This thread has taught me that we are all theists. Some are just plain theists and some are a-theists.
I’m not really sure as to what the main point of any of this thread is about–nor in most of the OP. But this little snippet appears to be what it was supposed to be. So:
My personal theory on how it is that people come to feel “The Force” (who aren’t little green dudes) is via early year training.
The general idea in psychology* is that young children view their parents as “absolute.” That is to say, as gods. Anything these people say will be trusted implicity (even if only at some unconscious level.)
So if they teach you that there is some almighty being–then you will believe it. And it will have been programmed into at such an early age that it’s just going to be there forever.
If anyone knows of any cases of people who had fully atheistic parents, grew up atheistic and then suddenly felt the Force and joined, kindly tell me.
My brother flirted with the idea a bit–but this probably had more to do with being overweight and not having a girl-friend than that he actually felt like there was really any “Greater Being.”
*That I have read
Oh! So atheists simple lack a belief in the existence of God. :smack:
Oh! So atheists simpley lack a belief in the existence of God. :smack:
Correctamundo.
Now, back to the OP. Several theists have said that they don’t need no steenkin’ evidence of a God, He chats with them all the time, and we’d better believe it? Is this what is meant by the Force? Of course, this god never says anything not known by the person chatting.
And I thought everyone knew that Brain is Inspector Gadget’s dog. Jeez, talk about ignorance.
Madalyn Murray O’Hare’s son William and Bertrand Russell’s daughter Katherine Tait spring to mind.
Meh. This is just another of Wake Up Call’s threads that needed their snooze buttons hit a few more times.
I’ll regret asking, of course, but why exactly is help needed?
Whoa, aren’t we feisty?
Maybe we should remember [again] that science is not about a search for truth, but rather a search for fact. Scientists form laws based on what they can reason from natural observations. This being said, knowledge of the function of the brain will probably not quell the ongoing debate between theists and you crass pagans.
As far as neuroscience research goes, a good amount of NIH money goes to brain malfunctions and diseases because those are the issues that the government deems most worthy. In case you’re thinking about delving into the issue of the worthiness of the soul [or whatnot] as a research subject, ask yourself what’s more important: your muse or somebody’s suffering. Let’s also not forget that many of the scientists associated with NIH are physicians by training in addition to scientists.
And, to not completely ignore your omnibus statement about neuroscience research, people are researching topics like creativity and fear. If you knew about the last 30 years of neuroscience research, you’d know that fear is one of the central topics of psychology research. The problem with investigating fear, creativity, imagination, etc. is that people like you seek the truth. Like I said before, science does not search for the truth.
Come back when you show me a way to quantify every human’s creative impulse, and I’ll give you dictatorship of the world and a cookie.
There is no such thing as an “early” stage of evolution. It is not a linear process with a goal. It is an undirected mechanism by which random fluctuations give rise to adaptation to changing environmental conditions.
If nothing else, that superficially benign but in fact grossly inaccurate usage of what appears to be simple vocabulary proves yet again that the difference in mindset between atheists and theists is so great that it takes an act of patient will by one side to accurately communicate a concept to the other without distortion or misunderstanding.
No, it’s The Brain. You know, Pinky’s boss.
You are confusing what I said with what Zagadka said. Please scroll up and see who said what.
It was Zagadka who said “I agree, we don’t know how the brain works at all. This is a position that helps neither theist nor atheist”.
I suggest you ask Zagadka what he meant by that.
Better still, why don’t you give us your interpretation of what he could have possibly meant. After all, now that you see the context, it should not be too difficult for you to interpret what he meant.
We agnostics are the only group that really have it right. We have the balls to admit we don’t really know one way or the other…the rest of you are just guessing.
No, agnostics just use the wrong word. [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=265972]Most of us atheists
[/quote]
(most of us as far as I can tell, that is) also admit that we don’t really know, and that there isn’t any evidence that there’s anything to know, so we’ll stay in the don’t know category. I have made no guess as to the existance of anything for which I don’t have evidence; I assume all of these things don’t exist, because I have no evidence that they do exist. But I think it might be possible to know, so I’m not agnostic.
I’m a bit confused by this. What exactly about the term agnostic suggests the universal impossibility of knowing? An agnostic can personally not know without subscribing to the position that no one else can know either. You assert that agnostics must believe that it’s impossible for anyone to know. I disagree. There are degrees of agnosticism just as there are degrees of atheism. Hardcore (strong) agnostics take the position that the human brain (that means everyone that has one) is not capable of knowing god. While weak agnostics will commit to only themselves not knowing; whether or not they will ever be capable of knowing is supposition, obviously. In the same manner that weak atheists only commit to disbelieving in god themselves, but cannot prove god’s nonexistence, weak agnostics leave themselves some wiggle room. As a weak agnostic, I don’t have to prove that human brain is not capable of knowing god. That, IMO, would be quite impossible as there are just too many questions about the brain and its workings. However, I do sometimes wonder if mankind, while being quite advanced, is advanced enough for this concept. If I committed to that idea, I’d be a strong agnostic.
I only ask because I’ve seen this happen before on this board: a self-proclaimed atheist displaying agnostic leanings but suggests that agnostics don’t know understand agnostism. Even to the point of telling a self-proclaimed agnostic they’re not agnostic, but really atheist, as if these two are mutually exclusive (it was awhile back, I can’t find the thread and though it wasn’t me, I was offended).
I just don’t get it.
My cat’s breath smells like catfood.
I don’t know if I agree with you or not. I expect not simply because judging either statement is as pointless as making them in the first place. It seems to me that you might just as well say that people who insist that “a traffic light typicaly consists of Red, Yellow and Green signals” are as disgraceful as those who are colorblind, don’t know it, and insist that “the lights are only Red & Brown.”
The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that we all live in our own sensory universes, and all we can ever know is what we sense. To disbelive something we can sense because someone else can’t corroborate our experience is as foolish as insisting that someone is mistaken about what it is they think they may or may not perceive.
Dr. Suess put this in writing years ago (Horton Hears a Who, anyone?). Until we develop the ability to do a perfect Vulcan mind meld and actually get into someone else’s head and experience the world the way they do with their own experiences, we have no basis for debating what can and cannot exist.
Of course…I’m an idiot, so grains of salt and all that.
This is the quote I was replying to:
I was merely pointing out that most of us atheists are not “just guessing”. Weak atheists refuse to make a guess, exactly like most people who describe themselves as agnostic. Agnostic, as it’s commonly used, is a redundant term. If you mean you think it’s impossible to know (as Thomas Huxley apparently thought when he coined the term), then, by all means, use the term. But if you mean you refuse to make a guess, and, therefore, don’t believe in a deity, you’re an atheist. In your case (from what you said over in the other thread), you’re a sometimes-theist-sometimes-atheist, so I have no problem with you using the term agnostic. But don’t pretend agnostics are the only ones who refuse to make a guess.
I concur. Only strong theists and strong atheists who cite evidentiary “facts” (naturally, I use the term loosely) as proof of the existence or non-existence, respectively, of god are the only ones who refuse to make a guess.
Fair enough?
I must admit I had my own reservations with Bongmaster’s presumptious statement: “We agnostics are the only group that really have it right.” That, in itself, is completely illogical if he truly doesn’t know.