Atheists and Theists: how do you pick and choose what to believe?

[1137]

I can defend materialism with evidence, but I cannot prove it. But I've seen you pick and choose exactly who and what to respond to in countless conversations on Reddit regarding this subject, so I know it does no good. You've decided.

Your scientific evidence is a quote from a paper of yours. Typical. And I suppose you have successfully done your due diligence in the field of neuroscience to explain all the scientific evidence suggesting that materialism is true? It's rather overwhelming and materialism explains it. Talk about picking and choosing.

Also, for me, the "endless" debates about the existence of a god or god's stop when faith-based political action stops in my country. I know you aren't advocating for this, but you brought it up.

Lol, you atheists. So you think all those citations are mine? Hahahahaha

 

[blü 2]

most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence.

That's a huge problem for theism.

It goes hand in hand with the problem that those who claim personal experience of deity largely differ according to the norms of their culture, so that contemplative Hindus never encounter Jesus, and contemplative Christians never encounter Ganesha. Even within the culture, they may report simply an emotional state eg ecstasy or awe, or a dislocated point of view (as with out-of-body experiences, which we can reproduce in the lab and have reasonable explanations for.) No data anywhere.

Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism).

No, there's abundant evidence for materialism. Perhaps the most direct is the manner in which brain function alters when physically altered, eg by trauma, disease, drugs including alcohol and caffeine, starvation, anoxia, stress and environment.

Were the functions of the brain 'not material', then none of that should happen.

And were the functions of the brain 'not material', then why would the body need a brain at all?

Another point is that on our present understanding the Big Bang consisted solely of energy (or mass-energy, if you prefer that term) and nothing else has been shown to have objective existence.

Of course, if you don't have objective existence, you're imaginary (or non-existent, or both).

Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you."

More like, simply , If that's true, show me.

If you assert something positive as being correct, then you carry the can for showing its correctness. You can't turn that round and require your colloquist to show you're wrong. This is as true about gods as it is about unicorns. The aunicornists are entitled to say, Show me, just as the nontheists are.

Which said, it's nonetheless not hard for nontheists to make a persuasive argument against theism.

And then, of course, with the exception of this statement, there are no absolute statements. I admit there's an exquisitely tiny possibility that gods exist (magic as distinct from superscience) and that within that tiny realm there's an exquisitely tiny possibility again that one of them resembles the deity of one's particular choice.

Hard data to the contrary could alter that instantly, but there's none.

Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

That cries out for an example. What has appeared in reputable journals of science this century in favor of theism that the scientific world has then improperly rejected?


My own view is that the idea of a real god, a god with objective existence, is incoherent. That's why there's no description of a real god, such that if we found a candidate, we could determine whether it was a real god or not. (That's not technically atheism, though the result is very much the same.)

 

[Willamena]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Speaking as an atheist, all is explained by confirmation bias, or in some cases wishful thinking.

 

[blü 2]

I know of no atheist that believes there is only one element. Maybe there are a few.....have you met one?

As Smart and Armstrong put it, materialism is the view the only entities and processes that exist are those recognized by physics from time to time. So all materialism is a form of monism.

I go a little further than that. Since on our present understanding the Big Bang was composed solely of energy (or if you prefer, mass-energy) it seems reasonable to me to hypothesize that everything (matter, radiation, the dimensions, the lot) are qualities of energy. A bit like Anaximander's apeiron, but with a basis in physics.

 

[sayak83]

That's a huge problem for theism.

It goes hand in hand with the problem that those who claim personal experience of deity largely differ according to the norms of their culture, so that contemplative Hindus never encounter Jesus, and contemplative Christians never encounter Ganesha. Even within the culture, they may report simply an emotional state eg ecstasy or awe, or a dislocated point of view (as with out-of-body experiences, which we can reproduce in the lab and have reasonable explanations for.) No data anywhere.
No, there's abundant evidence for materialism. Perhaps the most direct is the manner in which brain function alters when physically altered, eg by trauma, disease, drugs including alcohol and caffeine, starvation, anoxia, stress and environment.

Were the functions of the brain 'not material', then none of that should happen.

And were the functions of the brain 'not material', then why would the body need a brain at all?

Another point is that on our present understanding the Big Bang consisted solely of energy (or mass-energy, if you prefer that term) and nothing else has been shown to have objective existence.

Of course, if you don't have objective existence, you're imaginary (or non-existent, or both).
More like, simply , If that's true, show me.

If you assert something positive as being correct, then you carry the can for showing its correctness. You can't turn that round and require your colloquist to show you're wrong. This is as true about gods as it is about unicorns. The aunicornists are entitled to say, Show me, just as the nontheists are.

Which said, it's nonetheless not hard for nontheists to make a persuasive argument against theism.

And then, of course, with the exception of this statement, there are no absolute statements. I admit there's an exquisitely tiny possibility that gods exist (magic as distinct from superscience) and that within that tiny realm there's an exquisitely tiny possibility again that one of them resembles the deity of one's particular choice.

Hard data to the contrary could alter that instantly, but there's none.

That cries out for an example. What has appeared in reputable journals of science this century in favor of theism that the scientific world has then improperly rejected?


My own view is that the idea of a real god, a god with objective existence, is incoherent. That's why there's no description of a real god, such that if we found a candidate, we could determine whether it was a real god or not. (That's not technically atheism, though the result is very much the same.)

I know of contemplative Hindus who have had experiences of Jesus. The correct criticism here is for many people these experiences simply reinforce there previously accepted beliefs. Thus Catholics see Catholic Jesus, Protestants see protestant Jesus and Hindus see Hindu Jesus. This weakens the claim that they are experiences stemming from a source outside of one's own mind

 

[sayak83]

As Smart and Armstrong put it, materialism is the view the only entities and processes that exist are those recognized by physics from time to time. So all materialism is a form of monism.

I go a little further than that. Since on our present understanding the Big Bang was composed solely of energy (or if you prefer, mass-energy) it seems reasonable to me to hypothesize that everything (matter, radiation, the dimensions, the lot) are qualities of energy. A bit like Anaximander's apeiron, but with a basis in physics.

Dimensions of space cannot be energy. In fact energy is a property, not a substances. Fields and matter have energy as a property. So "everything is energy" seems contradictory.

 

[sayak83]

I'm an atheist. I believe in everything I can't disprove that is internally consistent.

Two internally consistent systems can be jointly contradictory.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

LOL this thread again.

Can't really say anything I haven't already said on the matter in the other 14 incarnations I guess, other than to say I've never chosen a belief.

 

[blü 2]

Dimensions of space cannot be energy. In fact energy is a property, not a substances. Fields and matter have energy as a property. So "everything is energy" seems contradictory.

I freely acknowledge it's an hypothesis, but first, as I said, the only constituent of the Big Bang was energy, so that the inference is available that when we look at reality, the whole of it is composed of energy through the various forms that energy can take; second, that the energy of the vacuum, the fact that even the remotest empty parts of space are not in fact empty, but have energy in them, may imply that our spacetime is likewise a product of energy; and third, energy is real, and in my view the various kinds of fields and of matter are forms and properties of energy.

I'm also attracted to the neatness of the explanation that the hypothesis makes available, that time exists because energy does; thus resolving the problem of beginnings.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Lol, you atheists. So you think all those citations are mine? Hahahahaha

Very typical. Of everything I said, you pick one little thing and produce a low-effort response. . . and one that's nothing more than a backhanded insult.

Actually, the passage you quoted does not have a single piece of scientific evidence in it, it's just a long rant. Of course it's yours. I have no idea what you mean by citations. The passage you quoted from your own paper has none.

But again, now you've deflected away from your lack of expertise/understanding of neuroscience (which you haven't bothered to study), failed to address my comment that proving materialism or dualism is not possible, and decided to focus on a generalization of how atheists are irrational, defensive, and et cetera.

Notice that you aren't really engaging. I'm begging you to think about you own blind spots here.

 

[Laika]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

I was an atheist and a materialist and I maybe still. But it's getting harder to tell. It has become more and more something profoundly irrational, almost as if it were an instinct. Its not about evidence or reason but a question of personal interests. There is a darker desire to have no higher authority to judge or to limit me or to deny my own "true" nature, so atheism for me is very much like atheistic satanism as a rebellion against "god" and "organised religion".

For me, Atheism has become the freedom from god and the fear of god. I flirt with Totalitarian ideas probably because there is the notion that man will ultimately become a "god" in terms of knowledge and power by a kind of humanistic self-deification but its an idea I'm only semi-conscious of given how dangerous it is. It is revolutionary doctrine to overthrow falsehoods and injustices that would otherwise be regarded as "natural" or inevitable because they are contary to "human" interests. Its prophetic, apocalyptic, millennial and messianic and so blurs the distinction between atheism and religion by faith in humanity.

The irrationality and emotional gravity of the consequences of atheism as I know it (essentially as Nietzsche's "Death of God") makes it very much a religious experience for me with inner struggles over what meaning and purpose are, what good and evil "really" mean, etc. You have to deal with nihilism and that makes up most of my "inner" dialogue about Atheism. However, at this point I could not say definitively it is anything more than faith. The harder I have looked in to my own beliefs and my own thoughts, the clearer it is there is some unexplained arbitrariness to choosing one belief over another.

Disclaimer: This view is abslutely NOT representative of most atheists on RF and should not be treated as such. What other people use the word for has virtually no relationship to how I'd use it.

 

[sayak83]

I freely acknowledge it's an hypothesis, but first, as I said, the only constituent of the Big Bang was energy, so that the inference is available that when we look at reality, the whole of it is composed of energy through the various forms that energy can take; second, that the energy of the vacuum, the fact that even the remotest empty parts of space are not in fact empty, but have energy in them, may imply that our spacetime is likewise a product of energy; and third, energy is real, and in my view the various kinds of fields and of matter are forms and properties of energy.

I'm also attracted to the neatness of the explanation that the hypothesis makes available, that time exists because energy does; thus resolving the problem of beginnings.

Nobody has proposed that the only constituent of Big Bang is energy.

 

[blü 2]

Nobody has proposed that the only constituent of Big Bang is energy.

Mass-energy, if you prefer.

What else do you say existed at time zero?

 

[sayak83]

Mass-energy, if you prefer.

What else do you say existed at time zero?

Nobody knows that there even was a time zero.

 

[blü 2]

Nobody knows that there even was a time zero.

I'm working with the model of the Big Bang. It has a time zero.

Anyway, what else do you say was there?

 

[sayak83]

I'm working with the model of the Big Bang. It has a time zero.

Anyway, what else do you say was there?

Read this
Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

 

[blü 2]

Read this
Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Thank you. I accept the correction that we do not know the temperature at time zero; I should have said, at the Planck time, which is 10^ -43 seconds or so later. The temperature at that point is tentatively estimated to be 1.4x10^ -32 K or so.

What else than energy /mass-energy do you say was present at the Planck time?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Two internally consistent systems can be jointly contradictory.

I know that; I just keep open to both.

 

[blü 2]

I know of contemplative Hindus who have had experiences of Jesus.

Interesting. I overgeneralized. Thanks.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you. I accept the correction that we do not know the temperature at time zero; I should have said, at the Planck time, which is 10^ -43 seconds or so later. The temperature at that point is tentatively estimated to be 1.4x10^ -32 K or so.

What else than energy /mass-energy do you say was present at the Planck time?

Some quantized form of space-time. Spin networks is a possibility.

The fabric of space: spin networks — Einstein Online

 

[blü 2]

Some quantized form of space-time. Spin networks is a possibility.

What would they consist of other than mass-energy?