Why are you an atheist?

dana · Post by **dana** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:54 am

Ron wrote:
dana wrote:...True enough! When I went back to work just now the idea that popped into my head was that I had to admit in the past I have definitely stood in Rob, Ron and Ranger Genius' shoes (well sorta) and have said "OK, this person's belief is total bullshit. No doubt about it!"
Um, those aren't my shoes. And the fact that you'd think they were shows how little I'm getting across about my position. It's not about what is and isn't bullshit, in fact that question is broken when it comes to this issue, IMHO. But again it is a common misunderstanding theists come up with. It's starting to make me think it's some kind of meme immune system responce....

Ron

I realized this didn't read quite the way I wanted, but I was too late to edit. The operative word is "well sorta". The point I was trying to get across is that I have certainly taken that stance of: "OK prove it. Why should I even consider something that is so far out from my experience and the weight of all the science training I've had, what seems "logical and possible. etc."
Whatever your belief system is, it will affect your percieved reality.
From my current perspective, I realized that I was limiting the range of my perceptions.

[OK, so I hate acronyms and generally refuse to use them. What does IMHO mean? And what is "meme immune system response"?]

dana · Post by **dana** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Ron wrote:
dana wrote: Simplicity definitely has it's appeal. And surely that will provide an easier "path for everyone". But kind of boring when it comes down to it. Personally I've found that the rough paths, of all sorts, are generally the most fruitful.
To each their own. I'm not judging your path but the judgments your throwing on mine demonstrate a massive lack of understanding of my position. And one that's pretty common among theists. "Oh, your world must be so boring without faith..." Nope, just the opposite but it's amazing how many theists seem to have to clutch that misunderstanding.

Ron

"My goodness. Defensive much?"
Read my post again. No judgment on whether your life is boring. Merely a statement that I would find simple answers and easy paths to be personally boring - for me. Not to mention unproductive. (again, for me.)

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:45 pm

SED wrote:
the fire elf wrote:Shankaracharya speaks of "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah has been performed."

"those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" --- some say...

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:48 pm

dana wrote:Why should I even consider something that is so far out from my experience and the weight of all the science training I've had, what seems "logical and possible. etc."
Whatever your belief system is, it will affect your percieved reality.
From my current perspective, I realized that I was limiting the range of my perceptions.

good on 'ya

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:51 pm

dana wrote:I would find simple answers and easy paths to be personally boring - for me. Not to mention unproductive. (again, for me.)

run

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:12 pm

Nostradamus predicted that "from the sky will come a great King of Terror" in 1999 [7]. This was interpreted by some as a prophecy about the second coming of Jesus. When this "didn't occur", his followers and those of Edgar Cayce claimed that Jesus was conceived in 1998, born in 1999, and is currently living on Earth as a reincarnated person.

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:15 pm

"will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of chastity under Maitreya's guidance. They will have torn the net of the passions, they will manage to enter into trances, and theirs will be an abundance of joy and happiness, for they will lead a holy life under Maitreya's guidance." (Trans. in Conze 1959:241)

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:18 pm

Because the Tusita heaven is still in the realm of desire, its beings still feel passions, but they require less to satisfy those passions, and are thus calmer and more refined beings.

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:01 pm

dana wrote:....
Ron, I like most of your responses, but this one is clearly your own prejudice. Why would you assume that the spiritual person is not able to do the same thing and change their understanding and belief as they go along?

I don't make that assumption. And if there is a prejudice of mine in there it mirrors your own towards the scientific perspective. I'm not the one throwing words like "boring," around.

Ron

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:03 pm

dana wrote:
LeChatNoir wrote:My brother once stated to me:

“There is no such thing as the supernatural… only natural phenomena we have yet to explain”.

He and I agree on this…
I agree too. ...

Me three. In fact it was my post making that point (and showing how Occam's Razor can lead one to it) that started my involvement with the thread. :)

Ron

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:19 pm

dana wrote:....
I realized this didn't read quite the way I wanted, but I was too late to edit. The operative word is "well sorta". The point I was trying to get across is that I have certainly taken that stance of: "OK prove it. Why should I even consider something that is so far out from my experience and the weight of all the science training I've had, what seems "logical and possible. etc."

Great. Take that stance. It's not mine either, Dana. And again the fact that you keep trying to attribute it to me shows that I'm not getting my idea across at all.

The question of what is and isn't logical, possible, Truthful, isn't relevant to spiritual belief, in my view. You keep saying, "That wrench in your hand isn't all you've got it cracked up to be," and I keep saying, "It's not a wrench I've got in my hand, but I know when one is useful."

dana wrote:.... Whatever your belief system is, it will affect your percieved reality.

Yep, that's why we've got to cheat so much to get to Truth. To insulate ourselves form our belief systems by requiring repeated observations across time and observers.

dana wrote:....
[OK, so I hate acronyms and generally refuse to use them. What does IMHO mean? And what is "meme immune system response"?]

In My Humble Opinion. And meme theory is a body of thought made popular by Jarod Diamond in his book Snow Crash. The short version is that we can model ideas as biological infections. A meme is an idea and it's physical representation in the world. Christianity is one meme with the various versions of the bible being the physical representation(s). Fall fashions are another meme, as are commercial jingles, philosophical thoughts, and just about any other idea you can come up with. Memes can be transmitted between people and they have effects on people. Just like we don't fall for any bug that comes into our system (we have an immune system) we don't accept every meme we come into contact with. The model suggest we have an "intellectual immune system," that attacks new ideas in the same way our physical immune system attacks new and unknown cells.

And misunderstanding the "bright," perspective (to use Dennit's term even if I don't like it) via associations with a "boring, small, understandable," universe is so common a reaction in theists that I've started to think it's a meme immune system response. Make sense?

Ron

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:22 pm

dana wrote:....
"My goodness. Defensive much?"
Read my post again. No judgment on whether your life is boring. Merely a statement that I would find simple answers and easy paths to be personally boring - for me. Not to mention unproductive. (again, for me.)

Oh, I quoted your words, Dana, take a look at them. There's no mention of an evaluation for yourself just a statement of how things would be. But you're the expert on you, so if that's what you mean I'll accept that. :)

Ron

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:40 pm

who among you have grown beyond the pots and soil plots you have come to know as home?

the fire elf · Post by **the fire elf** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:47 pm

life is related to life...

plant-life

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:20 pm

Ron wrote:
dana wrote:....
[OK, so I hate acronyms and generally refuse to use them. What does IMHO mean? And what is "meme immune system response"?]
In My Humble Opinion. And meme theory is a body of thought made popular by Jarod Diamond in his book Snow Crash. The short version is that we can model ideas as biological infections. A meme is an idea and it's physical representation in the world. Christianity is one meme with the various versions of the bible being the physical representation(s). Fall fashions are another meme, as are commercial jingles, philosophical thoughts, and just about any other idea you can come up with. Memes can be transmitted between people and they have effects on people. Just like we don't fall for any bug that comes into our system (we have an immune system) we don't accept every meme we come into contact with. The model suggest we have an "intellectual immune system," that attacks new ideas in the same way our physical immune system attacks new and unknown cells.

And misunderstanding the "bright," perspective (to use Dennit's term even if I don't like it) via associations with a "boring, small, understandable," universe is so common a reaction in theists that I've started to think it's a meme immune system response. Make sense?

Ron

Hmmm? Gee Ron, for someone with a professed fondness for Occam's Razor and potential distrust of overly complex theories, this all sounds a bit unwieldy, complex, (and dare I say it, quasi-religious?) Why not just use good 'ol homegrown skepticism? It's more straightforward, and has less moving parts. Works for me!
So now I'm wondering..... you don't have a "selective" Occam's thing going do you Ron? Do you only pull out Mr O's shaft when you want to "stick it to" an idea you don't like? C'mon Ron, fess up. Are you packing a shiv?

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:20 am

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:40 am

dana wrote:...
Hmmm? Gee Ron, for someone with a professed fondness for Occam's Razor and potential distrust of overly complex theories, this all sounds a bit unwieldy, complex, (and dare I say it, quasi-religious?) Why not just use good 'ol homegrown skepticism? It's more straightforward, and has less moving parts. Works for me!
So now I'm wondering..... you don't have a "selective" Occam's thing going do you Ron? Do you only pull out Mr O's shaft when you want to "stick it to" an idea you don't like? C'mon Ron, fess up. Are you packing a shiv?

Hi, Dana, welcome back from rafting, how'd it go?

Of course I have a "selective thing," for Occam's Razor. If the only tool in my box were a hammer the world would be full of nails, as the story goes. Occam's Razor only applies in certain situations, and it doesn't apply in the explanation of a theory at all. It comes into play when one is choosing which theory to adopt or apply.

So, in regards to meme theory, OA only comes into effect when we're trying to choose between OA and some other competing theory. Got another theory that attempts to explain how ideas are communicated and adopted between folk and the changes those ideas make in folk once they get there? Great, if so we'd use use OA to figure out which one we thought was most likely, which one we wanted to test, and so on. You asked what meme theory was and I explained it. (Note that I don't hold meme theory to be True at all) Nothing there conflicts with OA, nor illustrates any intellectual hypocrisy which seems to be what you're looking for. Unless you assume that I hold meme theory to be True and presuppose an alternative, simpler, theory that I was simultaneously refusing to consider. Are you making those assumptions or do you still not get OA?

On the other hand, if we're looking at a choosing between a universe model with supernatural functioning and one without, the latter is simpler and OA applies. Do you see the difference?

And do you still agree with the cat's point that there are no supernatural happenings in the universe, only natural ones that we don't yet understand?

Ron

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:43 am

EvilDustBooger wrote:

Maybe so but those arguments can be interesting to watch and in some cases fun to participate in.

uBeRpLaYa · Post by **uBeRpLaYa** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:48 am

mAyBe iT iS tHe fAcT tHaT sOmE oF yOu LiKe tO aRgUe iNnAnE pOiNtS aD nAuSeUm, kInEtIc. pErHaPs iF yOu LeT gO oF yOuR iNnEr aNgEr, LiFe wOuLd bE a LoT nIcEr fOr yOu.

SED · Post by **SED** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:00 am

That last picture posting makes me wonder if EvilDustBooger ever had a moment of dignity in his life. It's certainly clear that his own development has been delayed, though he hasn't yet risen above it.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:01 am

...in other words "I`m retarded" ....right?

...just callimg them like I see `um.

dana · Post by **dana** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:01 am

Kinetic IV wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:
Maybe so but those arguments can be interesting to watch and in some cases fun to participate in.

And the fact that as long as you're "trying to win" you obviously won't. Ron got it right: "for shits and grins" only. Also I like what LeChat said about laying out your ideas even if they seem a little impossible to explain.

I once saw film footage of how some Tibetan bhuddists like to test their understanding of scripture. One of them is laying out his understanding while the rest are yelling conflicting questions at him.
It looked like a riot!

[And Ron, more answers later. But kayaking was awesome. The only place to be when it's that hot. Cal Salmon. No "near death"- testing the existence of god, experiences. And that's a good thing!]

dana · Post by **dana** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:18 am

Oh this is interesting. One thing that the spiritual types take note of is coincidental circumstance. Why? Evidence of a bigger "web of causality"? The atheist might respond that they are merely "selectively" observing reality and picking out elements that seem to substantiate their belief system and ignore elements that would argue otherwise. Any thoughts from the spiritual aspirants in the audience?

Seconds after reading the previous post, I got a call to see a patient - who is developmentally disabled, cerebral palsy.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:22 am

Weak Anthropic Principle. Next case.

uBeRpLaYa · Post by **uBeRpLaYa** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:35 am

aNd aLL oF tHiS mEaNs nOtHinG aS tHe jAcK$On$ aPpEaR oN mY sTage

tHeRe aRe nO aThEiStS iN a sTrIp cLuB

SED · Post by **SED** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:03 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote:...in other words "I`m retarded" ....right?

...just callimg them like I see `um.

I'm saying your sense of humor is cruel and immature. That's someone's kid, and more importantly, that's a kid. Shaving a cat isn't any better.

As far as you being retarded, that's only true if you have the potential for further development. I hope you do.

dana · Post by **dana** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:24 pm

Ranger Genius wrote:Weak Anthropic Principle. Next case.

Your answer is a little too pat, somewhat predictable, and doesn't take me anywhere that I haven't already been.
Hence the question was directed to the spiritual aspirants.
Any takers?

[By the way Ranger G, whatever happened to your heroic restraint?]

dana · Post by **dana** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:27 pm

Ron!!! OA? Why must you torture me? As far as I know you're referring to osteoarthritis.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:05 pm

SED wrote: As far as you being retarded, that's only true if you have the potential for further development. I hope you do.

I knew you were calling me retarded.

...no in all seriousness, after thinking about it, you are right.
I see your point now.
What I first thought might be your being intentionally thin skinned was actually your genuine concern.
I`m sorry. And I really didn`t mean to be THAT offensive.
I`ll kill the pic....but my Sentiment about the errant, redundant dribble that dwells in this thread...AND the post-surgical photo of the cat will remain...

...think of it as a photograph me.

Freshly corrected, Newly Improved, Fully Informed, Politically aligned, and well snarked at !

......if not still just a bit.....challenged.... socially.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:12 pm

Show me an eplayan that is not socially challenged! Show me anyone in society in general that's not. They don't exist.