Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Willamena]

I’m not sure what wasn’t accurate, but I’m glad we agree:
no evidence is just that: no evidence. And therefore we should not exclude the possibility that at some point we might find evidence. Keeping an open mind never hurts, right?

.

We also should not include it. Else we are only indulging imagination, not possibility.

 

[Willamena]

I just know this from observational experience.
lets just say I have 100 people in my family and the Athiests are in the spoiled Cushy side and the stats are everyone of one them that are raised in misguided compassion is Athiest 100% of the time.

By "misguided compassion" I assume you mean compassion given where it is inappropriate to do so. I'm not seeing how that results in putting yourself before others.

Edit: Unless you mean self-pity, rather than compassion? Then that makes sense, that in self-pity one puts oneself before others.

But then, as an atheist, could I bother you to explain how indulging self-pity and hubris make one feel like a god?

 

[`mud]

And all from a preacher's lips !
~
'mud

 

[Peter Stone]

By "misguided compassion" I assume you mean compassion given where it is inappropriate to do so. I'm not seeing how that results in putting yourself before

By "misguided compassion" I assume you mean compassion given where it is inappropriate to do so. I'm not seeing how that results in putting yourself before others.

Misguided compassion typically is used to nurture bail out a child in any situation of discomfort be it good or bad with out a proven moral compass.

 

[Peter Stone]

MisguidedTE="Peter Stone, post: 4754575, member: 59894"][/QUOTE]

Misguided compassion is comforting /nurturing / bailing a child out of any situation be it good or bad. This usually happens when you have a distorted moral compass or become bothered by a childs discomfort in any situation.

 

[`mud]

Willa,
good luck !
~
'mud

 

[Acim]

Part of the breakdown in the exchange of ideas is what each considers "reason" and "evidence"; or, to put a little finer (not ambiguous) point on it, "good reason" and "good evidence".

"Good reason" and "good evidence" was a source of a bit of confusion when I used those terms lat time, so please let me try to refine this a bit.

I used to be a believer. In fact, I used to be a Pentecostal. I believed I was speaking on tongues and I believed I was 'slain in the spirit". These mood altering experiences gave me "reason" to believe and certainly are "evidence" of .... well ... something ... which I attributed to God Almighty and the Workings of the Holy Spirit. However, after many life experiences and learning a lot about psychology and group dynamics, I have later concluded that these "mood altering experiences" were not "good evidence" for the Holy Spirit thus I had no "good reason" to believe that there was anything else at work other than dopamine and emotional/psychological manipulation. I hold that I have "good reason" to hold the latter part of this statement to be true based on known psychological principles. Later in life, I thought I was a pagan and once saw a vision (hallucination?) of Pan. This can be construed as "evidence" of Pan's existence and can be called "reason" to believe in Pan. However, a known psychological principles is that the mind is susceptible to hallucinations (more so than most want to believe) and that the human mind has a nasty tendency to manifest that which we desire. As a result, I felt I lacked "good evidence" and "good reason" to believe in Pan; let alone that I saw Pan.

What I consider "good reason" and "good evidence" is very elusive in the realms of religion and other fringe beliefs; as "good evidence" must be objectively verifiable, testable, measurable, repeatable, predictable and form predictive models of reality: and "objectively verifiable, testable, measurable, predictable" are aspects that fringe beliefs and religious beliefs are resistant or immune to. And without "good evidence" of a given thing being true, I see no "good reason" to hold that given thing as being true.

I do not see you explaining here 'good reason' nor good evidence. You shared a personal story that lead to understanding of 'bad reason' or bad evidence.

I wish to interject that I don't see it as helpful to add good and bad to the terms as if that is understood by all in what it is conveying. 'Evidence' and 'reason' work for me.

My personal understanding (that I truly believe is shared by many, if not all) that the material universe exists, is because I can perceive it. This is arguably the sole reason I have for its existence (for me). But in that perception is other bodies (other physical selves) who will share similarities of my perceptions and expand (or detract) on it in ways that I do not think I could reasonable anticipate, much less predict. Interestingly, virtually the same paradigm presents itself in my night dreams. Me with my perceptions of a physical reality. Me perceiving other physical selves who share similar perceptions, and who expand on the overall process of that existence in ways I do not think I could reasonably anticipate, nor predict. But upon waking from the night dream, I am left with distinct impression that all of that perception (the entire reality) was my making, even the parts where I (as dreamer) thought there is no way I am doing this to myself. The reality (upon waking) is that I was doing all of it to, for, with myself, and all selves within the dream were me (in a sense) or entirely determined in terms of existence, by me.

Yet, I don't know if it can be emphasized enough that within the dream, there is not good reason to believe any of it (including my own self within the dream) is of my making. And is why I emphasize the point of night dreams in relation to whatever it is we (today) call this existence. Reality? Physical existence? God's Kingdom? All of that, falls way short in my skeptical mind that has umpteen zillion questions to challenge those notions that are seemingly taken for granted as if the process will keep playing out regardless of whether my inquiries are addressed or not. Same goes with lucid dreaming, unless that dreamer does decide to end the dream (for them). Like closing a book midway through, and then claiming the world has ended (within the story).

The evidence of a physical world existing is the physical world (existing). It is that circular and I have thus far not seen a reasonable alternative that actually substantiates the existence. I feel entirely open to considering such evidence. I believe I would ultimately welcome it, in much the same way as if I were having a night dream (nightmare) and person / being within the dream came to me and said, you are only dreaming, none of this is real, you can wake up, now! (And then I awake.)

I do not see how if such evidence were presented it would not lead to a sense of waking up within the physical universe.

I truly believe that I, and others*, are providing conceptual framework that is leading toward 'waking up.' To a realization of what the physical universe actually is (objectively speaking). I think there are conceptual frameworks that do this directly, as in awaken today because that is possible, or awaken thousands of years from now as if this somehow is resting on time and patience is necessary.

I further believe that everyone that dies, wakes up. Thus awaking from conceptual hold and/or restriction on free will that the physical universe seems to entail, is overcome every single day, or whenever a physical person dies. But not sure how much this belief really helps us who are 'alive' in the physical existence. It seemingly could matter significantly, or from perspective of it is impossible to communicate with dead people, it would seem to matter not at all.

So, no (objective) evidence for existence of a material universe, as it stands now.
And reason to believe it exists, is based on perception, which continues to strike me as tautological and is made clear with consideration of night dreams where same perception is at work, establishing reasonable belief that the physical universe there exists.

That consciousness is capable of more than mere perception, and capable of 'things' not found anywhere in the physical, except in the off chance particular thoughts wish to be expressed as physical effects, does provide reason to determine it is more than simple (feeble) faith that is at work in this existence. But that also has power to greatly minimize physical existence itself. How much one accepts that or is willing to accept that is up to the individual. Personally, I have experienced the physical as if it could not have conceivably presented an obstacle to me while I experienced what I, to this day, understand as reason for being here at all. A bold claim, and one I'll periodically speak about, but is one of around 500 spiritually aware experiences, that filter reality from a perspective focussed on joy and Love. I fully believe everyone, everywhere, has had similar experiences. Plausibly everyone is having that experience now while I may not be, for all my body self cares to realize. And is, in essence, a conceptual framework that I find to be permeating existence, even while plausible denial wishes to (strongly) suggest otherwise.

*Wish to note I didn't need 'God' to explain any of this. Didn't really intend it that way, just noting that now at the end of this wall of text.

 

[ArtieE]

Misguided compassion is comforting /nurturing / bailing a child out of any situation be it good or bad. This usually happens when you have a distorted moral compass

Like all the Catholic pedophile priests?

or become bothered by a childs discomfort in any situation.

They certainly weren't much bothered with a child's discomfort...

 

[Peter Stone]

Trust me you do this to a child and the

By "misguided compassion" I assume you mean compassion given where it is inappropriate to do so. I'm not seeing how that results in putting yourself before others.

Edit: Unless you mean self-pity, rather than compassion? Then that makes sense, that in self-pity one puts oneself before others.

But then, as an atheist, could I bother you to explain how indulging self-pity and hubris make one feel like a god?

Well that would have to be an answer you could possibly answer on your own. Cause Catholics pity others thats why we are doing charity not for self gratitude but to actually help without reward just because its what we are taught. We try to convince people who pity them selves to pity others. This is the discomfort that is portrayed to us through insults it is people being incorrigible in there way.

 

[Willamena]

Misguided compassion is comforting /nurturing / bailing a child out of any situation be it good or bad. This usually happens when you have a distorted moral compass or become bothered by a childs discomfort in any situation.

I see. And how is this putting yourself before others?

 

[Acim]

Cause when you are at the mercy of something or someone and find out you are not a god you will cry out for something or someone believe me.

(("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”))

See, here would be a theist that disagrees with my notion of God, where I see us all as gods. And even if my interpretation is backed by Gospel, the idea is that it doesn't take mere atheism to disagree with this notion.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So, you are actually -with all due respect- so arrogant to claim that humanity has already proven everything that could be proved and therefore everything else is just “hocus-pocus”?

Really…?

.

My Momma and I were separated when I was 6 years old. I didn't see her again until I was 17. During our years of separation, my adoptive family and I were on vacation. During our trip, I had an overwhelming feeling that science, at the time, said I shouldn't have had. I went to my adoptive mother and said, "Momma's close by. I know it. I can feel it." Meanwhile, about 50 miles away, my Momma stepped out of her home and met her husband on the driveway. She said, "My son is nearby. I can feel it."

After we were reunited, one time, the phone rang. I jumped up from the dinner table and said, "I've got it. That's Momma." And it was. There was no rational reason, as far as we can discern, at how I knew that to be. On yet another incident, I impulsively reached over, grabbed the phone that wasn't ringing, put it to my ear and said "Hi, Momma." And she was on the other line.

Once is an anomaly. Twice is a coincidence. Three times? Now, that's a pattern.

Now; how could our senses, as we know our senses to be, provide such a cunningly accurate perception? The answer? "We don't know." Is it possible that there are senses that human beings possess that is beyond what science can define? Not only "possible"; but "probable". But that does not mean that I will jump to a supernaturalistic explanation like ESP, the "One Mind" theory or any other "explanation" that truly explains "nothing".

Maybe science will unravel the mysteries of human perception. Maybe science won't. Maybe science can't; as such phenomenon that we call "extrasensory perception" fail controlled conditions. Maybe that's because we don't fully understand the conditions required for ESP? Who knows. And maybe, life is more fun and adventurous and mysterious if we never know.

That's just one personal story; doesn't fit all the other personal stories nor does it address the thousands of other questions that 'science doesn't know the answer to" yet;; let alone the questions that sicience hasn't asked yet.

So, this statement, "So, you are actually -with all due respect- so arrogant to claim that humanity has already proven everything that could be proved and therefore everything else is just “hocus-pocus”?" is totally, utterly, entirely false and does not describe me, my attitude, or my position..

I am comfortable with "I don't know". In fact, I'm rather happy with "I don't know". Maybe mankind needs a little mystery in their lives.

I never made a claim that "humanity has already proven everything that can be proved". I simply will not fill in the "I don't know" with some dubious answer that lacks good evidence to back up why "answer" is correct to "question".

Well for one religion is the opposite of self gratification. Which by every word you displayed is something to gratify you. You will find out one day when you put yourself before others because your moral compass is stuck on you. The problem with Athiesm is humility and putting others before them selves. Because you feel as if you are a god. This usually happens from misguided compassion as a child. So from my observation Athiest are spoiled narcissistic brats who only see life from a cushy perception. Usually afraid of pain and get on antidepressants and become hateful and ungrateful.

Really? Where is the "self gratification?" At what point did I point out anything even remotely close to a "value"? Where are the "value" statements? How does "I don't believe in god, spirit, soul, nessie, bigfoot, ogres, orcs, trolls, elves, etc" have any connection whatsoever to how I feel about my place in the universe, or how I should treat my fellow man, or what my moral compass is?

And now, let me pose a question to you: "Did it give you a sense of superiority or self-gratification to assume what my moral compass is and elevate yourself above me?"

So, I come back to existence of a physical universe. What is the good reason to believe it exists? Where is the objective evidence that it exists/is reality?

Throughout our lives, we all face those times when we ask questions and seek answers that threaten our sense of reality. While an adventure and an exhilarating time of discovery, doing so can be quite ... disconcerting.

One of those times was taking a cursory look at the Theory of Relativity and internalizing that time has mass; it is a "thing" that "exists" (as we understand existence); that it's not static; slowing down and speeding up. Before I took this journey, I adamantly stated that "time" wasn't a "thing"; it didn't "exist"; it was mere perception. Well, I was wrong and correcting that ignorance was not entirely a comfortable process; because redefining our own reality never is. Likewise, physics; understanding that I never really touch "anything" but instead come in contact with magnetic fields; that because of those magnetic fields, I can never truly "touch" others.

I have heard some talk here and again about the "existence of existence" but have yet taken a close look at it. Might be kind of fun to explore those ideas.

My car exists (as I understand existence). Not the disclaimer: "as I understand existence". It can be verified to exist within those parameters by a gizilliion different ways; from confirmation with others (Hey, is there a black car there? A Toyota Corolla?) to physically mainpulating it to conducting various experiments (two objects can not exist in the same space; so if I run it into a telephone pole and neither pass through either, then we can be reasonably assured that both my car and the telephone pole exists as some kind of object; each has mass); to conducting research that verify via VIN number when, where, and by whom it was made; and on and on the list goes of a gizzillion ways to validate that "my car exists".

We can't do that with God, Spirit, Soul, Psychic Phenomena, Planes of existence (Heaven, Ellysium, Nirvana) for my "immortal soul" to exist after death; Life after Death; Bigfoot (even really cool ones named "Harry"); Nessie, Shape-shifting Reptilians masquerading as politicians; the Illuminati; Global conspiracies including (or especially) involving the cooperation of competing parties; Zeus, Odin, Demons, Angels (and their various other names meaning about the same thing); Poltergeists, Ghosts, Vampires, Zombies, Ghouls, Ogres (even those named "Shrek"); Bugs Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause; Magic, Merlin, Dopplegangers; cow-mutilating and crop-decorating Aliens; Curses, Hexes, Charms, Talismans and Totems; Functioning Voodoo dolls; demon-possessed dolls named "Chucky" or demon-posessed cars named "Christine" or demon-possessed space ships named "Event Horizon"; Hidden messages in DaVinci's paintings; winged horses, talking snakes and donkeys, elves, dwarves, gnomes.

 

[Peter Stone]

Being incorrigible becomes us when we are led with misguided compassion they are all rel

I see. And how is this putting yourself before others?

You seem very absorbed. Everything in our lives unfolds in our lives do to either our ancestry, upbringing or our actions. A moral compass or moral guidelines dipic these to an extent. If you're brought up in a sink or swim environment with a little pick me ups along the
You become very aware of how irrelevant you actually are verses. Being handed everything you get a sense of intitelment for self and feel you are important.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well for one religion is the opposite of self gratification.

Tell that to Jim Jones and Oral Roberts and David Koresh and Benny Henn. I can not respond to your arrogant, condescending posts kindly; so I will not respond further.

 

[Willamena]

Being incorrigible becomes us when we are led with misguided compassion they are all rel


You seem very absorbed. Everything in our lives unfolds in our lives do to either our ancestry, upbringing or our actions. A moral compass or moral guidelines dipic these to an extent. If you're brought up in a sink or swim environment with a little pick me ups along the
You become very aware of how irrelevant you actually are verses. Being handed everything you get a sense of intitelment for self and feel you are important.

Did you mean that it is the child, rather than the parental figure that in your example is providing misguided compassion, that is putting self before others then?

 

[Demonslayer]

Wow I didn't realize atheists were so...tall.

 

[Peter Stone]

Like all the Catholic pedophile priests?They certainly weren't much bothered with a child's discomfort...

Look I know what has happened to you with your priest sucks but every tree has a bad apple. It obviously left a discusting taste in your mouth.

 

[McBell]

Look I know what has happened to you with your priest sucks but every tree has a bad apple. It obviously left a discusting taste in your mouth.

Interesting.
Is it that you do not understand the point or is it you are ignoring the point?

 

[Peter Stone]

What is the point Mestemia?

 

[Peter Stone]

Well I never pretended to be your greater half you brought up discusting crap. So obviously you have a bad tase about something. That discusting crap happens in this world. I am sure you can bring up more appropriate subjects then the innocent of a child to talk crap.