Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consciousness implies awareness.

But not the other way around.

If I ask you whether a tree is aware of being alive, I assume that you will answer "no" as it has no brain.
Nothing wrong with that answer .. but some people might think otherwise. They don't assume it to be impossible, just because they cannot observe it directly.

Some people might also think that extra dimensional leprechauns are hiding pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. They also don't consider it impossible.

I don't care one bit.
I don't waste time considering things that aren't in evidence and which, in the case of the consciousness - brain relationship, are even counter the evidence. I also don't waste time contemplating wheter or not such things that are not in evidence and which fly in the face of the evidence we do have, are "impossible".


We keep going in circles.

The point is simple.

- Every consciousness ever observed, came with a living brain.
- Manipulating living brains, results in altering consciousness

To me, that is more then enough evidence to conclude that consciousness is a product of living brains.

You may waste your time contemplating consiousnesses without brains if you wish.
And when you actually have evidence to support such, I will listen.

Until then: meh.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you are happy to do so, I would be very interested to hear about the church (denomination) where you spent so much time and money, and the reason/s for your leaving. If you would rather not … I understand.

I became a Christian, and approached the experience as if it might be what it claimed for itself or not. I was already 18, and had been an apt learner until university life distracted me, and so, had some critical thinking skills. I remember distinctly agreeing with myself to suspend disbelief until I had had a chance to try this religion out and like a pair of shoes, see if it fit or not, or became more comfortable over time. Although I was a believer for many years, I think that it was already too late for me to believe by faith. My belief was based in experience - the euphoria my charismatic first pastor could generate during a church service, which I interpreted as the Holy Spirit. That congregation was nondenominational evangelical Protestant.

I say too late for faith, because this all happened in my army years, when I was suffering great angst first at what appeared to be throwing away my dreams of going to medical school (I dropped out of university just ahead of being thrown out) and then at my predicament of being in the army so far from home. I believe that this is what predisposed me to investigate religion - psychological comfort.

But the empiricist in me never died during the period of trying on the religion for fit, despite my efforts at suppressing the cognitive dissonance as part of the suspension of unbelief. I say this, because it was after discharge and a return to my home state that I discovered that the euphoria was not the Holy Spirit, since that feeling didn't follow me to California. That's empiricism.

This was followed by a return to university now older, wiser, and more disciplined, where I learned critical thinking formally, and developed habits of thought that are incompatible with believing by faith. I think that had I remained in that original congregation and in Christianity while attending university, I might have remained a Christian, but I think a social Christian who really didn't believe the theology any longer.

I never stopped thinking critically on my journey from atheism to Christ

I did, but deliberately. One must put aside critical thinking to accept basic Christian tenets. As I indicated above, it was necessary to deliberately suspend critical thinking - to suspend disbelief - to give the religion a fair test. Then, the evidence I described that I could not ignore brought me back into the fold. So, my history was, critical thinker (empiricist) suspends critical thought (skepticism) for most of a decade, then leaves faith.

The Christian part required turning off that voice of reason, the voice of cognitive dissonance, because there is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God." As soon as anybody has expressed a faith-based belief, they have left critical thought behind. Look at the abortion issue in America, based in a religious belief believed by faith, although it need not be a religious belief. We brushed on beliefs about vaccines. To that we can add beliefs about gun violence, election hoaxes, climate change, and bigotry.

don't you think it irrational to assume that ALL Christians are exempt from this 'critical thinker' appellation?

Some Christians have learned to compartmentalize their faith, and they can do science, for example, the same way an atheist would. But their god belief remains irrational, because it is believed by faith. We have a few here on RF that call themselves Christian but are otherwise indistinguishable ethically or intellectually from atheistic humanists. I call them theistic humanists, and they are not limited to liberal Christianity. The Dharmics and pagans frequently fit that description.

Newton is a fine example. In his Principia, he gives man the mathematics and physics necessary to calculate celestial orbits, and up to a point, makes no mention of gods. That work is still valid today, and is exactly what any equally gifted atheist might produce.

Unfortunately, Newton's math predicted that larger planets would toss planets like earth into the sun or out of the solar system, and so, he added his god ad hoc right there when he ran out of knowledge, which god was needed to nudge the planets back into position. No laws needed when a god is doing it. Then, a century later, LaPlace supplied the mathematics Newton lacked, restoring the solar system to a clockwork needing no intelligent supervision. My point is that right where Newton went from science to faith, his work went from timeless to useless, and another critical thinker had to come along to advance science past Newton's religious ideas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I won't get a divine body, I will get a spiritual body, but so will everyone else.

Not me, unfortunately. I have not accepted Bahaollah. And Bahaollah cursed people like me who do not accept him as a manifestation of Allah saying something like "Great is the retribution of Allah" (as if people like me will care about that). We are not uneducated 19th Century Iranians.

 

[F1fan]

Of course it does.
The scientific method is a very valuable tool, but has its limitations.

If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense. A new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible. For example, while a hypothesis on the existence of other intelligent species may be convincing with scientifically based speculation, no known experiment can test this hypothesis. Therefore, science itself can have little to say about the possibility. In the future, a new technique may allow for an experimental test and the speculation would then become part of accepted science.
Scientific method - Wikipedia

We know science is reliable and succssful, and that it has limitations, but is still th best way for humans to discover what is true about the universe.

But you ignored my point, and that is why you kee using inaccurate language. You said "Science is a method that attempts to make conclusions on observations". That suggests that science makes attempts, but not successful. Is this what you meant, or is your language ability flawed? I notice others are calling you out on what you say as being inaccurate. Do you not care? Are you unaware that you are doing this?

No scientific proof no .. it's the same with most non-physical concepts .. some people have an open mind .. others would rather assume that unseen phenomena are unlikely.

So no evidence at all. Why would a rational person decide that no evidence is adequate to make a conclusions about some idea? I understand that you do this, but you have yet to explain why it is rational.

No .. but it is possible to hold opinions based on plausible hypothesis.

A hypothesis HAS to be based on observations and facts. They are by nature plausible, like abiogenesis. Scientists can accept science and still be religious, and that is for non-rational reasons. people are religious for biological and social reasons, not because they made a reasoned conclusion via facts. This is a form of compartmentalism which is something our brains do to manage and keep competing ideas apart in the mind, and to reduce stress. This allows the mind to be rational in some ways and irrational in other ways.

Something like whether awareness is possible without a brain cannot be proved one way or another with certainty either.

Since we only see consciousness in organisms with working brains, why assume otherwise, as you are doing? You won't acknowledge what we observe as a reliable source of information, and keep trying to keep your foot in the door with hopes ofof a "God of the gaps" scenario. As noted this is a tactic religious people do in debate, and we are not fooled by it. You might be doing it to fool yourself, as repeating untrue ideas is a way to reinforce false beliefs.

For you, it is not believable.

For me, and other critical thinkers facts and evidence are crucial. Believers are biased towards their own dogma. This is why we see believers, like yourself, trying to smuggle in ideas and assumptions that will validate your belief, but are not warranted objectively.

It is factual that we all have a small subset of knowledge compared to all human knowledge, and that does not even include what we don't know yet.

Irrelevant. Religious dogma and claims is NOT knowledge, nor factual. Your statement here makes no effort to rebut the fact that your religious beliefs and claims are NOT factual, thus not accetpable as true when you state them.

I've already said, it makes no difference what the actual mechanism might be. Whether brains are necessary for awareness or not, does not eliminate the possibility of being aware somehow after death.

It's a religious idea that has little to no evidence to support it. If it gives you comfort to believe you will live forever then go ahead. Frankly I see no pratical utility to believe such a thing. To my mind this belief only causes more anxiety because it gambles on a belief that might not be true, and to believe this might affect your life choices and compromise your meaning in life. It's more mental baggage and more to maintain as an illusion. I think it more practical and useful to focus on living and achieving goals worthy of my self.

I won't accept that awareness is not possible without a brain, because I don't see how one can observe such a thing if it does exist without a brain.

Why not? You keep saying some form of this but thus far you have failed to explain your reasons and motives. Could it be you are unaware of these?Could it be that you are afraid of the likelihood that there is no God and universal consciousness, so have no freedom to accept the alternative?

We are all capable of making wrong conclusions.

Which is why we have tools like logic, reason, and science to avoid bad assumptions and reduce wrong conclusions. Theists ignore these tools, as your posts reveal. Your arguments and assertions have been exposed to be highly flawed, and much of this seems to be due to your attachment and commitment to your religious beliefs.

As I say, I believe in God and the unseen. You do not.
You therefore reject all religious belief in its entirety.

I don't believe in ideas that lack evidence. You have accepted a certain set of religious beleifs for non-rational reasons. You feel justified in rejecting other sets of religious beliefs only because you have a preferred set, not due to a lack of evidence.

I recognize religious belief as being a type of social behavior, and thus accepted and adopted for non-rational motives. I reject religious concepts and claims when they are implausible and lack evidence, as a rational mind will do to avoid wrong conclusions about reality. Atheists function very well in all societies, and feel no need to adopt a regional religious framework.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let's just blame evolution instead of God, shall we?

Humanists do, although blame isn't as good a word as attribute.

We can assume that something without a brain can not experience awareness, but we cannot know for sure.

Then the matter deserves no further attention until evidence surfaces better explained by a disembodied consciousness. The mere possibility of something is of no interest until it is needed to account for observation, as there are orders of magnitude more possible propositions than true ones, and it is only the latter we seek, the former being where we go for hypotheses when new evidence needing explaining arises.

The scientific method is a very valuable tool, but has its limitations.

Yes, empiricism's subject is the cosmos as experienced by the senses and understood by the reasoning faculty. It is limited to examining and discerning regularities in our world. It is not only done in laboratories and observatories. It's done daily just walking down the street, looking and listening, making decisions about what is the case (car coming, don't cross now), and making decisions based in expected outcomes following those actions, just like professional (formal) scientists. All other methods of inquiry are sterile. The other magisterium, faith, which is essentially guessing and believing the guess is fact, has given us nothing that deserves to be called truth or knowledge. That's where astrology and creationism come from, that magisterium. Each has been sterile, and each was corrected by science, which gave us astronomy and evolutionary science in their place.

some people have an open mind .. others would rather assume that unseen phenomena are unlikely.

I find on these threads that it is rare to see a proper definition of an open mind by a faith-based thinker. Open-mindedness is the willingness and ability to evaluate a claim, and to be convinced by a compelling (sound) argument. There is no duty to relax that standard and admit onto one's mental map of reality ideas that don't meet the criteria for belief required by critical thought. In fact, to do so is to go off of the critical thinking reservation.

The faith-based thinker and the critical thinker each have a sort of evaluation space, where ideas are first evaluated. For the believer, this is the faith-based confirmation bias, which determines whether the idea comports with what has been believed by faith and admits ideas or rejects them according to that rule. Foe the critical thinker, that room scans the evidence and argument as I described above in search of soundness, admitting and rejecting ideas according to that criterion. The faith-based thinker objects to that and calls it closed-mindedness, because his ideas, lacking soundness, cannot get in.

Think about the incoherence of the phrase "unseen phenomena" ("phenomenon - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.") It's not a question of whether such ideas are likely or not, but whether they are worth considering. If we are talking about consciousness with no expected physical manifestation to suggest that it is there or exists, we're talking about a purely metaphysical suggestion - ideas that cannot be deemed correct or incorrect because they the way we do that is with evidence, and putative entities said to generate none cannot be evaluated. They are sometimes called "not even wrong," and we can safely disregard them all until such time as we need such ideas to explain (observable) phenomena.

If you're familiar with philosophical razors like the one from Occam, a razor is a rule that allows one to drop various options for consideration from a long list. Occam's allows us to disregard all explanatory narratives that are more complicated than the simplest one that accounts for all relevant observations. Some quaint ones are, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ..." it's a duck until one has reason to think otherwise. Also, "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." These are both list-shortening rules.

Well, we have one from Popper on this matter, a rule about ignoring propositions that aren't falsifiable, like disembodied consciousnesses that don't manifest as observable changes in nature. And that's how I view your unfalsifiable proposition. I don't reject it and I don't accept it. I ignore it until I have a reason to do otherwise.

For you, it is not believable.

He wrote, "It lacks facts, so not believable." Isn't this a restatement of what I just wrote? Like me, he needs supporting evidence before belief. You don't. You just need the idea to be appealing. You like the idea that a disembodied consciousness exists, and so believe that it does, or at least argue that nobody can prove that it doesn't, which is correct, but irrelevant

Something like whether awareness is possible without a brain cannot be proved one way or another with certainty either.

As I said, irrelevant. We have no need of that idea at this time. Let's say that disembodied consciousness exists, but has no physical manifestation. That makes the proposition purely metaphysical. There is no way to know if such a thing exists or not, which is what is meant by not even wrong (neither correct nor incorrect according to the correspondence theory of truth), and further consideration of the notion is guaranteed to be nonproductive.

If I ask you whether a tree is aware of being alive, I assume that you will answer "no" as it has no brain. Nothing wrong with that answer .. but some people might think otherwise. They don't assume it to be impossible, just because they cannot observe it directly.

The critical thinker doesn't consider disembodied consciousness or conscious trees impossible. He considers the possibility undecidable and irrelevant until there is some manifestation that can be used to decide. You get a lot of mileage considering that idea. You have apparently accepted it as fact without sufficient supporting evidence, which is by faith. Now, it floats in your head and dominates your worldview and thinking about reality and how it works. It drives your other opinions so that they comport with that. Once you assume it (God) exists, you literally can no longer imagine a world without it. You've said so. And the tenacity with which you cling to and defend that idea indicates that you would be uncomfortable without it.

The critical thinker guards against that phenomenon simply by not admitting ideas onto his world map that don't meet empirical (critical) standards for belief. How can he do that? He doesn't have a god need, and so is content to hold a godless worldview until he has a reason to think otherwise, meaning new evidence that suggests the existence of a god or other disembodied consciousness.

Good discussion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a fictional story that has many spiritual meanings.

30: ADAM AND EVE

what many spiritual meanings? I read your link, but I didn’t find it elucidating…. In fact, it mentioned divine mysteries.

As you know, I only accept the Bible as divine; I don’t mix other books with it.

Romans 5:12…
“That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

If the story wasn’t a real event, the explanation of how humans began dying - through inheritance of imperfection - is really no explanation.

Acts 17:26,27…
“And he [God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell.”

If A&E are allegorical, then this statement is a lie.

Luke 3:38…the lineage of Jesus…
“son of Eʹnosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.”

Through archeology we know King David was an actual person. So then, to add fictional characters makes no sense.

Jesus’ statement at Matthew 19:4-6,
“In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

…was a lie?
I believe Jesus would know the truth, since he was there; he was one of those God was speaking to, in Genesis 1:26.

1 Corinthians 15
“For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”

If Adam is fiction, then these words are impotent: the need for a Messiah is fiction.

IMO

i wish you well, my cousin!

 

[muhammad_isa]

- Every consciousness ever observed, came with a living brain.
- Manipulating living brains, results in altering consciousness

To me, that is more then enough evidence to conclude that consciousness is a product of living brains.

I know.
Lots of people conclude the same thing as you .. it is intuitive .. it is all about what we experience and can appear to be a convincing conclusion.
However, it is not a conclusion that can be scientifically proved one way or another.
The brain is clearly involved with processing thought into movement, and processing sight and sound.
I don't think there is any doubt, that it provides an interface between the mind and body.

You may waste your time contemplating consiousnesses without brains if you wish.
And when you actually have evidence to support such, I will listen.

I don't know why you even care .. I suppose it allows you to think purely on a material level, and dismiss everything that you don't consider to be "a dead cert".

I would agree that that is a very good starting point.
..but from there, we diverge.
The mind is a non-material concept, and very real.
..whether it is generated by a piece of meat, or is more complex does not change that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You said "Science is a method that attempts to make conclusions on observations". That suggests that science makes attempts, but not successful.

It is as successful as human error permits.

So no evidence at all. Why would a rational person decide that no evidence is adequate to make a conclusions about some idea?

..because I evaluate all forms of evidence, whilst you depend on the conclusions of scientific observation, which in the case of the unseen is usually not particularly enlightening.

Since we only see consciousness in organisms with working brains, why assume otherwise, as you are doing?

..because it cannot be proved that a non-material concept like the mind, is entirely dependent on matter.
Some people would rather believe that the physical universe is all there is, and keep asking for proof of the unseen, implying that it is purely imagination and has <1% chance of being true.

..and some people believe otherwise. Neither position is irrational. We all take the attitude we do for our own reasons.

You won't acknowledge what we observe as a reliable source of information..

On the contrary, I am satisfied with the scientific method, but am aware that we often draw incorrect conclusions. It's not hard to do.

For me, and other critical thinkers facts and evidence are crucial.

We all "cherry-pick" what suits us.
It would be better if we started with a blank-slate, but that does not happen often. We all have our biases.
You claim to be a "critical thinker", implying that belief in God requires a person to ignore scientific reality.
Some people might do that, but not all.

Believers are biased towards their own dogma..

We all have bias, including atheists.
Most atheists would rather shut their minds to the possibilty of anything other than this material universe.
It is a stance, and cannot be proven to be true, anymore than a particular belief.

Irrelevant..

Not really. I state religious knowledge, which might be true or false, and you keep emphasising scientific knowledge that you are aware of, and strongly believe.
..so as far as your concerned, if something cannot be proved scientifically, it is most likely nonsense.
..but you don't know that .. you like to assume it.

Could it be that you are afraid of the likelihood that there is no God and universal consciousness?

Absolutely not. Why should I be afraid of that?
It is quite the opposite.

You have accepted a certain set of religious beleifs for non-rational reasons. You feel justified in rejecting other sets of religious beliefs only because you have a preferred set, not due to a lack of evidence..

That's untrue. It is purely your assumption.

Atheists function very well in all societies, and feel no need to adopt a regional religious framework.

We are all different.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with Baha'is that Adam and Eve and the rest of the creation story is fictional, but I don't agree with their interpretation of it. I think it is fiction but meant to be taken literally by the followers of both Judaism and Christianity. But especially Christianity, since I think Adam and Eve are written about as being historical and true in the New Testament.

Even if the story is fiction, that does not mean it was not meant to be taken literally by the followers of both Judaism and Christianity. That was a different time in history.
Baha'is never claimed that the story was not meant to be taken literally by the followers of both Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not me, unfortunately. I have not accepted Bahaollah.

You do not need to accept Baha'u'llah, or even God, to get a spiritual body after you die physically. Everybody gets one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The other magisterium, faith, which is essentially guessing and believing the guess is fact, has given us nothing that deserves to be called truth or knowledge. That's where astrology and creationism come from, that magisterium. Each has been sterile, and each was corrected by science, which gave us astronomy and evolutionary science in their place..

It does not have to be either/or.
I am not aware that Islam has been "corrected by science",
although it is of course possible to interpret scripture in various ways, depending on education etc.

I find on these threads that it is rare to see a proper definition of an open mind by a faith-based thinker.

OK

Open-mindedness is the willingness and ability to evaluate a claim, and to be convinced by a compelling (sound) argument..

It's more than that. It is accepting the possibility we might be wrong, and not entirely dismissing something due to "lack of empirical evidence".

The faith-based thinker and the critical thinker each have a sort of evaluation space, where ideas are first evaluated. For the believer, this is the faith-based confirmation bias, which determines whether the idea comports with what has been believed by faith and admits ideas or rejects them according to that rule. Foe the critical thinker, that room scans the evidence and argument as I described above in search of soundness,.

I don't think it is as simple as that.
Many atheists require "empirical evidence" to believe in the unseen, and consider scriptures to be of little value in its absence.

Think about the incoherence of the phrase "unseen phenomena" ("phenomenon - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.") It's not a question of whether such ideas are likely or not, but whether they are worth considering..

..to me they are worth considering because I find them highly likely.
A universe containing intelligent humans has evolved over a period of time .. but why?
..now you will probably say that it needs no reason .. I could never be satisfied with that. It means that all we see is mere coincidence.

Well, we have one from Popper on this matter, a rule about ignoring propositions that aren't falsifiable, like disembodied consciousnesses that don't manifest as observable changes in nature. And that's how I view your unfalsifiable proposition. I don't reject it and I don't accept it. I ignore it until I have a reason to do otherwise.

OK

He wrote, "It lacks facts, so not believable." Isn't this a restatement of what I just wrote? Like me, he needs supporting evidence before belief. You don't. You just need the idea to be appealing..

It depends what you mean by "appealing".
I believe that the universe and all it contains cannot have happened without reason and source.
You seem to think that it can.

Once you assume it (God) exists, you literally can no longer imagine a world without it. You've said so. And the tenacity with which you cling to and defend that idea indicates that you would be uncomfortable without it.

In fact, at this moment in time, I would be more comfortable without it. I would then be assured that my suffering would end on my death, and might even consider ending my own life.
..but alas .. I don't think that suicide would end my suffering, and only increase it. [and the suffering of loved ones]

 

[Trailblazer]

If the story wasn’t a real event, the explanation of how humans began dying - through inheritance of imperfection - is really no explanation.

So, if you believe that humans only began dying 6000 years ago? Science shows that humans have existed for about 200,000 years. What do you think happened to humans before Adam and Eve? If they had not died the world would have become overpopulated a long time ago.

Acts 17:26,27…
“And he [God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell.”

If A&E are allegorical, then this statement is a lie.

Either that or you have misinterpreted that Bible verse.
Do you know that all readers of the Bible, including Christians, interpret it differently? Logically speaking, that means that there has to be more than one interpretation.

Luke 3:38…the lineage of Jesus…
“son of Eʹnosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.”

Through archeology we know King David was an actual person. So then, to add fictional characters makes no sense.

Just because some of the Bible characters were real people who existed, that does not mean all of the Bible characters were real people who existed. That is not logical.

Jesus’ statement at Matthew 19:4-6,
“In reply he said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”

…was a lie?

Again, those verses are subject to interpretation. When was the beginning? How did God created man and woman? I believe that happened through the process of evolution which God set in motion, and I believe that there were men and women long before Adam and Eve allegedly existed.

1 Corinthians 15
“For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”

If Adam is fiction, then these words are impotent: the need for a Messiah is fiction.

I believe that verse means that through Christ all men will be made spiritually alive, and Christ was needed to make men spiritually alive. In other words, through Christ all men will have spiritual life. This is congruent with other Bible verses.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[Trailblazer]

In fact, at this moment in time, I would be more comfortable without it. I would then be assured that my suffering would end on my death, and might even consider ending my own life.
..but alas .. I don't think that suicide would end my suffering, and only increase it. [and the suffering of loved ones]

Sometimes I feel the same way about God and ending my life, although I don't have any loved ones left, since they have all died and left me alone, which is the primary reason I don't want to be here anymore.

Suicide will end any physical suffering but it will not necessarily end spiritual suffering since the spirit/soul lives on.

I would probably not still be here if I did not believe in God, as evidenced by a police report made out in June 2014.
My late husband called the police that night since I was threatening suicide, and when the police arrived and talked to me I told them I will not kill myself because I believe in God. Then I handed over the bottle of pills I was grasping in my hand. I will never forget that awful night.

I am sorry to hear you are suffering physically. I don't know what physical suffering is like since I never suffered physically, only emotionally, but suffering is suffering.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It does not have to be either/or.

I had written, "The other magisterium, faith, which is essentially guessing and believing the guess is fact, has given us nothing that deserves to be called truth or knowledge. That's where astrology and creationism come from, that magisterium. Each has been sterile, and each was corrected by science, which gave us astronomy and evolutionary science in their place." I don't understand that answer. I don't think I said that it had to be either/or, just that only one of these methods (magisteria) can generate knowledge as I have defined the word - beliefs one holds that are demonstrably correct, closely correlated with words life fact - a single demonstrably correct belief - and truth, the quality that all facts and only facts possess. Knowledge is the collection of those one holds. Others may call other kinds of beliefs truth or knowledge, but they are using different definitions of the word, and so, their opinions aren't useful to an empiricist.

As always, when you choose to not show why you believe that an idea you don't like is incorrect, it is understood as concession. It is assumed that if you can show that an idea is incorrect, that you would as I do over and over with you, and that if you don't, it's because you can't. The contention is that faith, the other magisterium, has been sterile regarding generating knowledge or truth. That can be falsified if incorrect with a single counterexample - an idea that can be used to successfully anticipate outcomes, like Newton's laws of motion or even an ad alerting one to a sale, or the color of a traffic light. Contrast that with your disembodied consciousness idea. Nothing is demonstrably true about the world if that idea is correct that wouldn't be true if it were.

This week, I posted a link to a site that lets one look out of windows of windows around the world where a camera has been set up for that purpose. Take a peek if you like: WindowSwap - Watch windows around the world (window-swap.com). The reason I mention it is because somebody asked if these views were all real-time. Because we're dealing in evidence properly understood rather than faith, it was easy to propose a test to answer the question. The hypothesis that the windows were all real-time cold be falsified by finding just one showing us a daytime scene at a time when it is known to be dark in that location. That's the difference between the world of empiricism and critical thought and faith. Only the former is tethered to reality (observation), and only it can generate useful ideas (demonstrably correct) about how reality behaves.

It's [open-mindedness] more than that. It is accepting the possibility we might be wrong, and not entirely dismissing something due to "lack of empirical evidence".

That's a tenet of empiricism and critical thought - skepticism. The truths generated by the method are always considered tentative (less than 100% certain). After all, it could all be an illusion a la Descartes' demon. You have never seen me take any other attitude to any idea I called correct. When the theist changes agnosticism as I have expressed regarding disembodied consciousness, I change it back. If you were to say that I have ruled that idea out, I would ask you to read my words again more carefully.

Many atheists require "empirical evidence" to believe in the unseen

I'll assume that by unseen you don't mean literally visible, but empirically detectable (apprehended by the senses). All empiricists require evidence before belief, and evidence is synonymous with a sensory apprehension of any kind.

and consider scriptures to be of little value in its absence.

Scripture is evidence of nothing except that somebody thought those ideas and wrote them down. It is not evidence that the belief is correct or even that it was believed. Only evidence supporting those contentions can do that, and such evidence must be found in the world, not the book. There s not a single idea in any holy book that can be known to be true without empirical confirmation.

.to me they are worth considering because I find them highly likely.

OK, but how long do you want to consider them for? I've reached my conclusion pending new relevant evidence contradicting that position. Here's my final thought on disembodied consciousness: it may exist, there is no evidence it does, and if it does not modify reality, it can be classed with other purely metaphysical entities - things which others claim exist but do not impact nature - as not worthy of further thought until the idea is needed to account for some observation, at which time it is no longer purely metaphysical by virtue of exiting in space and time, and interacting with other elements of reality. At that point, it goes from not even wrong to falsifiable. Before that, according to Popper's razor, the idea can be ignored.

A universe containing intelligent humans has evolved over a period of time .. but why?

We don't know beyond that it was possible and occurred. The two choices are naturalistically or supernaturally. Occam says that choice A, being more parsimonious, is the preferred hypothesis, but that rules neither option in or out.

you will probably say that it needs no reason

I will say that I don't know the reason. I will also say that nobody does. What I think you don't understand is that I don't say that you are wrong that disembodied consciousness can exist. Can you finish that thought for me and articulate what I have said I DO believe?

I could never be satisfied with that. It means that all we see is mere coincidence.

That's fine if that's the case. Do recall the fallacy from consequences - believing that something is true or untrue because the consequences of it being otherwise would be undesirable? It would be exciting to learn that the universe evolves under direction of more than the four forces and the momentum of the past, but it would not be information I would know how to apply to daily life, which makes the knowledge as moot.

I believe that the universe and all it contains cannot have happened without reason and source.

OK, and you might be right, but you have no argument that that reason or source is a sentient, supernatural consciousness - just an intuition that that is the case, and a willingness to commit to it ideologically.

In fact, at this moment in time, I would be more comfortable without it. I would then be assured that my suffering would end on my death, and might even consider ending my own life. ..but alas .. I don't think that suicide would end my suffering, and only increase it. [and the suffering of loved ones]

Sorry to read that. Nevertheless, if you hold a faith-based belief, it must be satisfying some condition that the atheist doesn't need satisfying. That's axiomatically correct. As soon as one has no need for a religion, he abandons it as I did. If that leaves him empty, then he has that need, and will return to that religion or find a new one. If he never feels that way, he doesn't have the need. He has no need that is not satisfied elsewhere. If this belief merely tormented you, you would walk away from it. That you can't implies that it fulfills some need.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sometimes I feel the same way about God and ending my life, although I don't have any loved ones left, since they have all died and left me alone, which is the primary reason I don't want to be here anymore.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Suicide will end any physical suffering but it will not necessarily end spiritual suffering since the spirit/soul lives on.

Yes .. I believe that you are right.
Having no hope for the future is a sign of weak faith, and satan
just "puts the boot in"

I told them I will not kill myself because I believe in God. Then I handed over the bottle of pills I was grasping in my hand. I will never forget that awful night.

Yes, it's very traumatic, I know.

I am sorry to hear you are suffering physically. I don't know what physical suffering is like since I never suffered physically, only emotionally, but suffering is suffering.

..as you say, suffering is suffering.
We ask God Almighty to give us the strength to bear it, until a time we can get relief. Amen.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think I said that it had to be either/or, just that only one of these methods (magisteria) can generate knowledge as I have defined the word - beliefs one holds that are demonstrably correct, closely correlated with words life fact - a single demonstrably correct belief - and truth, the quality that all facts and only facts possess.

Oh, here we go .. the apparent certainty of "facts".

For a person who disbelieves, that is the best they can do .. believe that scientists have made the correct conclusion from their observations.
For a believer, they have that too, but also something they consider to be superior to men's conclusions .. Divine revelation.

Naturally, you will insist that religion is unreliable, and people believe different things without evidence .. nevertheless, that is the difference between faith in God, and faith in men.

their opinions aren't useful to an empiricist.

That's it. A person can choose to be an "empiricist" whenever they wish, and believe a thing that is unproved whenever they wish.

It is assumed that if you can show that an idea is incorrect, that you would as I do over and over with you, and that if you don't, it's because you can't. The contention is that faith, the other magisterium, has been sterile regarding generating knowledge or truth.

You: Where's your proof?
Me: the universe itself and the Qur'an/Bible
You: That is not acceptable evidence bla bla

Because we're dealing in evidence properly understood rather than faith, it was easy to propose a test to answer the question. The hypothesis that the windows were all real-time cold be falsified by finding just one showing us a daytime scene at a time when it is known to be dark in that location. That's the difference between the world of empiricism and critical thought and faith. Only the former is tethered to reality (observation), and only it can generate useful ideas (demonstrably correct) about how reality behaves.

We are discussing religion, and not scientific observation.
That does not mean that all creeds are equally credible.

..not to me, in any case. You have your FSM = God nonsense, of course.

All empiricists require evidence before belief, and evidence is synonymous with a sensory apprehension of any kind.

Well that is between you and God, if you one day find He exists.
Perhaps God will say "I don't blame you for not believing", you couldn't "see" me.

There s not a single idea in any holy book that can be known to be true without empirical confirmation.

No. one needs to ponder on their source and meaning .. but has little to do with empirical proof.

Some people say that if God does some miracle in front of them personally, they will then believe. I doubt that very much.

I will say that I don't know the reason. I will also say that nobody does.

Yes, I know. "God did it" cannot be empirically proved, so you reject it.

..if you hold a faith-based belief, it must be satisfying some condition that the atheist doesn't need satisfying. That's axiomatically correct. As soon as one has no need for a religion, he abandons it as I did.

That's not how it works for me.
I either believe the Qur'an is true, or I don't. Whether I think I need to believe it or not has nothing to do with it, at this point.

If this belief merely tormented you, you would walk away from it. That you can't implies that it fulfills some need.

Your assumption is completely wrong.
I do not believe it is true because I want it to be true, I happen to believe it is true just as I believe that one is not equal to three.
i.e. through natural intuition and reason

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sorry for your loss.

Thanks.

Yes .. I believe that you are right.
Having no hope for the future is a sign of weak faith, and satan
just "puts the boot in"

I have not given up hope yet, although this has been the worst year of my life, as I still have 8 cats left to keep me going and give me a reason to live.

..as you say, suffering is suffering.
We ask God Almighty to give us the strength to bear it, until a time we can get relief. Amen.

That's what I do daily, when I go out on my evening walk for an hour or more -- pray!
And sometimes during the day the cats can hear me calling out -- Help me Jesus, help me God!
Needless to say, I am still waiting for help to arrive, but I never give up hope.
Hope springs eternal.

 

[F1fan]

It is as successful as human error permits.

Which humans have learned how to minimize to a very high level. This is how results can reach a 99.95% or better.

Do your religius beliefs come even close to this?

..because I evaluate all forms of evidence, whilst you depend on the conclusions of scientific observation,

Non-existing evidence is NOT a form of evidence. Notice you tend to avoid any challenge to demonstrate your assumptions and beliefs are true.

I use the same type of evidence that the sciences use, and that is evidnce that can be detected by our senses, and/or instruments. If what some refer to as evidence can't be detected or confirmed as existing, then it isn't evidence. I have asked you what evidence there is of any consciousness existing in organisms that don;t have working brains and you have evaded answering. This means you have none, yet to assume consciousness could exist in non-brain organisms. You assume this based on evidence to the contrary.

which in the case of the unseen is usually not particularly enlightening.

Unseen is synonymous with imaginary. Angels, demons, gods, crystal power, prayer, etc.

..because it cannot be proved that a non-material concept like the mind,is entirely dependent on matter.

Sorry, you are not using the word "mind" accurately. The word "mind" means a set of functions a working and self-aware brain does. Thoughts, feelings, experiences, identity, beliefs, knowledge, etc. encompass what we call a mind. These are material processes of physical brains. None of this happens in dead brains. The thoughts generated in brains is electrochemical, and that is material and physical. Many theists make the mistake of thinking that a mind is non-material, and that seems due to the word being an abstraction that applies to a set of functions.

So false, is it observed 100%. Dead brains have no minds. Organisms without brains don't have minds. Why are you suggesting that 100% certainty is faulty? I keep asking you for a single example of consciousnes existing in something without a brian. You offer nothing. Nothing at all. All you do is come back with tricky language that tries to cast doubt on what we observe. And I already addressed how you trying to cast doubt on our ability to accurately assess the universe and environmet will also sabotage anything you argue for, namely your religious beliefs. I suggest you work on your precision of language.

Some people would rather believe that the physical universe is all there is, and keep asking for proof of the unseen, implying that it is purely imagination and has <1% chance of being true.

You have been invited to demonstrate there is something else non-material and you declined. Given that would be a huge advantage for you in this discussion you not offering any example suggests you have none. We sense a physical universe and that is all we have to work with. I refuse to imagine a world of tooth faries and easter bunnies just becaiuse they are popular to believe in. If you want to imagine other characters, like a God, then knock yourself out. Assuming gods exist is not an advantage to understand how things are true in the universe, and can be a liability, as we see in many of your views.

..and some people believe otherwise. Neither position is irrational. We all take the attitude we do for our own reasons.

We don't care what people believe in popular lore. Belief in irrational ideas is irrelevant to understanding what is true about how things are.

On the contrary, I am satisfied with the scientific method, but am aware that we often draw incorrect conclusions. It's not hard to do.

We draw incorrect conclusions? Are you a scientist? Do you use the scientific method in some way?

The scientific method is designed in a way that does fail, and it fails for a reason. Often times the result is lower than 99.95% by just a few percentage points, so it is close, but there is something wrong with the design of the study, or perhaps the prediction is partially true but there are too many variables that can be controlled. Science doesn't get wildly wrong results like concluding dragons are the cause of a heat wave. The reasons tend to be variables that can't be controlled.

We all "cherry-pick" what suits us.

This is not applicable to critical thinkers. It is to religious believers, however. Critical thinkers are skilled at looking at evidence to form conclusions. This is how juroies are supposed to think, and they usually do a good job, but not always as the OJ verdict shows us. Even in science we learn that we have to account for ALL the facts and data.

It would be better if we started with a blank-slate, but that does not happen often. We all have our biases.

That is how court cases are handled.

You claim to be a "critical thinker", implying that belief in God requires a person to ignore scientific reality.

We see some theists do this, like creationists. You have exhibited this behavior yourself with your attempt to impugn science and the reliability of our senses. Belief in a God only requires the intent to believe.

We all have bias, including atheists.

It's like saying people who get speeding tickets are criminals just like murderers. You like trying to level the playing feild and ignore the nuances. Notice you spend most of your time trying to create an equivalence beteeen science and faith, and reason and irrational, and atheism and theism. You avoid facts that help your claims and beliefs, which suggests you have none.

Most atheists would rather shut their minds to the possibilty of anything other than this material universe.

There is an infinite number of possibilities and you are guilty of shutting your mind to them. But it is only bad when an atheist does it? there are thousands of gods you don;t believe in, and atheists only disbelieve in one more than you.

Could Bigfoot exist? It's possible. Could I be God trying to help set you on your right religious path? It's possible, right? Could no gods exist? It's possible, right? Could what we experience all be an illusion? It's possible. But how it is useful to spend our time with endless possibilities that go nowhere? You tell me how comfortable you are pondering possibilities.

It is a stance, and cannot be proven to be true, anymore than a particular belief.

Then don't commit to these ideas.

Not really. I state religious knowledge, which might be true or false,

We can know things ABOUT religion, and that is religious lkknowledge. We can know what religions claim in their doctrines and dogmas, but this does not imply it is true. So if you aren't sure that what you beieve is true it's best not to rely on it. As it is the supernatural elelmenst of religions are the most dubious and unbelievable.

and you keep emphasising scientific knowledge that you are aware of, and strongly believe.

First, scientific knowledge is based on facts and shows its work. Second, we don;t believe in science, we accept the results as reported, and that is because it is an open and transparent process. As more data is collected and better instruments are built science becomes more precise.

..so as far as your concerned, if something cannot be proved scientifically, it is most likely nonsense.

I have never said this. I have an integrity of thought about what is a sound, objective search for truth. Religions don't do it that way. They ofers ideas that appeal to emotions.

..but you don't know that .. you like to assume it.

Actually I'm not assuming religious ideas are true. Why? Because there is no evidence to warrant an assumption.

Absolutely not. Why should I be afraid of that?
It is quite the opposite.

You consistently avoid explaining why you beleve that consciousness could exist ouside of a brain, even when it is explained that there is not a single case of it occurring. Given you can't explain it positively, it is likley to be a negative explanation, like fear, and then avoidance.

That's untrue. It is purely your assumption.

I wrote this "You have accepted a certain set of religious beleifs for non-rational reasons. You feel justified in rejecting other sets of religious beliefs only because you have a preferred set, not due to a lack of evidence."

So explain what is untrue about it. Go into detail.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do not need to accept Baha'u'llah, or even God, to get a spiritual body after you die physically. Everybody gets one.

And what about Bahaollah's curse? The retribution of Allah?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not aware that Islam has been "corrected by science", ..

It's more than that. It is accepting the possibility we might be wrong, and not entirely dismissing something due to "lack of empirical evidence".

Many atheists require "empirical evidence" to believe in the unseen, and consider scriptures to be of little value in its absence.

A universe containing intelligent humans has evolved over a period of time .. but why?

I believe that the universe and all it contains cannot have happened without reason and source.

In fact, at this moment in time, I would be more comfortable without it.

"Do you not see we have rent the moon?" Where is the 'rent'?

A rent means this:

A possibility does not mean that it should be taken as absolute truth. There is always the possibility of it being completely wrong.

Justifiably so.

Because of chemistry.

And what is the reason or source of existence of Allah?

In that case, why do you stick to an unsupported belief?