am not of all religions. I am of "all" in a sense, but it is more accurate to say I am of none, and even more accurate to say I don´t care.

I have believes common to many religions.

It would be unaccurate for me to say that I am NOT a Christian, because I pray to Christ and feel I follow him. It would most of the times also be unaccurate to simply say that I am a christian, because my blieves are so different from what anyone puts in his mind when you say someone is a "christian" that without througout explqanation, that true statement becomes behemently measleading, and ina significant way, incorrect.

So to sum it up, I conclude in the way I started.

I agree that that things are either correct or incorrect.

But I also disagree.

So, to sum up what I got from your post:
Statements and explanations are either correct or they are not.
If there is ambivalence as to whether it is one or the other, that means that the statement or explanation is lacking because it does not contain all the necessary facts to accurately understand them.

Considering your 'night-time' example: you could have easily clarified that statement by saying 'Here in [location] it is now [time], and it is therefore night-time here as I am posting this.

Simple, no?

In other words; a vague or ambiguous statement or explanation is simply lacking in the are of clarifying facts.
Which means that things are either correct or they are not.
It is merely a question of how far into the level of detail one is prepared to go.

We Are All Atheists (+/- 1 Religion)

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

Empirical Curmudgeon

It is what it is

Being

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

Active Member

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Well-Known Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Well-Known Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Freedom Of Mind

Back to my username

Veteran Member

Empirical Curmudgeon