It has nothing to do with study of subjective experience. As Ramachandran puts it…
“the problem of qualia is not necessarily a scientific problem, because your scientific description is complete. It’s just that the description is incomplete epistemologically because the experience of electric current is something you never will know.”
Nothing drives me. Seriously, I’m the least driven person I know. I’m content just existing, floating like a feather here and there, taking it all in.
But many religiony folks would call this the introduction to namby-pamby relativism.
Some beliefs are harmless (believing that angels talk to people). Some are beneficial (believing that God wants people to be kind and generous). And some are harmful (believing that group X should be slaughtered or enslaved).
It seems to me it is better for society to get individuals away from grabbing at beliefs so easily. Beliefs are driven by guts, not brains. Both can be wrong, but as anyone who has ever tried to argue with a delusional person knows, gut-based ideas are extremely hard to let go off. Whereas minds change more easily.
One thing that my educational experience has taught me is how unreliable my gut is as an arbiter of truth. And I’ve noticed this in other people. It seems to me that people who have studied more tend to be more flexible in their positions. They can be wrong, but they often seem more receptive to being corrected with facts and new information. On the other hand, IMHO, people who have not been trained to avoid thinking with the gut tend to be more adamant and defensive when they are challenged about their understanding and seem more likely to argue through fallacy (“Everyone knows this”). Going to school challenges your beliefs and teaches you that there’s a truth outside of your direct experience. And when you can admit you are wrong, then are more likely switch courses and try new things. This is what sparks innovation. Belief didn’t invent the computer. An advanced synthesis of well-substantiated facts did.
So I don’t think all beliefs are equal. I believe the belief system that is critical of belief-making in general is superior to others.
I never understood theism. Follow all these rules during this (relatively short) life so that you can have a blissful eternity. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Who would set up a system like that? It seems simultaneously cruel and demeaning. I’m supposed to be a puppet, but one with free will? I can make choices but even relatively small wrong choices produce ghastly eternal consequences? No thanks. (N.B. these are not the only, or even the main reasons I am an atheist, just the ones that come closest to answering the OP. The reasons most compelling to me are the logical ones.)
What drives me is to take best advantage I can of the time I have here. I like exercising my capacities and growing to be a better person, in whatever area that might apply. It’s the process, though, that is important, not the end goal. You might ask What’s the point of growing and becoming a wonderful person just in time to snuff it? The point is the process of getting there. The purpose of life is to live it.
Later, when I get quite old, I might be reduced to just observing and thinking, rather than doing, but even that is better than nothing. If or when I get to the point where I can’t even observe or think, then it will be time for me to go (if I have any choice about it).
I don’t have any qualms about this view, since I have held it since a very early age, and I am used to it. I am comfortable with the concept of ceasing completely to exist, when my time has run out. I prefer to let it run out naturally than to be cut short, but what happens, happens.
My final point is that these views are not what drive me in life. That is, the lack of a deity and an afterlife are not primary motivators for me. The primary motivator is to achieve self respect, and to keep it. I’m not sure I can articulate why that is important to me, but it is.
Roddy
Ok, none of those terms mean what you think they mean.
“Empirical” means verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
“Neuroscience” is simply the study of the nervous system. We have always known that observations can be unreliable or distorted, however you are incorrectly equating casual observation to scientific measurement under controlled conditions.
You are alluding to “wave function collapse” in quantum mechanics, which admittedly, I don’t have enough knowledge to speak intelligently about.
And “superstring theory” is just that. A theory. It may or may not be unprovable. If it were proven it would be a “scientific law”.
The only place science meets religion is when the church commissions an engineer to build a cathedral.
As I stated earlier. Science tells us what is out there based on observations and measurements. It is subject to change as new observations and measurements are taken (better telescopes, better microscopes, more computer processing power, more accurate measuring equipment, so on and so forth).
Religion tells us what is out there based on pulling stuff out of their ass. Whether it’s a burning bush, 69 virgins in the afterlife, Xenu’s DC10 spaceships or some guy getting nailed to a tree for asking everyone to be nice to each other, most religion is based on fairly tales, conjecture, half-truths or the ravings of a lunatic.
Maybe I can convince you otherwise.
In a New York Times interview, philosopher Daniel Dennett says, “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.” Dennett meant some people; however, what he said actually applies to all people.
Let me quote you again
Do you withdraw this comment? Then we can stop right now.
I was once a born again Christian - while being 14, a middle child, and an unwilling partisan in my parents divorce. I found god in that shit storm. Turned out I was sold magic beans. Whatev,
Atheist: can prove god does not exist
Agnostic: can’t prove that he does
believer: can prove you are wrong not to believe
Anyone who can PROVE something without hard facts is full of shit. They BELIEVE and that’s fine but don’t tread on me dude.
I don’t “feel” a god but I don’t denounce the possibility. I’m probably just playing it safe by having no hardcore opinion. I am a baptized believer trapped in the body of a pussy. Or the other way around.
And if you can PROVE there is no god then PROVE why taxes are unconstitutional in a meaningful way- I mean a game changing way - and I’ll follow you like a 40 year old fat Branch Davidian chick with a marshmallow on a stick.
But certainly, god knows about qualia, since he is omniscient. And according to you, he is the ‘unified field’. And science can study the unified field (if you finally tell me its symmetry group, I can write you down its field equations!). So, science can study qualia.
Less facetiously, whether or not science can study qualia is of course a very open discussion. Some philosophers, functionalists like Daniel Dennett and eliminative materialists like Paul and Patricia Churchland, maintain that there is no principled difference between the physical and the phenomenal—thus, by studying one, science already studies the other. Others hold that while there is a gap in understanding, there is no gap in being or substance (i.e. there is an epistemic, but no ontic gap), so that while there may not be a way to paint an ‘intuitive’ picture of how phenomenal concepts derive from physical ones, this is nevertheless in principle possible.
Even a property dualist like David Chalmers very strongly believes that a science of consciousness is possible, though its explanations have to be in a nonreductive form, i.e. appealing to additional psychophysical laws that have the same status as the fundamental physical laws. In the philosophical literature, the position that science can’t study consciousness on account of some principled difference between it and the objects of scientific study is pretty much a small minority; the only example I can think of is Thomas Nagel, perhaps.
Assuming you are using the word prove colloquially then I’d have to say that the vast majority of atheists would self describe themselves using the definition you ascribe to agnostics. The most I’ve ever heard an atheist claim is that a specific iteration of god does not exist. I’ve never heard any one opine that they had evidence that all of the infinite possible gods do not exist.
Amen to that 
Yeah I used a broad stroke on that. But pushed into a corner an atheist will assert that believers are delusional which to me implies they have a case to back it up. Thank for bringing this up.
Do you think that people that believe in vampires are delusional?
How about Elves? Talking Chickens?
For me it is simple.
There is not one, single, tiny shred of evidence of either a “Supreme Being”, “Universal Consciousness”, or “Life After Death”.
Not one.
Why should I waste my time believing in bullshit?
Talking Chickens? I’d investigate the possibility that they were using their syrinx for mimicry in a similar manner to psittacines, mynahs, etc.
I find the idea of talking chickens far more believable than a god.
Using your standards nobody is delusional.
Do you still leave cookies and milk out for Santa Claus?
I think it would be more accurate to say that it implies that believers have no evidence or, more often, low quality evidence that is better explained without resorting to a god of some sort.
I would also call believers in werewolves, vampires, yeti, cold fusion, and flying horses delusional but it doesn’t mean that I have evidence that none of those things exist. It only means that I have no credible evidence that they do.
I really like what you are saying here, I don’t believe the specifics of any one religion, and I don’t care to believe that a supreme being would reveal itself to only one person and leave it to that person to reveal it to the rest. It’s nutty!
I was talking to my mother last night - she had a really tough childhood, as did my father, but managed to raise three kids that made it through to their master’s and bachelor’s degrees. She asked me “Anthony, do you feel smart when talking to me? I know you are so much smarter.” I said to her “mom…it just doesn’t work that way. Even if we knew, could put some number, to our intelligence, mine might be 50 and yours might be 30, but compared to all the knowledge possible to have? That is not even as significant a difference as adding a grain of sand to the desert.”
To me, the smarter you become the more you realize how much there is to know.
Well said 
This thread has helped me realise that there are at least two types of atheist, rational atheist and ignorant atheist, the latter defined as those that have a narrow, naive and uneducated view of religion leaving them with no other option but to be atheist.
Are you two done patting each other on the back for putting atheists in their place, or is this going to go on for a few more posts?