Athiests are self deluded.

[Nautyskin]

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

Disappointing that people seek evidentiary support for a claim, isn't it?

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

I can say any number of things about my friend, Mark, even that he can bench-press 6000 pounds!

Does that mean Mark 'almost certainly does not exist'?

Since the bench press world record is currently about 1000 pounds, I can be almost certain that you don't have a (human) friend who's able bench-press 6 times more. This is evidence against the existence of Mark. You might, of course, still have a friend called Mark who has all the other qualities you say he has, but he's simply not the same Mark who can bench-press 6000 pounds. He's more of a "deistic" Mark.

 

[borrofburi]

Hell, we've now even seen "Naturalism of the gaps" as some kind of rebuttal to the God of the gaps.

Which is, incidentally, also in this thread, though not under that name.

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

I reject subjective experiences as evidence. But I don't think that's what you're suggesting (see below), and I suggest that tarring all of "materialist atheists" with the same brush is not only inaccurate, but so inaccurate as to be considered to be simply incorrect. Though of course, maybe the way you've defined "materialist atheist" necessarily means that they do this thing (which would make that statement a bit of a tautology). I dunno, I think clarification is in order, though you should read my following paragraph.

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

Disappointing that people seek evidentiary support for a claim, isn't it?

I don't think that is what mirandansa means. Rather, I think mirandansa means that there are indeed some atheists who really do go the extreme route of only valuing that which can be tested and understood scientifically; I don't think anyone takes this so far as to reject "love" as hormones and meaningless, but I am certain there are atheists that take this so far as to reject, say, meditation which is useful and is basically a subjective experience.... I think.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

I don't think that's quite right. I think materialists/atheists hold a healthy skepticism towards the objective claims made based on subjective experience.

 

[DragonSkeptic]

I think this conversation is his argument. It seems to be entirely based on equivocation on two different meanings of faith

1. Faith as in trust
2. Faith as in belief without evidence or logical proof.

I think that this post from another thread about Nostradamus might help those atheists who have difficulty in understanding the counter accusation of self-delusion made by the person mentioned in the OP, towards atheists. It certainly makes a change to have the tables turned on such people, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by PerigeeApogee
What do you mean 'the answers to quia demonstrations? There are no answers to it, because it doesn't pose a question.

You're saying that quia demonstrations are indirect demonstrations of the existence of God, starting from something that does exist, and deducing from there that God must exist for this thing to exist or behave the way it does.

Originally Posted by yawn
Of course they do!

They demonstrate the insufficiencey of the universe to account for its own existence. They demonstrate the validity of a question underlying all other questions. They demonstrate the intelligibility of talk of 'God'. They display the logical space occupied by the word 'God' understood as 'the beginning and end of all things.' They begin from our (varied and changing) ways of understanding the world or from understanding tout court and they begin from the fundamental assumptions of a given horizon.

Originally Posted by Perigee Apogee
What I'm saying is that none of these demonstrations so far have used correct reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that God exists, or they have purposefully omitted the thousands of other possible explanations.

Originally Posted by yawn
What are these thousands of other possible explanations?

Originally Posted by Perigee Apogee
Don't be stupid.

Originally Posted by yawn
Insults mask your feelings of inadequacy.

Originally Posted by Perigee Apogee
I don't have atheistic faith about anything.

Originally Posted by yawn
I don't believe that for one moment. Whilst not believing that there is a divine Creator who created you and me, you certainly have faiths in things that you cannot prove to exist or be true....all human beings do.


Originally Posted by Perigee Apogee
Whether or not science provides the answers in time is besides the point. If science NEVER discovers evidence for God, then nobody should EVER believe in one. If science discovers evidence for God in the future, then nobody should believe in God until that evidence is found.

Originally Posted by yawn
Do you set the stakes so high in that which you cannot see, yet perceive, and thus believe to be true?

Originally Posted by Perigee Apogee
At the moment, no evidence exists, therefore if you believe in God at the moment, then you are relying on faith rather than evidence and rationality, and since faith is unfounded, you should be restricted from spewing your religious bile on others and attempting to infect their minds with your dogmatic bull.


Originally Posted by yawn
You resort to the use of extreme language to try to deflect attention away from your own spewing of bile on others whilst trying to infect their minds with your own form of indoctrinating them...telling them that their faith is unfounded. Why are you so insecure?

Your use of the word 'faith' does not relect how the word is generally used in everyday life. In common parlance we might express our faith in a surgeon, a close friend;s reliability, a particular medicine, and bungee rope and the integrity of a husband/wife/girl or boy friend. Faith is a word that cannot stand alone. Faith has to be in something or somebody, and the reliability or otherwise of the object of faith is of key importance.

A group of Scouts contructed a rope bridge across a river. Pleased with what they had done, they had enough faith in their efforts to believe they could safely cross the river and they were not disappointed. But this act of faith drew upon earlier experience, perhaps of failures, knowing about the required thickness of the ropes and the best positioning of the guy-ropes. Similarly, faith in entrusting our lives to an anaesthetist draws on some understanding of medical practice and the testimonies of those who have come safely through operations under general anaesthetics.

So, why redefine 'faith' for the purpose of discrediting it in religion and trying to make the new definition - again using philosophical language - a persuasive definition? A synonym for 'faith' is 'trust' - trust in the safety of a shaky rope bridge or trust in a person who might be a doctor, a spouse or a garage mechanic. So what sort of sense would it make to speak of 'trust in trust' or even 'trust in trust in trust'?

A person gives an account of meeting a lady who dropped her bag without noticing it and retrieving it and handing it back to her. The lady turned out to be one Winifred Blondin, who lived to the ripe old age of 106. Many stories are told of her grandfather's amazing exploits as a tightrope walker. On 30 June, 1859, he crossed the gorge of Niagara Falls, on a tightrope. Other times he pushed a wheelbarrow across and even cycled over. Crowds were enthusiastic and he is said to have asked a bystander if he thought he, Blondin, could push a man across in the wheelbarrow. 'Yes', said the bystander confidently. Blondin replied, 'Jump in!' - and you couldn't see the man for dust! The story highlights 'faith' as more than just 'believing that'; it is 'belief + action', 'trusting in' - something, unsurprisingly, the bystander did not feel able to do.

It is not appropriate to treat faith as a blind leap in the dark. That could be fatal. People have been known to do that in the night, trapped at the top of a burning building. But if someone in that predicament, blinded by smoke, heard the sound of a fire engine's siren and a loudspeaker announcing the fire brigade's presence with a safety net, then an act of faith, of trust in what was already believable from prior evidence would be rational. In a word, to avoid fool-hardy credulity, there needs to be rationality based on evidence.

Rationality is the belief, the act of faith, that our thought processes are basically reliable. This belief underpins every human activity - even debating the belief in rationality! It is a presupposition which, if untrue, would make our speaking just noises and our writing mere squiggles.

The same points apply to atheists, and it is not clear how the like of Dawkins can justifiably assert that 'Athesists do not have faith...', especially having stated earlier that 'An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believs (that is, has faith that) there is nothing beyond the natural physical world...' Neither does it fit with Dawkin's appeal to 'Put your faith in the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with having faith...there's nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction.'

Like it or not, 'faith' is a word used by religious and non-religious people. So are there other words used to denigrate religion that can turn round and nip their owners.?

Again I make the point to counter Dawkins' about 'self-delusion.'

If we are to accuse theists of 'self-delusion' about faith, belief or trust, we have to accuse atheists of the same 'self-delusion' about faith, belief or trust for the reasons I have cited.

I know it makes uncomfortable reading for some atheists, particularly those of the more aggressive nature, but you can't dispute the indisputable.

 

[lrkun]

You misunderstand. Dawkins has faith. He believes in the Scientific method. Therefore claiming the atheists are baffled is unreasonable.

Faith in something is okay, only if it can be tested.

Faith in a god is okay, only if it can give results.

I know it makes uncomfortable reading for some atheists, particularly those of the more aggressive nature, but you can't dispute the indisputable.

Disputed!

 

[Nautyskin]

I can say any number of things about my friend, Mark, even that he can bench-press 6000 pounds!

Does that mean Mark 'almost certainly does not exist'?

Since the bench press world record is currently about 1000 pounds, I can be almost certain that you don't have a (human) friend who's able bench-press 6 times more. This is evidence against the existence of Mark.

No it's not, it's evidence that nobody is likely to possess this attribute.

"Mark exists" is a separate claim - the only requisite being existence itself. I don't think you were arguing against this, though, but against more specific, false claims about a sharply defined subject.

My objection, really, is that you seemed quite ready to almost entirely reject the possible existence of a subject by refuting only a single one of it's purposed attributes:

For example, if you claim that your god created the Earth 6000 years ago, based on all the scientific evidence I can say he almost certainly does not exist.

My point is that just because one attribute can be refuted, that's not a free pass to write the entire subject off.

Of course there's no evidence for any of it, but it's the principle at play, or perhaps even just the way you worded it, that strikes me as, really, quite unjustified.

 

[borrofburi]

You misunderstand. Dawkins has faith. He believes in the Scientific method. Therefore claiming the atheists are baffled is unreasonable.

Faith in something is okay, only if it can be tested.

It depends on how you define faith. Theists get off on using faith in two entirely different meanings: trust in something versus belief without evidence. They note that I have faith in my girlfriend not cheating on me, and that they have faith in god; this is true insofar as I trust her to not be cheating on me (based on evidence of her character) and thus have faith in her, but this is downright wrong insofar as I do not believe this without evidence, as they do for god, they are not the same definitions of faith and as such is one of them logical fallacies... the precise name of which I can not recall.

 

[lrkun]

You misunderstand. Dawkins has faith. He believes in the Scientific method. Therefore claiming the atheists are baffled is unreasonable.

Faith in something is okay, only if it can be tested.

It depends on how you define faith. Theists get off on using faith in two entirely different meanings: trust in something versus belief without evidence. They note that I have faith in my girlfriend not cheating on me, and that they have faith in god; this is true insofar as I trust her to not be cheating on me (based on evidence of her character) and thus have faith in her, but this is downright wrong insofar as I do not believe this without evidence, as they do for god, they are not the same definitions of faith and as such is one of them logical fallacies... the precise name of which I can not recall.

How I define faith is not the issue. How Dawkin's defines it is. Therefore if they wish to contest it, it must be under his definition. Otherwise, it no longer refers to the same thing.

 

[Nautyskin]

It depends on how you define faith. Theists get off on using faith in two entirely different meanings: trust in something versus belief without evidence. They note that I have faith in my girlfriend not cheating on me, and that they have faith in god; this is true insofar as I trust her to not be cheating on me (based on evidence of her character) and thus have faith in her, but this is downright wrong insofar as I do not believe this without evidence, as they do for god

But they do have evidence. They've seen god's work. His hand. He's answered their prayers. He healed their sick Uncle.

This is not .... 'evidence'?


HOW YOU EXPLAIN JINN!?!?!

 

[mirandansa]

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

I reject subjective experiences as evidence. But I don't think that's what you're suggesting (see below), and I suggest that tarring all of "materialist atheists" with the same brush is not only inaccurate, but so inaccurate as to be considered to be simply incorrect. Though of course, maybe the way you've defined "materialist atheist" necessarily means that they do this thing (which would make that statement a bit of a tautology).

Right, i didn't quantify them with "all". I said "typically". And the disregard for subjective immaterial items typifies the materialist mode of thinking. Otherwise what is "material-ism" supposed to denote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

I distinguish "materialism" from "naturalism". I respect both objectivity and subjectivity, so i'm not a materialist, but i'm a naturalist, since subjectivity is part of the nature. Otherwise, every time i say something like "this song is so heavy", i would be making a supernatural claim. While it does have a material correlate, the quality of musical "heaviness" is not material in itself, and it's still a natural phenomenon.

Can subjective experiences be used as evidence? It depends. They cannot be used as reliable evidence for a physical truth. But they can be used as reliable (direct, in fact) evidence for a mental truth. If one subjectively experiences "a personal relationship with Jesus", that does not mean "Jesus" exists out there in the physical world; but nonetheless it is an experiential truth.

Why is it important to respect such subjective experiences as evidence for a discrete form of truth? Because it allows us to understand what a physical reality look like from subjective perspectives. Why is such understanding important? Because subjective perspectives are part of the happening of the cosmos, and subjective experiences are essential features of all conscious beings. We do not live without observing any qualities and meanings; these are part of our existences. People talk about such subjective truths everyday and create various social relationships out of it. This is how societies and civilisations grow.

Are fundamental Muslims allowed to destroy things based off their subjective conviction that "Allah" asks them to? No, because: if Allah's interest is in the objective world since it supposedly pertains to his own existence, this must have a set of physical correlates (i.e. the evidence that "Allah"s existence extends to the realm of our physical world), and if the believers fail to demonstrate such correlates, they have no epistemological and behavioural rights to act on their subjective conviction to subjugate the objective and other subjective perspectives into their own subjective framework. They have just misinterpreted their internal insight, failed to differentiate subjectivity from objectivity.

Objectivity is where subjectivity can make mutual terms. By doing so, however, subjective experiences are not undone. The purpose of respecting objectivity is to interpret experiences properly whereby subjectivity is dialectally retained i.e. the process of objective interpretation naturally entails a respect for subjectivity -- note that the five senses are subjective properties themselves, and even a scientist of the most rigorous kind has to primarily rely on these subjectively established properties. The problem of both materialists and immaterialists (by which i mean those religious believers who make decisions on the basis solely of their immaterial-oriented conviction) is that they sever the constructive, dialectic relationship between both perspectives. This robs one of the ability to become more aware of the cosmos. We cannot interpret objective items without subjectivity, and we cannot verify subjective items without objectivity. Both perspectives are crucial. And when they are properly integrated, a more comprehensive awareness ensues.

Why is such a comprehensive awareness important? Because: it is less ego-centric & less division-making, and egos & divisions are roots of many troubles in our world.

 

[mirandansa]

Materialist atheists typically hold an unfortunate disregard for the significance of subjective experiences/qualities.

I don't think that's quite right. I think materialists/atheists hold a healthy skepticism towards the objective claims made based on subjective experience.

What kind of objective claims are not based on subjective experience? Scientists investigate phenomena; they have to observe and interpret information. Subjectivity provides them with a perspective which makes interpretation possible at all. And the point of scientific method is to gather as many items representing the phenomenon in question as possible to be processed within the researcher's unavoidable subjective perspective so as to decentralise their conclusions from their own subjectivity as much as possible. And a conclusion is never truly established out there in the objective world; people always have to re-construct for themselves the understanding of the researcher via reason, which is again an operation impossible without subjective cognitive intentionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality). There can be no objectivity without subjectivity.

Determining the accuracy of an objective claim requires no more materialism than naturalism. Materialism adds nothing to the naturalist enterprise of reality-finding. It embraces only half of the modalities of truth and actually deprives people of the insight for the vital aspect of conscious existence. How do materialists deal with manic episodes, for instance? They look at only the material side of the phenomenon (the brain activities, the bodily behaviours) and materially medicate it, rejecting the subjective meanings that pertain to it, asking patients to ignore those qualities rather than to properly interpret it with the aid of a broader perspective for the purpose of psychological self-actualisation. They undermine cognitive autonomy and subjective meaningful configuration of reality.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What kind of objective claims are not based on subjective experience? Scientists investigate phenomena; they have to observe and interpret information. Subjectivity provides them with a perspective which makes interpretation possible at all. And the point of scientific method is to gather as many items representing the phenomenon in question as possible to be processed within the researcher's unavoidable subjective perspective so as to decentralise their conclusions from their own subjectivity as much as possible. And a conclusion is never truly established out there in the objective world; people always have to re-construct for themselves the understanding of the researcher via reason, which is again an operation impossible without subjective cognitive intentionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality). There can be no objectivity without subjectivity.

Determining the accuracy of an objective claim requires no more materialism than naturalism. Materialism adds nothing to the naturalist enterprise of reality-finding. It embraces only half of the modalities of truth and actually deprives people of the insight for the vital aspect of conscious existence. How do materialists deal with manic episodes, for instance? They look at only the material side of the phenomenon (the brain activities, the bodily behaviours) and materially medicate it, rejecting the subjective meanings that pertain to it, asking patients to ignore those qualities rather than to properly interpret it with the aid of a broader perspective for the purpose of psychological self-actualisation. They undermine cognitive autonomy and subjective meaningful configuration of reality.

I think you are trying to pretend that there's some other reality than the physical, which is cute and all, but in order to justify the claim you'll have to use some sort of materialism to demonstrate the difference between that other reality and sheer delusion on your part. Your defense of delusion-as-reality comes from a complaint that observation is always subjective, which is technically true but in your case borders of solipsism, which would be an instant disqualification of any other claim you might want to make. When you're forced to defend your position by destroying the possibility of any position (which is the logical outcome of solipsism), you're like a chess player who dumps over the board rather than risk defeat.

I'm not sure what your "modalities of truth" stuff is supposed to be about, but I suspect that it is more nonsense. I don't think you actually understand that the words you are typing, while all having meaning in the English language, come across as nearly "word salad" when you string them together in the way you have done. A manic episode in a mentally ill person is a physical event, that causes subjective reactions in the person. I don't see how someone could ignore the subjective reaction of the patient, even though 100% of the experience is based in the material world.

Unless, in that word salad, one of the croà»tons is a claim that brain states are somehow not physical? Is so, that's just another unfounded assertion with no basis in evidence or logic.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

For example, if you claim that your god created the Earth 6000 years ago, based on all the scientific evidence I can say he almost certainly does not exist.

My point is that just because one attribute can be refuted, that's not a free pass to write the entire subject off.

Of course there's no evidence for any of it, but it's the principle at play, or perhaps even just the way you worded it, that strikes me as, really, quite unjustified.

I think you're missing SchrodingersFinch's point...

If you can refute one attribute of a claim then the claim, as attributed, is refuted. You may make the same claim without that one attribute but that will be a different claim. Perhaps you should read his post again:

Since the bench press world record is currently about 1000 pounds, I can be almost certain that you don't have a (human) friend who's able bench-press 6 times more. This is evidence against the existence of Mark. You might, of course, still have a friend called Mark who has all the other qualities you say he has, but he's simply not the same Mark who can bench-press 6000 pounds. He's more of a "deistic" Mark.

There might still be some guy named Mark but he's not the same 6000 lb bench pressing guy that was originally claimed...

Just look at the last sentence. To what do you think that's referring? It's reflecting the fact that lots of people who like religion but are intellectually honest enough to know that none of the specific claims of any of them can be supported still refer to some vague type of god who lacks all the specific qualities that every religion attributes to Him. We call these people "deists" and their god is not the same as any religion's...

 

[mirandansa]

I think you are trying to pretend that there's some other reality than the physical, which is cute and all,

The physical is not the absolute reality itself but a register of it. Spacetime is not primary but secondary. We know this because the singularity -- the origin of the physical universe -- has (had, from an ordinary perspective) no spacetime. Physical forms emerge out of an abstract order.

but in order to justify the claim you'll have to use some sort of materialism to demonstrate the difference between that other reality and sheer delusion on your part. Your defense of delusion-as-reality

Delusion is not reality; reality is not delusion.

comes from a complaint that observation is always subjective, which is technically true but in your case borders of solipsism, which would be an instant disqualification of any other claim you might want to make.

Every subjective item has an objective correlate (e.g. electricity running through neurons). No relative reality, no solipsism. (I explain it in the section 4 of https://sites.google.com/site/mirandansa/cosmos).

When you're forced to defend your position by destroying the possibility of any position (which is the logical outcome of solipsism), you're like a chess player who dumps over the board rather than risk defeat.

What does that have to do with my view? I advocate communicative rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality).

I'm not sure what your "modalities of truth" stuff is supposed to be about, but I suspect that it is more nonsense.

A truth is a representation of reality. Reality is singular, but truth can be multiple. The reality of "red" has different modalities, such as the subjective "red-ness" and the objective "red-wavelength". Both are true representations of the neutral reality "red"; both are truths, differing in modality.

A manic episode in a mentally ill person is a physical event, that causes subjective reactions in the person. I don't see how someone could ignore the subjective reaction of the patient, even though 100% of the experience is based in the material world.

Subjectivity and objectivity are synchronic (simultaneous) registers of neutral reality. The mental is not really "caused by" the physical; the mental and the physical manifest as different registers of the same reality. Hence the inseparable correlation. Correlation does not mean causation.

Unless, in that word salad, one of the croà»tons is a claim that brain states are somehow not physical? Is so, that's just another unfounded assertion with no basis in evidence or logic.

A brain is physical. So, brain states are physical.

 

[lrkun]

I can be persuaded that some atheists are self-deluded. i.e. A person who does not believe in a god, supernatural, or anything else since he chose to do so despite any reason, logic, or evidence (let's say god shows himself to him and all the people in the world/ this person will still reject god). Therefore this is the variant of a geocentrist.

On the other hand. <(^o^)>

An atheist who uses the scientific method. Objective trial and error/experimentation is more likely to achieve accuracy in his inquiry. Therefore, despite being not 100 percent correct, it should be accurate enough to imitate or explain reality as we perceive it.

A theist who uses the scientific method. For the reason above will likewise achieve accuracy in his results. Therefore this type of theist is more likely to be persuaded by evidence than blind belief in an impotent god, nevertheless he does, because of patternicity (I see, god is the tiniest block of the universe).

A theist who believes in god alone without proof. Creotard. Therefore this person will live and die, p1ssing, and praying on his knees, begging at his impotent god.

-oOo-

Why is science not 100 percent precise and accurate? (clue - being taught in high school/grade school).

 

[Deleted member 619]

(let's say god shows himself to him and all the people in the world/ this person will still reject god).

This is a bit of a thorny one. I don't reject god, because that would require that I accept this entity's existence, which I do not. However; if a deity were demonstrated to exist, then I would most certainly reject it, because I have no want or need of such an entity. I would not deny its existence, were it actually demonstrated, but I would definitely reject it.

If, despite the logically absurd attributes, any of the really fuckwitted popular conceptions of deity were shown to be extant, I'd go a lot further than simple rejection.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

A brain is physical. So, brain states are physical.

If you believe that, then everything else you said was completely meaningless, especially the "modality" nonsense.

 

[lrkun]

(let's say god shows himself to him and all the people in the world/ this person will still reject god).

This is a bit of a thorny one. I don't reject god, because that would require that I accept this entity's existence, which I do not. However; if a deity were demonstrated to exist, then I would most certainly reject it, because I have no want or need of such an entity. I would not deny its existence, were it actually demonstrated, but I would definitely reject it.

If, despite the logically absurd attributes, any of the really fuckwitted popular conceptions of deity were shown to be extant, I'd go a lot further than simple rejection.

As long as your happy. I can respect that.

 

[mirandansa]

A brain is physical. So, brain states are physical.

If you believe that, then everything else you said was completely meaningless, especially the "modality" nonsense.

modality -- the state of being modal
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/modality

modal -- of or relating to a mode or modus
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/modal

Physicality and mentality are different modes of reality, each representing quantity and quality respectively. They differ in modality.

The physical and the mental are "two ways of organizing or describing the very same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental." This view is called neutral monism, adopted by William James, Bertrand Russell, among others. I agree with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism