Atheists - You wanna take part?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's what I'm talking about, your unbiased experience. It doesn't necessarily mean that you will 'see' anything for any religion. The best thing that could happen is that you won't see anything and thus there could be no bias and say Islam had evidence while Christianity didn't, unless you 'see' anything you won't say it. Which is why Atheists are the best candidates.

But of course, I don't want to force anyone into this. It's just a thought.

And through this, it is not my intention to figure out which religion is the correct one. I probably wouldn't be influenced if everyone said that Christianity had 'evidence'. I just want to prove that my statement works, and by posting our experiences here, we get to analyse the 'evidence' and see what people thought.

To what end, though? Why do you think this is a good idea?

 

[Gharib]

To what end, though? Why do you think this is a good idea?

Well regarding my statement of first having faith and then you see the evidence, everyone seems to think that just about anything is evidence once you have faith.

So if every participant is to present what they perceive as evidence we would analyse them and discuss which are reasonable, which are nonsense and which are plausible and possibly able to be seen and investigated by people who don't necessarily have faith to begin with.

Could we get evidence which would belong to all those 4 groups? Only the latter would be more interesting as the rest would be seen as evidence only by the observer and not necessarily by anyone else.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't know what's gotten into me by recently I am opening many threads and almost all are aimed at Atheists.

Due to the number of threads, I find it difficult to keep up with everyone and I hope everyone who posts in my threads forgives me for long absences, I intend on replying to all posts, so I hope no one feels left out, I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy.

The purpose of this thread.

It has to do with this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/134188-can-we-really-call-belief-anymore.html

I said the following statement in it:
"In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase)."

So I want to ask fellow RF Atheists if anyone is willing to put that statement under the microscope. What I am asking is that we select the 3 major world religions, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism and you follow the teachings of those religions one at a time for 6 months. This includes going to places of worship, having faith that God exists and trying to see if you are going to 'see' any evidence in support of that faith and it's deity. After this has finished after 18 months, we shall discuss my statement further and whether it works for just any person and any religion or whether you need to be sincere about and as a result God himself shows you his sings after your faith.

Some might see evidence that Islam is real, some Christianity and some Hinduism. Everyone is to share their experiences and what they perceived as evidence and we will discuss them.

As I have said before in my other thread, my statement isn't as black and white as it appears. So I would like to explain that statement further through a practical study if anyone is willing.

Anyone up for it? As an Atheist you don't have anything to worry about, after the 6 months you just go back to believing that religion is stupid and what not. I would ask this of the theists, but there would be a great amount of bias and it would involve breaking the rules of their current faith which they believe to be the correct faith.

So any thoughts?

While I'm a Muslim myself, I have to say that I can see quite a few problems with this concept:

• "Having faith" in any idea, concept, or religion is not as malleable as this 'test' seems to imply. Take dragons for example: I don't think Islam would have any negative views on the existence of dragons; it doesn't state that dragons exist, but it also doesn't say anything about their nonexistence. Its stance on the existence of dragons is neutral, so were I to try to convince myself that dragons do indeed exist, I wouldn't be going against my religion's teachings.

However, I still wouldn't be able to do that. There is not a single reason that I can see that supports the idea that there are dragons out there, and even if I did try to believe that they exist, my mind would simply not digest the idea -- regardless of what I want or try to believe.

• Let's say that, somehow, I manage to find it in me to be open to the idea that dragons exist, but am only unconvinced due to the lack of sufficient evidence. Now, I go around looking for evidence to support my claim -- I want them to exist -- and I see the "evidence" I was looking for. The problem is that said evidence doesn't hold up to logical, empirical, or even experimental standards; I saw what I wanted to see, not what actually qualified for evidence.

Would this be a tenable position, from a logical and/or rational standpoint? What is the difference between my search for evidence to support the existence of dragons and say... someone else's search for evidence to support claims about the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms? Why would either of us be any more correct than the other, when the "evidence" only exists from our viewpoints as an ad hoc for an already-existing bias?

• Assume that, after a prolonged search, I finally end up believing that dragons exist because I "opened up" to the idea, searched for evidence to support it, and presumably found said evidence. The premise itself -- trying to be more open to the idea of dragons' existing -- seems to indicate a readiness for accepting confirmation bias: I didn't go out there with nothing particular in mind and then found evidence suggesting that dragons exist (and hence my hypothetical belief in their existence); I went out there with a particular bias and only found what I was looking for. Rather than experimentation, logic, or evidence leading to my conclusion, my conclusion lead to my finding the supposed "evidence". That is not really evidence; that is confirmation bias and a classical example of an ad hoc.

Those are my two cents, but anyone is still free to try finding evidence for dragons, of course.

 

[dust1n]

And I did much of this when I was younger anyway. Ironically, my separation from the religion I was in came about because I started actively trying to believe it more, which put me face to face with the logical and ethical problems rather than allowing me to sort of dismiss them as I had been doing prior to that.

Same here, except I also had to do with and deal with the fact that no one else in the religious setting was doing or going through the same thing. The fact that I was more adamant about learning the stuff more than anyone else made sense when I realized how incorrect I thought the whole thing was later on.

 

[dust1n]

Well regarding my statement of first having faith and then you see the evidence, everyone seems to think that just about anything is evidence once you have faith.

What qualifies as correct evidence? What evidence are you having us looking for?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The idea is completely unworkable and unneeded. An atheist can't just flick a switch in their head and suddenly have "faith" in another belief system, and even if they did so and came out of the experience without those beliefs you could easily just claim that they lacked the faith required - you can't measure or test for faith.

A better idea - why not just talk to the scores of people who were once deeply religious and are now atheist or vice-versa? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate and less problematic way to examine this subject?

 

[1137]

The main thing I learned was the power of symbolism and the power of the mind. Symbolism touches us deeply and has a great effect on us, but many get completely lost in symbolism where it becomes their whole reality. There is something to images, to masks you purposely wear, to archetypes. I also discovered that there is nothing listening to us, that there is no loving force out there, nothing in control. We are living in chaos for the most part, a rudderless world in an impersonal universe. Some find that horrifying, some do not.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

This seems to me to be a test that doesn't work out for your position either way, eselam.

-If a person can just go through the motions and convince themselves of anything, then it just shows how fragile belief is. Why would promoting confirmation bias ever be a good thing?

-If a person cannot just go through the motions and convince themselves of anything, then it shows that even if the person tries these religions, they still walk away not believing them.

Pretty much, I view such a thing as completely intellectual dishonest.

Further to this (i apologise if this is what you were getting at) if we were able to just flick the switch and pretend to believe in some form of god until we actually convinced ourselves, this would devalue every ones religious experience and every ones religion for that matter.

Further more if we were going to pretend to believe in a god why would we choose one of them, there are a lot more fun religions out there. Ones that don't spread hatred and bigotry.

And I did much of this when I was younger anyway. Ironically, my separation from the religion I was in came about because I started actively trying to believe it more, which put me face to face with the logical and ethical problems rather than allowing me to sort of dismiss them as I had been doing prior to that.

This echoes the experience of a number of ex theists i've known. Which is why some people say the best way to turn someone away from christianity is to actually get them to read the bible. All of it, not just the cherry picked parts they are fed in church.

 

[Falvlun]

This echoes the experience of a number of ex theists i've known. Which is why some people say the best way to turn someone away from christianity is to actually get them to read the bible. All of it, not just the cherry picked parts they are fed in church.

The problem with this-- and I know this from experience-- is that you are reading even the nasty parts with your rose colored glasses on. God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? What a wonderful story to represent faith! God murders all the first born children in Egypt? What a wonderful story showing how powerful God is! God commands genocide? Look at how strong God makes those who believe in him!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The problem with this-- and I know this from experience-- is that you are reading even the nasty parts with your rose colored glasses on. God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? What a wonderful story to represent faith! God murders all the first born children in Egypt? What a wonderful story showing how powerful God is! God commands genocide? Look at how strong God makes those who believe in him!

You are indeed correct mistress.

I have no idea why some people read those bits with revulsion and some don't.

I guess it's how much you are into your religion. There are individuals like the westboro baptist church who gloat when soldiers are killed. There are other churches who think natural disasters are a good thing because it's showing how displeased god is with a certain behaviour.

I get really depressed when i see groups of people lacking basic human empathy like that.

 

[Me Myself]

You are indeed correct mistress.

I have no idea why some people read those bits with revulsion and some don't.

I guess it's how much you are into your religion. There are individuals like the westboro baptist church who gloat when soldiers are killed. There are other churches who think natural disasters are a good thing because it's showing how displeased god is with a certain behaviour.

It is always my greatest pleasure to present :

Boobquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Me Myself]

Little more

[youtube]8FWGM10Zj5E[/youtube]
Boobquake - YouTube

 

[Alceste]

I might consider this if my three assigned religions were shamanism (first nations spirituality), Buddhism and paganism. I'm not interested in theism, especially Islam and Christianity, which I view as misogynistic. If I'm going to try to convince myself of a bunch of hooey, it would have to be interesting to me already, and reasonably plausible.

 

[mycorrhiza]

While it would be a fun social experiment to live like a muslim or a bhakti yoga-practicing hindu (already tried being a Christian for several years, and that didn't work out) for half a year, it is simply too long time. I also could not bring myself to have faith in (a) God(s) that I don't believe in. The faith might come gradually, but I doubt it. I hope to try both Islam, Hinduism and Christianity (including the going to Church part that I didn't care for when I was a Christian) for a shorter period of time, though (a month, maybe) as it would be a fun experience. Purely to learn more about the lives of religious people, though, as I'm very happy with my current beliefs.

It would be quite easy to live like a muslim here, though. We have a big muslim community (with friday prayer just a few meters away from my apartment), I own a Qur'an and my school has a prayer room with markings towards Mecca. I also love dates, which if I recall correctly are served at many muslim celebrations

 

[Gharib]

While it would be a fun social experiment to live like a muslim or a bhakti yoga-practicing hindu (already tried being a Christian for several years, and that didn't work out) for half a year, it is simply too long time. I also could not bring myself to have faith in (a) God(s) that I don't believe in. The faith might come gradually, but I doubt it. I hope to try both Islam, Hinduism and Christianity (including the going to Church part that I didn't care for when I was a Christian) for a shorter period of time, though (a month, maybe) as it would be a fun experience. Purely to learn more about the lives of religious people, though, as I'm very happy with my current beliefs.

It would be quite easy to live like a muslim here, though. We have a big muslim community (with friday prayer just a few meters away from my apartment), I own a Qur'an and my school has a prayer room with markings towards Mecca. I also love dates, which if I recall correctly are served at many muslim celebrations

My friend, I wish I was living where you are. Unfortunately though no one wants to try this so I will have to continue with what I wanted to discuss after this was going to be over.

You are welcome to try it though, even for a shorter period of time. not necessarily 6 months, I can agree that it is too long. Who would want to waste 6 months living as a Muslim or Christian or Hindu.

 

[Gharib]

I might consider this if my three assigned religions were shamanism (first nations spirituality), Buddhism and paganism. I'm not interested in theism, especially Islam and Christianity, which I view as misogynistic. If I'm going to try to convince myself of a bunch of hooey, it would have to be interesting to me already, and reasonably plausible.

Unfortunately I do not know about those faiths so I kept it with those which I know more. And the three I mentioned have a God figure, I don't know if what you have mentioned have a God concept.

 

[Gharib]

While I'm a Muslim myself, I have to say that I can see quite a few problems with this concept:

• "Having faith" in any idea, concept, or religion is not as malleable as this 'test' seems to imply. Take dragons for example: I don't think Islam would have any negative views on the existence of dragons; it doesn't state that dragons exist, but it also doesn't say anything about their nonexistence. Its stance on the existence of dragons is neutral, so were I to try to convince myself that dragons do indeed exist, I wouldn't be going against my religion's teachings.

However, I still wouldn't be able to do that. There is not a single reason that I can see that supports the idea that there are dragons out there, and even if I did try to believe that they exist, my mind would simply not digest the idea -- regardless of what I want or try to believe.

• Let's say that, somehow, I manage to find it in me to be open to the idea that dragons exist, but am only unconvinced due to the lack of sufficient evidence. Now, I go around looking for evidence to support my claim -- I want them to exist -- and I see the "evidence" I was looking for. The problem is that said evidence doesn't hold up to logical, empirical, or even experimental standards; I saw what I wanted to see, not what actually qualified for evidence.

Would this be a tenable position, from a logical and/or rational standpoint? What is the difference between my search for evidence to support the existence of dragons and say... someone else's search for evidence to support claims about the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms? Why would either of us be any more correct than the other, when the "evidence" only exists from our viewpoints as an ad hoc for an already-existing bias?

• Assume that, after a prolonged search, I finally end up believing that dragons exist because I "opened up" to the idea, searched for evidence to support it, and presumably found said evidence. The premise itself -- trying to be more open to the idea of dragons' existing -- seems to indicate a readiness for accepting confirmation bias: I didn't go out there with nothing particular in mind and then found evidence suggesting that dragons exist (and hence my hypothetical belief in their existence); I went out there with a particular bias and only found what I was looking for. Rather than experimentation, logic, or evidence leading to my conclusion, my conclusion lead to my finding the supposed "evidence". That is not really evidence; that is confirmation bias and a classical example of an ad hoc.

Those are my two cents, but anyone is still free to try finding evidence for dragons, of course.

I agree with what you are saying, I have been holding some of my thoughts back in this thread as opposed to the other one in the OP.

Having faith first and then seeing the evidence does lead to irrational, unreasonable and illogical "evidence" by the observer (as Mr Spinkles put it).

My aim was to see what 'evidence' the members would see and if they actually are reasonable and logical. Believing in things which are unique only to the person who sees them includes all people regarding many things and they aren't always reasonable or logical.

Since I don't see what I suggested happening, I will go on with what I wanted to. Which is that there is evidence which point to God, however, an Atheist who has already established that there is no God, simply ignores the evidence that he/she wishes to ignore. Just as a believer believes what they wish to believe.

I will elaborate more on this latter.

 

[Alceste]

Unfortunately I do not know about those faiths so I kept it with those which I know more. And the three I mentioned have a God figure, I don't know if what you have mentioned have a God concept.

They don't. Not in the same way, at least. But what difference would that make? If faith leads to evidence, it shouldn't matter what I put my faith in. I should see evidence, right?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since more than one quarter of Americans have left the faith they were raised in in favor of another religion, or no religion, I believe the efforts of the OP have already been demonstrated to be false.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I agree with what you are saying, I have been holding some of my thoughts back in this thread as opposed to the other one in the OP.

Having faith first and then seeing the evidence does lead to irrational, unreasonable and illogical "evidence" by the observer (as Mr Spinkles put it).

My aim was to see what 'evidence' the members would see and if they actually are reasonable and logical. Believing in things which are unique only to the person who sees them includes all people regarding many things and they aren't always reasonable or logical.

Since I don't see what I suggested happening, I will go on with what I wanted to. Which is that there is evidence which point to God, however, an Atheist who has already established that there is no God, simply ignores the evidence that he/she wishes to ignore. Just as a believer believes what they wish to believe.

I will elaborate more on this latter.

Not entirely true. I became an atheist because I was looking for evidence of god's existence and how to back it up while I was still a Christian. I wasn't choosing to ignore any "evidence", I was actively looking for it. Needless to say I didn't find any and the rest is history. How does your opinion account for the atheist that used to be religious?