Why You Believe

[Bastemhet]

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

How would you respond to this, for those who believe in a deity, or more than one? I have a friend who is an atheist, and my personal view is that whatever works for people and doesn't harm others is fine. This includes the religion. I don't feel the necessity to tell people how much more right I am than they are. Yet this friend of mine has made it a personal mission to try and "reeducate" religious people out of their "pathetic delusions." He also firmly believes in SCIENCE (his emphasis) and that everything can be explained by it.

How would you respond to this? What's your personal take? Do you think belief in deities are incompatible with science and logic?  

[Kuroiban]

Sophist

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

How would you respond to this, for those who believe in a deity, or more than one? I have a friend who is an atheist, and my personal view is that whatever works for people and doesn't harm others is fine. This includes the religion. I don't feel the necessity to tell people how much more right I am than they are. Yet this friend of mine has made it a personal mission to try and "reeducate" religious people out of their "pathetic delusions." He also firmly believes in SCIENCE (his emphasis) and that everything can be explained by it.

How would you respond to this? What's your personal take? Do you think belief in deities are incompatible with science and logic?

If science can explain everything, why are there so many things that science doesn't explain?

I don't remember the name of them, but there is apparently a sub-atomic particle which is, theoretically, in two places at once. Explain that and maybe I can buy that science explains everything.

Hell, by scientific views the universe is supposedly infinite, and you want to tell me that finite human understand can explain that? Logically, that makes no sense to me.

I don't mind atheists, or atheism. Preachy, smug atheism can really just go and felicitate itself; I don't give that philosophy or the people who follow it the time of day.  

[Fiddlers Green]

I wouldn't respond to this.
Well, in person, I might. With a sharp cuff to the back of the head and an admonition. Either to get gone from my presence and trouble me with their pseudo-intellectual dreck no more, or, if I had some investment in the person and cared for their continued education, I would systematically (and publicly if possible) pick apart their world view and mercilessly make sport of every error in every statement they uttered in my presence. I would make of them such a caricature of ignorance mongering that they would make the most ill-educated, semi-literate, dogma-spewing demagogue seem reasonable and erudite by comparison. When they were reduced to a quivering wreck, stripped of all pretension, then I would offer to explain the basics of the scientific process they so slandered earlier. Or, alternatively, they would no longer seek/actively avoid congress with me, and it would cease to be my problem.
That aside, it is troll bate and fluid propellant to encourage flames.

If a person truely had a love of science, they would understand what non-falsifiable means. No, this is a cultist of pseudo-science and an arrogant one to boot. He likely does not even understand that establishing the non-existence of a thing places the burden of proof upon him. I would wager, were I such a person, that he regularly (mis-)invokes the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor) as tho it is a proof. Which is very^108 sad... and we should all feel sad when that happens.

The only thing I can offer for such arrogance is to ask him if the atom existed before anyone perceived it. If perception defines existence, then explain to him that solipsism works both ways and others (who do not have the exact same perceptions as him) may perceive a thing he does not, making it equally real. If there is an objective cosmos independent of belief, and the atom always existed, ask him when omniscience came to him and at what exact date we mapped every sub atomic particle in all of existence.

I believe that mis-information and pseudo-science are the enemies of rational thought. I do not tolerate them in my immediate presence. Outside of my reach, well, I may or may not react, dependent upon many variables.
For my own faith, it in no way contradicts any principle of causality I have observed. Then again, I have been told I am the dualistic equivalent of an intelligent design (this is a term used for numerous arguments, I do not apply the label to myself as it is too contentious and is begging for misunderstanding) theorist. An entity external to a system may not be observable from within a system. An entity that comprises a system may not be distinguishable from the system.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Sophist

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

I'm no theist but my supernatural beliefs orientate themselves entirely around UPG. Checked UPG. Checked UPG of someone who doesn't have any known or detectable forms of psychosis or delusions.

Bam. I win. He loses. He can go ******** himself.

Quote:

How would you respond to this

Surprisingly similar to Fiddler actually, only I would tear the s**t out of the offender even if I didn't know or care about them. I would go for the metaphorical jugular and logic shred every inch of what the offender said.

And then in the end, I would ask him why he abuses science so to justify his just as unproven beliefs about the nature of reality.

Quote:

Yet this friend of mine has made it a personal mission to try and "reeducate" religious people out of their "pathetic delusions." He also firmly believes in SCIENCE (his emphasis) and that everything can be explained by it.

He is quite frankly a completely brainless ********. Science not only can't explain everything, it hasn't even tried to explain everything. Not everything can be touched by empiricism with the tools we have. If he tried to "reeducate" me, he would end up the one being reeducated. Painfully. Humiliatingly. I do not spare those types. No quarter for pseudoscience peddlers.  

[whiporwill-o]

Sophist

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

How would you respond to this, for those who believe in a deity, or more than one? I have a friend who is an atheist, and my personal view is that whatever works for people and doesn't harm others is fine. This includes the religion. I don't feel the necessity to tell people how much more right I am than they are. Yet this friend of mine has made it a personal mission to try and "reeducate" religious people out of their "pathetic delusions." He also firmly believes in SCIENCE (his emphasis) and that everything can be explained by it.

How would you respond to this? What's your personal take? Do you think belief in deities are incompatible with science and logic?

this sounds like my ex, his 'dedication' is more of an obsession, going so far as to make religious people cry. he doesn't feel like his day is complete without making a christian (specifically) cry. he and a friend formed an athiest group and that's fine, but i feel that he does it just to spite people who believe in something. sorry this tuened into more of a rant than anything helpful to the thread, my ex just really got to me today.

i believe that someone can believe in something higher as well as acknowledge scientific fact. there are some things in this world that science just can't prove, but either way, why is it so important for someone to convert someone else. going from christian to athiest, trying to convert someone is just keeping the rules and changing the game, it makes no sense.  

[Aakosir]

People are going to believe what they want. Some are the kind to push their beliefs on others and I really can't stand that. I am what I am. You are not going to change me. Lately I have been seeing a lot of scientology. No I'm not going to capitalize it. A friend of mine was listing off points of how it has hurt people. They said it has made a few people bankrupt! I personally do not consider it a religion and the creator admitted that he made it up! And like Kuroiban said if science can explain everything then why haven't these scientologists explained anthing logically?  

[Bastemhet]

Recursive Paradox

Sophist

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

I'm no theist but my supernatural beliefs orientate themselves entirely around UPG. Checked UPG. Checked UPG of someone who doesn't have any known or detectable forms of psychosis or delusions.

Bam. I win. He loses. He can go ******** himself.

I think I might've asked in another thread but I would also like your response: why is UPG/CPG outside of the realm of being checked for validity by science? I ask because for him I think the only thing that will satisfy him is if a deity's presence can be confirmed with a scientific machine or something.

Quote:

Quote:

How would you respond to this

Surprisingly similar to Fiddler actually, only I would tear the s**t out of the offender even if I didn't know or care about them. I would go for the metaphorical jugular and logic shred every inch of what the offender said.

And then in the end, I would ask him why he abuses science so to justify his just as unproven beliefs about the nature of reality.

He said that scientific theory is as good as law, is this not true?  

[Bastemhet]

Fiddlers Green

I wouldn't respond to this.
Well, in person, I might. With a sharp cuff to the back of the head and an admonition. Either to get gone from my presence and trouble me with their pseudo-intellectual dreck no more, or, if I had some investment in the person and cared for their continued education, I would systematically (and publicly if possible) pick apart their world view and mercilessly make sport of every error in every statement they uttered in my presence. I would make of them such a caricature of ignorance mongering that they would make the most ill-educated, semi-literate, dogma-spewing demagogue seem reasonable and erudite by comparison. When they were reduced to a quivering wreck, stripped of all pretension, then I would offer to explain the basics of the scientific process they so slandered earlier. Or, alternatively, they would no longer seek/actively avoid congress with me, and it would cease to be my problem.
That aside, it is troll bate and fluid propellant to encourage flames.

I admire that you have the stamina to do this, as negative talk really drains me. sad

Quote:

If a person truely had a love of science, they would understand what non-falsifiable means. No, this is a cultist of pseudo-science and an arrogant one to boot. He likely does not even understand that establishing the non-existence of a thing places the burden of proof upon him. I would wager, were I such a person, that he regularly (mis-)invokes the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor) as tho it is a proof. Which is very^108 sad... and we should all feel sad when that happens.

How is it pseudo-science?

Quote:

The only thing I can offer for such arrogance is to ask him if the atom existed before anyone perceived it. If perception defines existence, then explain to him that solipsism works both ways and others (who do not have the exact same perceptions as him) may perceive a thing he does not, making it equally real. If there is an objective cosmos independent of belief, and the atom always existed, ask him when omniscience came to him and at what exact date we mapped every sub atomic particle in all of existence.

What if he believed in an objective reality?

Quote:

I believe that mis-information and pseudo-science are the enemies of rational thought. I do not tolerate them in my immediate presence. Outside of my reach, well, I may or may not react, dependent upon many variables.
For my own faith, it in no way contradicts any principle of causality I have observed. Then again, I have been told I am the dualistic equivalent of an intelligent design (this is a term used for numerous arguments, I do not apply the label to myself as it is too contentious and is begging for misunderstanding) theorist. An entity external to a system may not be observable from within a system. An entity that comprises a system may not be distinguishable from the system.

Is the belief in a deity rational?

Can an entity outside of a system affect the system from within it at the same time yet not be subject to its rules?  

[Bastemhet]

whiporwill-o

this sounds like my ex, his 'dedication' is more of an obsession, going so far as to make religious people cry. he doesn't feel like his day is complete without making a christian (specifically) cry. he and a friend formed an athiest group and that's fine, but i feel that he does it just to spite people who believe in something. sorry this tuened into more of a rant than anything helpful to the thread, my ex just really got to me today.

i believe that someone can believe in something higher as well as acknowledge scientific fact. there are some things in this world that science just can't prove, but either way, why is it so important for someone to convert someone else. going from christian to athiest, trying to convert someone is just keeping the rules and changing the game, it makes no sense.

He sounds a lot like my friend, and one of his friends. The other guy equates religion with racism and wouldn't even tolerate talk of it in his presence, and will attack those who "defend" it.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Sophist

I admire that you have the stamina to do this, as negative talk really drains me. sad

I'm a bitter old man. It gets easier with age for some people. wink

Quote:

How is it pseudo-science?

He is attempting to apply conventional observables to a non-falsifiable. Real science doesn't even speculate on non-falsifiable because they are... ~Le Gasp~ non-falsifiable! It is like trying to measure something mass using pounds. Pounds, cannot measure mass, they measure weight. Which is related to mass, but not the summation thereof.
Also, the principle of parsimony is not a proof. It is a probability tool that is of slipshot reliability. It is used to develop theoreys, not to judge value between competing theoreys, also, as a heuristic tool, it is far from perfect. Like all general processes, it is riddled with exceptions. Classic (Newtonian) physics are supported by the razor, but are now largely "disproven" (I prefer the term discarded in favour of more observably functional models). Medicine is another field where it fails, usually with disastrous results.
Occam's Razor, when used as a proof, is appeal to simplicity, or appeal to the lowest common denominator, often without sufficient understanding of the system that is being dummied down. This is all misapplication and the behavior of cultists of science who have no grasp of the actual processes this principle applies to.
Thus False-science

Quote:

What if he believed in an objective reality?

Then he is an utter fool for thinking that lack of perception of a thing disproves it's existence. Not even fool, no Hypocrite. Hypocrite I say!
How dare he hold to an objective existence and then tie the actuality of anything to his own or humanity's collective perceptions! No, if he claims to believe in an objective reality, then he is likely ignorant of what the word objective means, or is lying.

Quote:

Is the belief in a deity rational?

No more or less so than belief in an atom.

Quote:

Can an entity outside of a system affect the system from within it at the same time yet not be subject to its rules?

Can a human affect the cage it has consigned a rat to?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Sophist

Recursive Paradox

Sophist

"Reason for not believing in god(s): lack of evidence; Reasons for believing in god(s): fear of death, fear of the unknown, insecurity, ego, sheer will, flawed logic, tradition, superstition, community influence, parental influence, coersion, indoctrination, brainwashing, propaganda"

I'm no theist but my supernatural beliefs orientate themselves entirely around UPG. Checked UPG. Checked UPG of someone who doesn't have any known or detectable forms of psychosis or delusions.

Bam. I win. He loses. He can go ******** himself.

I think I might've asked in another thread but I would also like your response: why is UPG/CPG outside of the realm of being checked for validity by science?

Because it is outside science's realm as nonfalsifiable. It's normally too small scale and occurs in too many different varieties to get anything resembling even close to useful data. So science doesn't touch it.

Quote:

I ask because for him I think the only thing that will satisfy him is if a deity's presence can be confirmed with a scientific machine or something.

I hardly care if he is satisfied. I instead care more to humiliate him for his blatant pseudoscience.

Quote:

Quote:

Surprisingly similar to Fiddler actually, only I would tear the s**t out of the offender even if I didn't know or care about them. I would go for the metaphorical jugular and logic shred every inch of what the offender said.

And then in the end, I would ask him why he abuses science so to justify his just as unproven beliefs about the nature of reality.

He said that scientific theory is as good as law, is this not true?

This is indeed true in that law and theory are both at the same level of empirical testing. Law describes more mathematical simplified observed concepts and theory describes less mathematical abstract concepts that deal with the how behind the laws.

None of that is relevant to how he is using science. There is no scientific theory on UPG nor religion. Because they are unfalsifiable. There is no scientific law on UPG nor religion. Same reason as before. He isn't using science, he is using his own whiny counterculture fail logic and personal experience.  

[aoijea23487]

One day I started talking to the walls at night. Called prayer.

I got some answers.

Years later, after having a vision of Shiva in a meditation, I kept seeing Shiva everywhere in mundane life, for months on end, whereas I never saw Him much at all before.

I'd say it's more than coincidence. But maybe I'm deluding myself.  

[o sunflower king]

I think a lot of it has to do with how you view the world around us.

For example; apparently, there are certain actions in the brain that make it feel like there is a "god" there. A presence. Some people see that is proof against deity. I see it as a natural process because deity is there.

There is so much that happens in the world that can't be explained. So, so much...

Personally, I am a huge advocate of science. I turn to science first, then turn to metaphysics when there is no other answer.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

I was an athiest once I figured out what god was and was able to consider it. Then I figured out a different definition then what most people use and that definition seems to work better for me.

I don't believe that anything can be all knowing. I think there is always a limit to knowledge and the more we act the less we know. If you watched every single reaction to every action and stood perfectly still perhaps you would be able to understand everything that was around you but the second you introduced a ripple to the mix the entire system changes.

Only from outside a system can you see the system

If you are outside the system then you are not a part of the system... you have no influence

Thus God as the definition of the creator of a subsystem could work. God as something which creates. This seems to be a happy definition I can understand. Because maybe someone decided that to limit the amount of chaos. I mean it fits with most of the theories I know concerning the realms etc.

I've met alot of spirits who call themselves "gods"... well maybe they control a place as well. Its saturated with there will and desire so that no one else can change it. They could loose there ability to be gods when they loose there ability to control that place.

Maybe the god of this place... this realm. Maybe that's all that he is. I think its pretty impressive if that's the case.

Thus in some ways I chose to believe in God after choosing not to. I ended up running into too much proof of various things. I also ran into alot of instances where I could see multiple meanings to the same piece of text, or a different interpretation.

You never know if someone's lying... spirits are no different then people in my eye's. No matter what I am still a skeptic but I've seen plenty of spirits who claim to be the god of this realm intervene on the behalfs of the people who worship them... so who really cares as long as they are helping and not hurting the people who worship them?

BTW there are plenty of spirits who seemingly delude people and use them for there own purposes... and when people prey I have noticed other spirits who just soak up that energy... so warning?

This is of course within the "realms+spirit" view of the world. Other view points would probably find huge issues with what I've just said XD i.e. you are deluded for believing in spirits.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ishtar Shakti

I was an athiest once I figured out what god was and was able to consider it. Then I figured out a different definition then what most people use and that definition seems to work better for me.

Why would how mortals perceive and define a being determine it's existence?

Quote:

I don't believe that anything can be all knowing. I think there is always a limit to knowledge and the more we act the less we know. If you watched every single reaction to every action and stood perfectly still perhaps you would be able to understand everything that was around you but the second you introduced a ripple to the mix the entire system changes.

Why would your personal beliefs limit the ability of others?

Quote:

Only from outside a system can you see the system

I contest this assertion on the grounds that living within the ecosystem allows me to observe the ecosystem.

Quote:

Thus God as the definition of the creator of a subsystem could work. God as something which creates. This seems to be a happy definition I can understand. Because maybe someone decided that to limit the amount of chaos. I mean it fits with most of the theories I know concerning the realms etc.

Which realms would these be?
By what methods have these theories been tested and why are you using scientific terms to make your argument about that which is non-falsifiable sound better?

Quote:

You never know if someone's lying... spirits are no different then people in my eye's.

Please do not project. I often know when people lie, thank you.

Quote:

No matter what I am still a skeptic but I've seen plenty of spirits who claim to be the god of this realm intervene on the behalfs of the people who worship them... so who really cares as long as they are helping and not hurting the people who worship them?

Who really bases their care on our concept of harm when applied to the worshipers. If someone breaks a covenant and is harmed for it, they made their choice.

Quote:

BTW there are plenty of spirits who seemingly delude people and use them for there own purposes... and when people prey I have noticed other spirits who just soak up that energy... so warning?

Perhaps those people shouldn't be trying to prey on spirits. stare

Quote:

This is of course within the "realms+spirit" view of the world. Other view points would probably find huge issues with what I've just said XD i.e. you are deluded for believing in spirits.

My problems stem from your internal contradictions more than anything else.

As for the initial question, I likely would never have gotten past the first part of his statement, since after a couple of attempts at explaining the fallacies in play would have left me bored.