Atheists: what would it take?

[Alien826]

That sounds like a redefining, as I was just saying in my previous post.
It sounds like science stepping over into the religious sphere by redefining life to be just testable, physical.
It is saying that the chemistry of the body is all that gives rise to life, and presumably science says that because it cannot test spirits but can only test and speak about chemistry and bodies.
But does not being able to find and test spirits mean that science has stronger evidence that life is chemical process?
The only evidence that science has is physical evidence but that does not mean that life is not spiritual in nature.

Surely, if something exists it has to consist of something. If it consists if something, then it can be described as "physical", so long as we include all the states of matter, energy and so on. So, if we discovered that a soul existed and that it was "made of" something, it too would be physical. That "something" might be totally new to our experience, but it would have to "be" something to exist. In that case it seems reasonable that we would incorporate it into our model of existence, just as we did with magnetic fields.

So are we "redefining" or are you drawing an arbitrary line between "physical" and "spiritual"?

 

[Alien826]

Hi,

All Christians are born again -
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God (1Pet1)

That is a supernatural act of God. If 'convincing' needs to be done it happens at that point because after that you believe.

It is not a choice and has nothing to do with human cleverness

I'm not sure I understand that. It sounds like brain washing to me.

 

[Brian2]

I disagree. For example, the reason some compounds are called 'organic' is that it was once thought they could only be part of life processes: that there was something special about them because they were part of living things. We now know that isn't the case.




If you can give a way of detecting a soul, it would become a matter of science. Science has investigated these questions and found no evidence that souls or spirits exist. At that point, the best bet is that they do not. And until a way is found to detect them, that is the best description.



Yes, in spite of actively being searched for.




Until there is a way to detect 'spirit' there is no good reason to postulate that such exists. And, until there is actual evidence for such a thing, there is no reason to include it in our explanations.

OK so in/for science spirits do not exist, but many scientists believe they exist. Do you think that is because they see empiricism as something for science but that there are other ways also to find out about reality and so to believe things that science has no clue about?

Sure, go ahead and speculate about such. But realize that for it to be meaningful to say such exist, that some method of detection must be found. Until that happens, all it is is speculation.

Yet things that have not been detected directly have been shown to exist because of their effects on things and because of other evidence that point to them.
So for something such as spirit, that is by definition, not detectable by physical means,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by science, why is this other evidence for spirit not seen as evidence. (and I'm thinking here of people who have experienced OBEs in NDE and have reported verifiable events that happened at those times.)

 

[Brian2]

Surely, if something exists it has to consist of something. If it consists if something, then it can be described as "physical", so long as we include all the states of matter, energy and so on. So, if we discovered that a soul existed and that it was "made of" something, it too would be physical. That "something" might be totally new to our experience, but it would have to "be" something to exist. In that case it seems reasonable that we would incorporate it into our model of existence, just as we did with magnetic fields.

So are we "redefining" or are you drawing an arbitrary line between "physical" and "spiritual"?

I don't know that the line is arbitrary, and I don't think that everything that is undetectable is seen as spiritual. If it is undetectable then it seems it is just not used in science.
When it comes to life being by nature spiritual or chemical, because spirit is undetectable and so not used in science, life is then seen as chemical in nature and that is what science seems to teach to the world even though it has no verifiable way at this time to know that life is purely chemical. The reason it says that is because spirit is undetectable (or as I put it, it is because of the naturalistic methodology of science) and so the only evidence they can see is chemical even though that does not prove the nature of life.
I suppose that is not really "redefining" if the nature of life was never defined in the first place except in a theological sense.

 

[Five Solas]

Which is the wise and rational position. Believers believe, but can't explain why they believe.

Nonsense. Where on earth do you get that idea from?

My faith is 100% based on evidence. That makes it rational faith.

Irrelevant.

Open your eyes and see how it works on the board.

The Jesus myth makes no sense

My word? Please think before you say something like this. A moment ago you said it was irrelevant.

This is contradictory. And absurd.

That is what Jesus claimed. Your denial does not wipe the facts off the table.

There are no true Christians. Christianity is a set of religious beliefs where anything goes. You can be a liberal, a conservative, a member of the KKK, a domestic terrorist, all saved by Jesus. What a mess.

It's hard to admit but that is the sad reality, yes. Many just love to be on the bandwagon causing immense damage to Christianity. But God knows His own - the faithful remnant. (google the theme of a remnant in the Bible.)

Your conclusion (there are no true Christians) based on your observation of widespread confusion is false.

(PS I've started a book about 'The many Gods of Christianity' addressing just that - too many gods made in our own image. We'll see on what journey my research leads me...)

 

[Five Solas]

Quite obscene, don't you think, to sacrifice your envoy to yourself as a condition for something you could effortlessly do anyway? Especially if that envoy was your son, genetic or adopted.

Who'd think a god like that was worthy of worship?

Thank you for sharing your feelings. Your feelings do not change history.

 

[Five Solas]

I'm not sure I understand that. It sounds like brain washing to me.

I do not understand exactly how God does that either. That is how it works. You just discover at some point that you have changed.

 

[idea]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

It would require going back in time, and changing the history of humans. To erase the pain and suffering of innocents. To give all equal education. Only if history were different would I believe in a loving, just, powerful God.

 

[blü 2]

Thank you for sharing your feelings. Your feelings do not change history.

We shall see.

 

[Brian2]

It would require going back in time, and changing the history of humans. To erase the pain and suffering of innocents. To give all equal education. Only if history were different would I believe in a loving, just, powerful God.

That is one way to judge if God is just and loving, but it neglects what could be a bigger picture as to why God has allowed evils to exist in the world. It also lack any trust that God can finish His work of getting rid of evil in a just way and uniting all things in His Kingdom and restore to people the things that have been taken away through injustice.
IOWs your are judging God one dimensionally and without knowing the full picture and without giving the benefit of the doubt to God.

 

[Polymath257]

OK so in/for science spirits do not exist, but many scientists believe they exist. Do you think that is because they see empiricism as something for science but that there are other ways also to find out about reality and so to believe things that science has no clue about?

I don't know. I suspect it varies from person to person. You might want to go ask them instead of speculating.

Yet things that have not been detected directly have been shown to exist because of their effects on things and because of other evidence that point to them.

Yes, most things are detected because of their effect on other things. That does, in fact, count as an observation.

For example, we never detect a neutrino directly. Instead, we detect the nuclear decay produced when a neutrino hits certain nuclei.

But there still needs to be a detection based on observation.

So for something such as spirit, that is by definition, not detectable by physical means,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by science, why is this other evidence for spirit not seen as evidence. (and I'm thinking here of people who have experienced OBEs in NDE and have reported verifiable events that happened at those times.)

Hmmm....it seems to me that having a person detect something *is* a detection by physical means.

The problem is that the evidence is poor and doesn't support the conclusion desired by many people.

Yes, people whose brains are under the stress of near death have common sensations. That is, at least partly, due to oxygen deprivation and the build up of waste materials in the brain. To say more would require controlling for those effects and then seeing if there is anything left over.

 

[idea]

That is one way to judge if God is just and loving, but it neglects what could be a bigger picture as to why God has allowed evils to exist in the world. It also lack any trust that God can finish His work of getting rid of evil in a just way and uniting all things in His Kingdom and restore to people the things that have been taken away through injustice.
IOWs your are judging God one dimensionally and without knowing the full picture and without giving the benefit of the doubt to God.

Past performance, future results. What reason do I have to give any belief in "god" - absent, invisible, any credence?

Faith, and trust, must be earned. You might as well worship the construct 'Satan' if past performance isn't important to you.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know that the line is arbitrary, and I don't think that everything that is undetectable is seen as spiritual. If it is undetectable then it seems it is just not used in science.
When it comes to life being by nature spiritual or chemical, because spirit is undetectable and so not used in science, life is then seen as chemical in nature and that is what science seems to teach to the world even though it has no verifiable way at this time to know that life is purely chemical. The reason it says that is because spirit is undetectable (or as I put it, it is because of the naturalistic methodology of science) and so the only evidence they can see is chemical even though that does not prove the nature of life.
I suppose that is not really "redefining" if the nature of life was never defined in the first place except in a theological sense.

What does it even mean to say that something exists that cannot be detected *at all*?

 

[Alien826]

I don't know that the line is arbitrary, and I don't think that everything that is undetectable is seen as spiritual. If it is undetectable then it seems it is just not used in science.

Science does exclude things where is is absolutely no reason to believe they exist, but it's not as simple as you suggest. Consider dark matter. I'm not a great expert on the this, but it will serve as an example. It is undetectable by any means we now possess. There is a gap in he equations that is neatly filled by "something" and we call it "dark matter". No scientist would be be brave enough to claim she knew anything about it beyond that. It's freely admitted that the next theory might do away with it altogether, but it is still something that "used" by science.

When it comes to life being by nature spiritual or chemical, because spirit is undetectable and so not used in science, life is then seen as chemical in nature and that is what science seems to teach to the world even though it has no verifiable way at this time to know that life is purely chemical. The reason it says that is because spirit is undetectable (or as I put it, it is because of the naturalistic methodology of science) and so the only evidence they can see is chemical even though that does not prove the nature of life.
I suppose that is not really "redefining" if the nature of life was never defined in the first place except in a theological sense.

Continuing what I said above, scientists would be perfectly willing to include "spirit" in their biological theories if it emerged that there was a need for it, coupled with some evidence (however slight) that it existed. They might not call it "spirit" but that's what it would be. What it wouldn't be is something separate from the natural world.

Now let's look at the religious view. I don't believe that any (sane) religious person believes in, say "spirit" and also admits that he has no reason to do so. The reasons may be strange to the scientific mind, but the belief is based on something. Putting it another way, religious people never say that something they believe in exists without any evidence.Does that some similar to science? (OK, scientists, I know the scientific method is better, and so on, but my point is simply that both sides exclude stuff that they think doesn't exist, based on evidence or reason).

So why draw a line between "scientific" and "spiritual"? The difference lies in quality of the evidence submitted, not some hard deliminator.

 

[MikeF]

I'm not sure a utopia has to satisfy everyone. On the other hand it's not too difficult to imagine a world where there vast majority of people would consider it to be pretty close to perfection. at least when compared to what we have now.

How about,
- No more destructive conflict at any level.
- Resources are shared equitably.
- The planet is respected and maintained.
- Everyone is free to do whatever they want, within the boundaries described above.

No doubt the rulers of Saudi Arabia wouldn't like women walking around without their faces covered, but as you say, we can't please everyone.

I see your quick sketch of 'a better world' to be goalposts that humanity has been and continues to work towards. In other words, we are (slowly) working our way there without superior aliens or creator entities presenting themselves and demanding worship in order to achieve these goals.

As for superior aliens or a creator entity providing it at the snap of their fingers, it would simply mean that they would change human nature/human instinct at the snap of their fingers. Either that or be a swift and omnipresent rule enforcer that has the power to set and enforce the societal plan, such that everyone is accountable to the plan and conforms universally.

I suppose if we have input into the plan and the plan is fairly libertarian outside the social requirements you outline, then perhaps a little genuflecting is a small price to pay for world peace. I guess we'll just have to wait for the superior aliens or creator entity/entities to show up and see how things go.

 

[Heyo]

It would require going back in time, and changing the history of humans. To erase the pain and suffering of innocents. To give all equal education. Only if history were different would I believe in a loving, just, powerful God.

You missed the mark. The question was what it would take to join a religion. Nothing said that it had to be an old religion worshipping an old god.

 

[Five Solas]

Surely, if something exists it has to consist of something. If it consists if something,

Not really.
What about ideas?
Is our awareness physical? If not, where is our awareness seated?
Quantum particles communicate instantaneously. Is there a physical or material link?

It depends upon whether one is a monist or a dualist. Are thoughts physical? Space is nonphysical, yet exists! Many agree on four dimensions, but there are theories of more dimensions.
God could exist in a dimension we cannot comprehend yet.

God is spirit. Most Christians entertain the idea that our spirits are non-physical entities that survive death.

Monists believe only in the natural and what can be explained naturally with no supernatural or nonphysical.

 

[idea]

You missed the mark. The question was what it would take to join a religion. Nothing said that it had to be an old religion worshipping an old god.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

No personal God for me. Nature is a controlling power... guess you have to define worship too.

 

[Heyo]

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

No personal God for me. Nature is a controlling power... guess you have to define worship too.

"Especially" is the key word here. Most religions have one or many gods but there are zero god religions like Buddhism. Pastafarians mock the idea of worship and they are a religion (at least in New Zealand).

 

[Polymath257]

Quantum particles communicate instantaneously. Is there a physical or material link?

No they do not. This is a popular misconception about entangled particles. But it is wrong.

Imagine you have two pens: a red one and a blue one. They are in a box and nobody can see them. You mix them up and pick one without looking at it. Then have your friend take the other pen (still not looking at either one). When your friend is across the country, you look at your pen. If you see it is red, you instantly know your friend has the blue pen.

No signal is exchanged. No communication happens when you look at your pen. But you know what pen your friend has (even if your friend does not).

The physical link was then the pens were together and you chose one.