Although this does not entail the countless reasons for either belief or disbelief in God, this sums up this thread very nicely. Both beliefs require a propensity to believe. Our minds simply cannot wrap around the ideas of either. It truly saddens me just how much people on the straight dope illogically try to act as if belief or disbelief in God has any fallacies. Nothing is contradicted in either case. Take a hard look at everything you have available to you and weight the facts. People have millions of reasons for beleiving what they do. None of which, are YOUR reasons. Every single person has some sort of bias toward the question and you have no way of knowing why they are biased. The only one who can make an honest decision is yourself since you are the only one who knows all the reasons for what you do.
How are we alone? We’ve got each other. I’d rather trust my fellow man than some deity who wipes us out without thinking much about it. Divine Mommy Dearest is more like it. That’s depressing.
I’m so sorry your mother has gone senile. Isaac Asimov, Darwin and Carl Sagan all managed to stay atheists on their death beds. I hope I have the intellectual guts to do the same.
Bull. I’ve got two kids. That’s all the immortality I need. And they’re here, not some pie in the sky by and by.
Some of us have meaningful lives without reference to magic sky pixies. I’ve never understood why being plucked into heaven for an eternity of unchanging blah (without even the virgins) gives meaning to life. If god holds all the cards, why bother to play?
<Zaphod>
Hey, I’m pretty cool!
</Zaphod>
That your life seems to have no value without resorting to supernatural explanations is too bad, but has nothing to do with me. (And I’ve been through my midlife crisis already, so there.)
Just to pop in on the consciousness thing, I fear your hands are waving like mad there, Dio:
DtC: Consciousness is chemistry.
bup, JT et al: Explain?
DtC: No. You prove it isn’t.
Consciousness isn’t chemistry. Knowing about potassium ions and action potentials in neurons tells us nothing about awareness, sentience, the-feeling-of-being-me, whatever you want to call it, any more than it is explained by say, geology.
Consciousness is explained by cognitive science, whcih treats the brain like some kind of biological computer (although there are all kinds of important difference to the dumb old sequential silicon thing under your desk.)
The vital elements of consciousness (ie, what I have but my corpse, or a rock, has not) are sensory input and working memory, which can both be explained solely by reference to the physical (although the combination of these things must be extraordinarily complex). Consciousness is not an object but a process, and processes like melting, storms, life and Doom are as physical as objects.
And, Lady Voldything, I used to be a theist, and am now an atheist because I am happier, more at peace, and have a stronger sense of awe and significance in the thought that I am the most incredible thing in an incredible universe; a pattern of ever-changing atoms which somehow has the ability to think. Nothing like me existed for 13 billion years. I am borne of supernovae, I am Made of Stars. Every piece of sensory input I receive has an inexplicable quantum effect on the universe - I am the universe’s way of observing itself. My life is a wonder, and I will live my life in wonder.
I believe in God because denying Him would be denying my own experience. The rest is all just fluff.
Now that was just unessecary nastiness. I’d say that Lady Voldything really didn’t make a point with the story about her mom. I have a freind who tells of his father in law who was a atheist and totally devoted to working tirelessly for his fellow man. When he passed away, still an atheist, hundreds of people turned out to mourn his passing. There’s no superiority in belief or disbelief. What matters is what actions spring from our whatever foundation we choose for ourselves.
It’s only too bad if a believer is being intellectually and/or emotionally dishonest. That, is not yours to judge, although it appears you still do.
Right,
My own conclusion is that we each must follow the path that we choose and seems the most honest to us in the moment. We can also try to be respectful of others rights to choose their path even when we don’t understand or agree. When those paths conflict with each other then the sparks gotta fly. When theists try to push their beliefs on others and drag them of the path they’ve chosen for themselves, or when atheists try to present their intellectual superiority and crap all over the path someone has chosen for themselves, it’s the same stuff.
Atheists aren’t missing something because of their lack of belief, as long as they are being intellectually and emotionally honest with themselves. The same is true for theists.
Psychedelic drugs can give you “experiences” as well.
Maybe magnetic fields, too. Or maybe not.
Or maybe so (sorry about the inaccessible citation, but this Swiss team at the Brain Mind Institute in Lausanne do seem to have had similar results independently of Persinger under rigorous conditions). Maybe mountains!
Is this the one? (referred to as “The out-of-body experience: Precipitation factors and neural correlates” in the contents?) If so, it doesn’t seem to make any reference to experiencing God.
Bottom line, experiences under psychedelic drugs or magnetic stimulation are exactly like any other experience: YMMV (Correction: Your mileage will vary)
You’re assuming that deity implies consciousness. Just because some religions feel the need to make their God conscious does not mean every person believes God is conscious.
Carl Sagan once said:
Based on this statement, it would appear to me that Sagan was certainly no theist (where a theist not only believes in God but God’s continuing interaction with the world), but could be considered a deist depending on how you define God (since interaction with the world is not required for a deist). I’m starting to wonder if you’re arguing against just theism not both theism and deism, since both you and Der Trihs both imply God’s consciousness. Please clarify.
If there’s a creator, and it doesn’t interact with us, what’s the point of worshipping it? If it could magically control anything on earth, and chooses to wreak havoc, what’s the point of worshipping? Sounds like a recipe for fear to me.
The point being, that it is up to the individual to decide what those experiences mean, atheist and non atheist alike. The introduction of scientific evidence is part of the sum total of our experiences, yet we may still draw different conclusions.
I’m not talking about those who deny very plain evidence to cling to mythology and tradition. I’m talking about those who exercise their right to choose one possibility over another.
Yes, that’s it o-w. And we were talking about “experiences”. The question is whether experiencing “God” is any different to these precipitated experiences. If they can explain so much, then requiring a divine (rather than merely ‘cosmic’) element strikes me as asking for an extra helping of sugar on one’s philosophical porridge.
To me, worship is merely a tool some use along the way. In a similar fashion idolizing a great musician might motivate someone to study music and find their own path of creativity and expression.
I would hope that worshipping God would lead someone to exploring their own potential and limitations as a human. If worshipping God leads people to wonder, how do I love my neighbor better than I have in the past. How do I forgive more? How do I make my life more of a contribution to those around me? then worship is a positive tool for them and those around them.
We also see that there are those who choose fear and use belief as a tool for fear. Such is humanity.
Why not?
Science cannot prove that there is no God (you can wave Occam’s Razor around all you want but it will never constitute proof that God does not exist), and people derive a lot of comfort from believing that there is a God and that there is meaning and purpose to all this crap going on around us.
So, why the hell not?
Of course, I cannot force myself to believe, despite the potential benefits, but I accept that some people do believe in a creator of some sort and there is no way to prove them wrong.
I’m sorry - maybe. Churches seem to pray on old people, working up the fear of dying. JWs did it to my grandmother (unsuccessfully, I might add) who was Jewish but never went to shul except for bar mitzvahs. My grandfather, who had already passed away, was probably an atheist. He had no problem with a daughter marrying a Christian, quite radical in the late '30s. (His son-in-law was a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, which made it alright. He knew where his priorities were.)
When my advisor dies, who was an outspoken atheist, they had to trot out a minister for the memorial. The minister was embarassed and we students were offended.
This all comes from the sentiment expressed in the post - that we poor atheists have nothing to look forward to, will see the light eventually, and have clearly never thought about it. It is offensive.
I never said that. That supernatural explanations are necessary for life to be of value seems to be what she truly believes. I think she is wrong, but I don’t see any dishonesty there.
Can’t they afford pew cushions any more? 
I don’t think she thinks that. I’m quite aware of these non-sked theologies. I don’t believe in them, but most are unfalsifiable. People who truly believe god is not conscious are not likely to be trying to pass laws to regulate our sex lives. If every theist believed in this sort of god, the world would be a better place.
I’m curious about the evidence for and implications of this type of god, but only intellectually.
My reading of Sagan is that he was an atheist (though weak, and I think he found it more convenient to call himself an agnostic at times.) I don’t think he was a deist, since I never sensed he felt the need for a why answer. I am not anti-deism at all. It is unfalsifiable by definition, and seems to provide a “why” answer for those who need it. I don’t., but I recognize that many do, and it makes them feel comfortable while not encouraging them to abridge the rights of others. There is no evidence for deism, but that isn’t the point.
I’m not even anti-theist. I’m non-theist, but some theists can live and let live. I’m only anti the type of theist who thinks that because he thinks God said something, the rest of us better fall in line for our own good. This type attacks other religions as much as they attack atheists - my ancestors certainly suffered from this.
Tribal theism (like Judaism) apply the tenets only to the in-crowd, and everyone else can do as they please. These are better than universal theism (like Christianity) who think their rules apply to the whole world. The nicer Christians, who don’t think pagan babies get fried, are in a sense trying to pull Christianity back to a tribal configuration, recognizing the problems with universalism.
Since everyone’s consciousness is closed, how on earth would one demonstrate that a given person’s experience is different (or for that matter, exactly the same) as one of these “precipitated experiences”?
Your point is well taken; the part I have a problem with is: “If they can explain so much…”
Not only is it a matter of controversy as to whether or not Persinger’s original experiments have been successfully repeated, but, I mean, have you read Persinger’s papers? His results are neither dramatic nor precise; most subjects report vague and variable sensations, if they report sensations at all, and Persinger himself denies ever having had any religious or mystical sensations while under transcranial magnetic stimulation.