Nefelie
Member
BTW telepathy has been recognized as valid by scientists, so scratch that off your list.
No soul or spirit?? Seriously?
.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you sure you are an Atheist?
- Thread starter Nefelie
- Start date
BTW telepathy has been recognized as valid by scientists, so scratch that off your list.
No soul or spirit?? Seriously?
.
Because it's not a dictionary, so you're sure to win any debates?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Link?
One must consider the importance of the focus of the worship bestowed upon one's faiths.
I have faith in the possibilty that I won't wake up tommorrow morning, and I won't even know !
I'm heavily convinced with that there are no swords, trumpets, angels, or many virgins in heaven.
Why in the hell would anyone have faith in the impossible existance of heaven !
Ignorance is a dependence on one's faith in the existance of eternal cognizence !
Oh what the hell...NuffStuff
~
'mud
I have faith in the possibilty that I won't wake up tommorrow morning, and I won't even know !
I'm heavily convinced with that there are no swords, trumpets, angels, or many virgins in heaven.
Why in the hell would anyone have faith in the impossible existance of heaven !
Ignorance is a dependence on one's faith in the existance of eternal cognizence !
Oh what the hell...NuffStuff
~
'mud
I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to scar.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Comparing automobiles and the physical world to the world of the metaphysical/spiritual then attributing confidence in both realms under the same heading as "faith" doesn't really work. We're playing by 2 very different sets of rules. We're not playing the same game and we're not speaking the same language.
We can assert that there is evidence for God; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for a government 9/11 conspiracy; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for Nessie or Bigfoot; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for extraterrestrials building the pyramids; but there is none.
Not only are we playing by different rules and speaking different languages for the word "faith"; we are playing by different rules and speaking different languages for the word "evidence".
I don't know how much more clear I can be. I don't know any other way I can reiterate to you the extreme differences between these kinds of "strong confidences".
I can show you evidence for why a car starts. I can present to you the principles of electricity and metallurgy and clearly document, explain, demonstrate how electricity travels through certain metals. I can present to you evidence of chemical reactions; how gasoline ignites within a cylinder. I can show it to you, show it happen, clearly demonstrate it to you in front of your very eyes; that when spark is applied to gasoline vapors, an explosion occurs. I can show you the gears and boxes and chemicals and metals and everything involved in the starting of a vehicle. I can present overwhelming evidence of millions of cars starting around the world. i can document and compile the processes by which we learned how to create automobiles and even, if so pressed, provide the name of the engineer, the diagrams of my vehicle, when and where and how it was made and the name of the person who installed my starter on my vehicle's assembly line. All of this evidence provides overwhelming proof that properly assembled, maintained and powered vehicles start when the ignition key is turned. And each and every time. And every bit of this is testable, predictable, concrete, physical, closed for interpretation, beyond criticism, completely provable, irrefutable. There is absolutely no "faith" (of the religious variety) required. That is why I can say, with certainty, "Yes; I am sure I am an atheist; and, in the case of the religious version, I have no faith."
When I step out to start my car, there is no decision making. There are no metaphysics. No spiritual principles. No greater purpose or higher power. My car doesn't wonder if I've been faithful. It doesn't consider the purpose for my starting the car. It doesn't wonder if I've been good enough to it before it "decides" to start. It doesn't consider whether or not the stars are in proper alignment, or if I've said the magic words correctly, or if my "faith" in it is sufficient for me to be rewarded. If it doesn't start, I don't ponder if my car decided that it was sparing me from a tragic car accident, or teaching me some valuable lesson in life. I don't ponder what I may have did or thought or felt that was wrong. I don't placate my car or ask it for forgiveness for whatever it is I may have done or not done to "explain" its refusal to behave as designed. If it doesn't start, there is a mechanical fault, or loss of power, or loss of fuel, or loss of a concrete, discernible, objective flaw. Should such a condition arise where my car doesn't start and I take it to a mechanic, I have trust in that mechanic's ability to diagnose and fix the problem. Should the mechanic fail to do so, this isn't a "sign" from a higher power that I need to purchase a new car. I don't shrug and wonder to myself, "Hey, my mechanic decided it was best for me to not have the vehicle fixed. I don't understand why that is, but because I have faith in my mechanic, I trust in his decision"; then take my next malfunctioning vehicle to the same mechanic. My trust in my mechanic is based on his past performance in repairing vehicles, his experience, his education. All of this is clearly documented; and much of that documentation is available to me, should I choose to waste my time in researching said mechanic.
Equating "faith" to both the physical and the metaphysical-supernatural-god is absurd. Even in the lives of the theist, you do not play by the same rules when you decide that you have "faith" in your spouse, "faith" in yourself, "faith" in your car starting or "faith" in the metaphysical-supernatural-god. If your computer doesn't boot up, you don't shut it down and try again later and hope for a different result; or decide that this mechanical contraption had a reason or purpose for not starting up; or any of that garbage. You get it fixed or get it replaced. However, if your desired results are not achieved through belief in metaphysical-supernatural-god, that is exactly what one does; one decides that some cosmic metaphysical-supernatural-god had a purpose or a plan or some unspecified reason or blah blah blah; and one "chooses" to continue the faith and the belief in said metaphysical-supernatural-god.
So if the dreamcatcher doesn't work, maybe it was because of (The material it was contrived of? The shaman improperly smuidged it? We need a more powerful ward?); then we try a dreamcather for the next person who suffers nightmares. If our prayers aren't answered, maybe it was because of (Lack of faith? God said "no"? Used the wrong kind of salt in our circle of protection? Planets not properly aligned? Doing so would have altered the balance of the Universe?); then, the next time one desires a desired result, we pray again. And prayers, dreamcatchers, circles of protection, astrology, numerology, tarot cards, metaphysical-supernatural-god; all of this depends on nothing more than "faith" and abiding by certain doctrines/philosophies/rituals to "work" the way they are said to "work".
To attribute all of this under one heading: "faith"; then juxtapose on each that each are playing by the same rules is ludicrous. It takes something that (for lack of better words) is objective an concrete (scientific method, natural laws, cause an d effect) and perverts this into something subjective and abstract. You take your spiritual belief system then pervert cheapen it from something subjective and abstract (supposedly of a "higher meaning") into something that is concrete and objective.
To insinuate that "faith" in your car starting is the same as the "faith" in your spiritual beliefs is the same as "faith" in your significant others; loyalty is an affront to the methodologies of science; is an affront to your spiritual religion and spiritual beliefs; and an affront to your significant other. It is so much an affront that each of these kinds of "strong confidence" should not even be the same word.
We can assert that there is evidence for God; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for a government 9/11 conspiracy; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for Nessie or Bigfoot; but there is none. The same that we can assert that there is evidence for extraterrestrials building the pyramids; but there is none.
Not only are we playing by different rules and speaking different languages for the word "faith"; we are playing by different rules and speaking different languages for the word "evidence".
I don't know how much more clear I can be. I don't know any other way I can reiterate to you the extreme differences between these kinds of "strong confidences".
I can show you evidence for why a car starts. I can present to you the principles of electricity and metallurgy and clearly document, explain, demonstrate how electricity travels through certain metals. I can present to you evidence of chemical reactions; how gasoline ignites within a cylinder. I can show it to you, show it happen, clearly demonstrate it to you in front of your very eyes; that when spark is applied to gasoline vapors, an explosion occurs. I can show you the gears and boxes and chemicals and metals and everything involved in the starting of a vehicle. I can present overwhelming evidence of millions of cars starting around the world. i can document and compile the processes by which we learned how to create automobiles and even, if so pressed, provide the name of the engineer, the diagrams of my vehicle, when and where and how it was made and the name of the person who installed my starter on my vehicle's assembly line. All of this evidence provides overwhelming proof that properly assembled, maintained and powered vehicles start when the ignition key is turned. And each and every time. And every bit of this is testable, predictable, concrete, physical, closed for interpretation, beyond criticism, completely provable, irrefutable. There is absolutely no "faith" (of the religious variety) required. That is why I can say, with certainty, "Yes; I am sure I am an atheist; and, in the case of the religious version, I have no faith."
When I step out to start my car, there is no decision making. There are no metaphysics. No spiritual principles. No greater purpose or higher power. My car doesn't wonder if I've been faithful. It doesn't consider the purpose for my starting the car. It doesn't wonder if I've been good enough to it before it "decides" to start. It doesn't consider whether or not the stars are in proper alignment, or if I've said the magic words correctly, or if my "faith" in it is sufficient for me to be rewarded. If it doesn't start, I don't ponder if my car decided that it was sparing me from a tragic car accident, or teaching me some valuable lesson in life. I don't ponder what I may have did or thought or felt that was wrong. I don't placate my car or ask it for forgiveness for whatever it is I may have done or not done to "explain" its refusal to behave as designed. If it doesn't start, there is a mechanical fault, or loss of power, or loss of fuel, or loss of a concrete, discernible, objective flaw. Should such a condition arise where my car doesn't start and I take it to a mechanic, I have trust in that mechanic's ability to diagnose and fix the problem. Should the mechanic fail to do so, this isn't a "sign" from a higher power that I need to purchase a new car. I don't shrug and wonder to myself, "Hey, my mechanic decided it was best for me to not have the vehicle fixed. I don't understand why that is, but because I have faith in my mechanic, I trust in his decision"; then take my next malfunctioning vehicle to the same mechanic. My trust in my mechanic is based on his past performance in repairing vehicles, his experience, his education. All of this is clearly documented; and much of that documentation is available to me, should I choose to waste my time in researching said mechanic.
Equating "faith" to both the physical and the metaphysical-supernatural-god is absurd. Even in the lives of the theist, you do not play by the same rules when you decide that you have "faith" in your spouse, "faith" in yourself, "faith" in your car starting or "faith" in the metaphysical-supernatural-god. If your computer doesn't boot up, you don't shut it down and try again later and hope for a different result; or decide that this mechanical contraption had a reason or purpose for not starting up; or any of that garbage. You get it fixed or get it replaced. However, if your desired results are not achieved through belief in metaphysical-supernatural-god, that is exactly what one does; one decides that some cosmic metaphysical-supernatural-god had a purpose or a plan or some unspecified reason or blah blah blah; and one "chooses" to continue the faith and the belief in said metaphysical-supernatural-god.
So if the dreamcatcher doesn't work, maybe it was because of (The material it was contrived of? The shaman improperly smuidged it? We need a more powerful ward?); then we try a dreamcather for the next person who suffers nightmares. If our prayers aren't answered, maybe it was because of (Lack of faith? God said "no"? Used the wrong kind of salt in our circle of protection? Planets not properly aligned? Doing so would have altered the balance of the Universe?); then, the next time one desires a desired result, we pray again. And prayers, dreamcatchers, circles of protection, astrology, numerology, tarot cards, metaphysical-supernatural-god; all of this depends on nothing more than "faith" and abiding by certain doctrines/philosophies/rituals to "work" the way they are said to "work".
To attribute all of this under one heading: "faith"; then juxtapose on each that each are playing by the same rules is ludicrous. It takes something that (for lack of better words) is objective an concrete (scientific method, natural laws, cause an d effect) and perverts this into something subjective and abstract. You take your spiritual belief system then pervert cheapen it from something subjective and abstract (supposedly of a "higher meaning") into something that is concrete and objective.
To insinuate that "faith" in your car starting is the same as the "faith" in your spiritual beliefs is the same as "faith" in your significant others; loyalty is an affront to the methodologies of science; is an affront to your spiritual religion and spiritual beliefs; and an affront to your significant other. It is so much an affront that each of these kinds of "strong confidence" should not even be the same word.
Last edited:
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
You can, but it might be misplaced. If your teenage son comes into the house late with bloodshot eyes and smelling of alcohol, you can still have faith that he hasn't been out drinking underage if you want. Seems a little silly though.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Oxymoron. Double negative. If:
... then I can NOT have "faith" in my car starting in the morning, as the confidence that my car WILL start in the morning IS
and IS NOT based on:
Thank you for your brevity in illustrating my point.
The proof here, though, of any individual instance of the car starting is in the pudding, which is to say in actuality. You can build as many properly made cars as you want, but until the switch is turned what you have isn't proof that the car will turn on; it's just evidence. Remember, we're talking philosophy, not standing in a court of law: no one but you will judge your evidence. No one else has to be convinced, and a healthy amount of skeptical burden should properly be allowed for the outcome of the empirical inference. That's not to say you doubt, but that you don't misplace certainty.
Belief, as truth without certainty, stands strong. Belief, mistaken for certainty, falls, or at best, wallows.
Belief or faith, whether informed by empiricism or superstition, don't change their identity, though, unless you are allowing them a much larger role than their identity dictates.
I reject the assertion of another realm where god resides, with its own set of rules applied differently from this world. Hence, it is quite the simple thing, as well as natural, to understand that theistic concepts operate from the same point of view that everything else does, since they were developed by the same people and for the same linguistic and communicative reasons. Regardless of the amount of evidence you see for god, there was sufficient reason to define the concept, and house it terms, both poetic and symbolic, to portray meaningful communications about it. I don't accept that a word means something different because in one instance it's informed by superstition. I have faith in scholars to define.
Take your use of the word "metaphysics," you use it to mean "boogy-woogy," then create a divide between two apparent uses for the word--but, in fact, metaphysics is a valid philosophical topic that describes only the world. This world. The word was devised and is still used in scholarly circles, both scientific and religious, to speak about the world, on topics of both disciplines, without involving or invoking magic. Philosophy trascends all disciplines.
Nefelie
Member
Google "quantum entaglement" and "the power of thought" on youtube and http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.gr/2013/03/scientific-proof-of-mental-telepathy.html and the book of Rupert Sheldrake “Seven Experiments That Could Change the World” and so much more which I have not the time to mention all. Just google “sciense and telepathy” or “scientific proof of telepathy” etc. You’ll get more than enough results.
.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Are you sure you have actually read the content of that link ?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
The only one in that post.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Interesting stuff!
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
"Belief" fueled by "Empiricism" is not belief fueled by "faith" in the same degree that "belief" fueled by "superstition" IS fueled by "superstition".
"Faith" informed by "empiricism" cannot be held, philisophically OR practically, in the same container as "Faith" .. uehm ... "informed" by "Superst.
You are philosophizing something to death that needs no philosophizing.
It would seem to me that that's what you've done. But no worries.