Present arguments for atheism

[Willamena]

In what way do you think I'm "investing in unknowns"?

You suggested a significant likelihood for the possibility of a chemical influence in the brain of the person having a religious experience. No? Without any facts, skepticism demands that we dismiss such explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You suggested a significant likelihood for the possibility of a chemical influence in the brain of the person having a religious experience. No?

No. I only said "delusion". I didn't speak to specific causes.

Without any facts, skepticism demands that we dismiss such explanation.

Without any facts, skepticism demands that we leave ourselves open to any explanation potentially being true, including delusion.


BTW: what makes you assume we don't have any facts?

 

[Willamena]

No. I only said "delusion". I didn't speak to specific causes.

My apologies. I thought you were addressing the post before you. I didn't realise you were referring to those normal delusions that occur in healthy brains.

Without any facts, skepticism demands that we leave ourselves open to any explanation potentially being true, including delusion.

Wow. I couldn't disagree more. Nuff said.

BTW: what makes you assume we don't have any facts?

Because, of your hypothetical person having a religious experience, you didn't propose even a hypothetical complete bloodwork.

 

[Iti oj]

You suggested a significant likelihood for the possibility of a chemical influence in the brain of the person having a religious experience. No? Without any facts, skepticism demands that we dismiss such explanation.

Well what about the facts that we can chemical induce non normal experiences. ie the evidence of how psychedelic or schizophrenia

point blank we do have evidence that 'experiences' can be and are caused by chemistry. I will agree that for religious ones its stipulation as far as I know, but its not baseless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My apologies. I thought you were addressing the post before you. I didn't realise you were referring to those normal delusions that occur in healthy brains.

Do you think that the only possibilities for a human brain are "chemical influence" and "healthy"?

Even before we start thinking about causes, we can recognize that different people's religious experiences imply conflicting things, so they can't all be true. The source of false religious experiences is an interesting question, but it's not like we have to answer it conclusively before we can acknowledge that someone with a religious experience might not have come to a correct conclusion.

Wow. I couldn't disagree more. Nuff said.

If you have no facts, what are you using as the basis for your conclusion that certain alternatives are impossible?

Because, of your hypothetical person having a religious experience, you didn't propose even a hypothetical complete bloodwork.

To look for "delusion chemicals", I presume.

Are you even trying to make sense?

 

[Willamena]

Well what about the facts that we can chemical induce non normal experiences. ie the evidence of how psychedelic or schizophrenia

point blank we do have evidence that 'experiences' can be and are caused by chemistry. I will agree that for religious ones its stipulation as far as I know, but its not baseless.

Who gets to judge what a "normal" experience is without the drugs? Those people who haven't had a religious experience?

 

[Looncall]

Maybe I should of used the word "catalyst?" I wasn't referring to a life essence or soul even though that's something I believe in as well. I was referring to the switch (if there is such a thing) that allowed non-living to become living. I'd also disagree that the only difference between living and non-living is the arrangement of parts.[\QUOTE]

What grounds do you have for these opinions?

I'm not sure that the word catalyst means what you think it does.

I won't deny that substances that influence the brain can cause experiences that are mistakend as religious and paranormal experiences, but I would consider it a mistake to say every experience every human has had in the history of mankind was a delusion.

What grounds do you have for supposing that any religious experience is non-delusional? Does anyone experience the god(s) of someone else's religion?

 

[Willamena]

Do you think that the only possibilities for a human brain are "chemical influence" and "healthy"?

Even before we start thinking about causes, we can recognize that different people's religious experiences imply conflicting things, so they can't all be true. The source of false religious experiences is an interesting question, but it's not like we have to answer it conclusively before we can acknowledge that someone with a religious experience might not have come to a correct conclusion.

The brain is a chemical engine. If delusion is unhealthy, as I think most people would agree, it indicates something off with the engine.

Conflicting interpretations, conflicting environments, contrasting mythologies and cultures, contrasting significance of motifs... And an unnecessary that one group's religious experience conform in any way to any other's... All are better potential explanations than delusion.

If you have no facts, what are you using as the basis for your conclusion that certain alternatives are impossible?

" Open to any explanation potentially being true" is a far cry from any alternatives being impossible. Perhaps you mis-spoke. Maintaining a healthy skepticism endorses withholding judgement on possibility or impossibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The brain is a chemical engine. If delusion is unhealthy, as I think most people would agree, it indicates something off with the engine.

So now all brain problems are chemical problems? I'm glad you're not a neurologist.

Conflicting interpretations, conflicting environments, contrasting mythologies and cultures, contrasting significance of motifs... And an unnecessary that one group's religious experience conform in any way to any other's... All are better potential explanations than delusion.

Why do you say that?

It seems like you have some specific religious experience in mind. Do you? If so, details might be helpful.

" Open to any explanation potentially being true" is a far cry from any alternatives being impossible. Perhaps you mis-spoke.

No, I think you may have misread.

Maintaining a healthy skepticism endorses withholding judgement on possibility or impossibility.

Indeed. That's why I disagree with your approach, where you reject certain explanations (e.g. delusion) before the facts are in.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

@Looncall

What grounds do you have for these opinions?

Which opinions? The concept of the soul? Comes with my religion. The difference between a living and non-living thing? That's something you learn in a high school biology class. If we're talking about things at the cellular level it might not seem too different but when it's full-fledge organisms such as animals and humans, the differences are astronomical.

I'm not sure that the word catalyst means what you think it does.

No, it's the word I wanted to use.

Catalyst - a person or thing that precipitates an event "the governor's speech acted as a catalyst for debate" synonyms:stimulus, stimulation, spark, sparkplug, spur - Oxford Dictionaries.

What grounds do you have for supposing that any religious experience is non-delusional?

The person's mental history would first have to be taken into consideration - followed by their basic credibility. Then the situation could be evaluated from a logical perspective first. After every thing checks out, the decision whether or not it was a genuine religious/supernatural experience would be made by the person who experienced it and they people they share it with. In the end, it still can't be proven.

Does anyone experience the god(s) of someone else's religion?

From a polytheistic perspective, yes this can be a common occurrence.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed. That's why I disagree with your approach, where you reject certain explanations (e.g. delusion) before the facts are in.

I have that approach because the alternative--to allow their possibility or impossibility--is unacceptable to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have that approach because the alternative--to allow their possibility or impossibility--is unacceptable to me.

First: I said "allow for", not "allow". Reality isn't contingent on my permission.

Second: you think the idea that religious experiences might be deusional is neither possible nor impossible? Are you even trying to make sense?

 

[Willamena]

First: I said "allow for", not "allow". Reality isn't contingent on my permission.

I meant the same. Allowing for possibility allows it.

Second: you think the idea that religious experiences might be deusional is neither possible nor impossible? Are you even trying to make sense?

I think you got off track. I reject that religious experiences are explained by delusion shy of having facts. That includes both the possibility and the impossibility that delusion is the explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant the same. Allowing for possibility allows it.


I think you got off track. I reject that religious experiences are explained by delusion shy of having facts.

Then you were rejecting an argument I didn't make.

I never argued that we can explain religious experiences by delusion. My point was that we can't conclude that they must be genuine until we've eliminated other possibilities (e.g. delusion, lying). Until you can give a reasonable answer to the question "how do you know they weren't just deluded?", I'm justified in saying "I'm not convinced" when you claim that the experience was genuine.

 

[Willamena]

Then you were rejecting an argument I didn't make.

I never argued that we can explain religious experiences by delusion. My point was that we can't conclude that they must be genuine until we've eliminated other possibilities (e.g. delusion, lying). Until you can give a reasonable answer to the question "how do you know they weren't just deluded?", I'm justified in saying "I'm not convinced" when you claim that the experience was genuine.

It wasn't an argument, but you implored...

... but when evaluating any particular religious experience, we should acknowledge that there's a significant chance that it might be a delusion and treat it with an appropriate level of skepticism, no?

To which my response says, no, we don't have to acknowledge that, unless we are engaging an argument from ignorance. We shouldn't and rationally can't conclude anything at all without evidence. Skepticism doesn't allow it.

Your point is well taken, but poorly given.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wasn't an argument, but you implored...

To which my response says, no, we don't have to acknowledge that, unless we are engaging an argument from ignorance. We shouldn't and rationally can't conclude anything at all without evidence. Skepticism doesn't allow it.

Your point is well taken, but poorly given.

Ah - I see: you assumed (wrongly) that there's no evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

point blank we do have evidence that 'experiences' can be and are caused by chemistry. .

But because an experience is triggered by chemistry (say an hallucinogen) who is to say the experience had was not genuinely an expansion of consciousness? For example, the chemical as many say loosened the connection between the brain and the spirit allowing a spiritual experience.

That's the hard question.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well what about the facts that we can chemical induce non normal experiences. ie the evidence of how psychedelic or schizophrenia

point blank we do have evidence that 'experiences' can be and are caused by chemistry. I will agree that for religious ones its stipulation as far as I know, but its not baseless.

That's delusional. The brain is organized for decisionmaking in terms of free will. Then any chemistry like alcohol. can play havoc with that organization. The chemistry isn't doing the deciding, the brain isn't doing the deciding, it is just organized in terms for making decisions. The brain can turn out several different ways. As is also shown by that you can move your arm up and down. The fact that the arm moves up or down, is caused by first the brain turning out one way or another.

The agency of the decision is where the sprit / emotions are at. And there is no way you can get any fact about it, at all. All subjectivity is about agency. There is no other subjectivity except agency.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Seems as though there isn't a lot of necessary term defining going on:

Anyways, @Mohammad Nur Syamsu what a pleasure meeting you here.
Shall we engage in discussion, as to confuse the vast amount of people whom have you on ignore?
I think so...

That's delusional. The brain is organized for decisionmaking in terms of free will. Then any chemistry like alcohol. can play havoc with that organization. The chemistry isn't doing the deciding, the brain isn't doing the deciding, it is just organized in terms for making decisions. The brain can turn out several different ways. As is also shown by that you can move your arm up and down. The fact that the arm moves up or down, is caused by first the brain turning out one way or another.

The agency of the decision is where the sprit / emotions are at. And there is no way you can get any fact about it, at all. All subjectivity is about agency. There is no other subjectivity except agency.

You may be the first certified 'subjective neuroscientist'.
I use "subjective" seriously, because you cannot be taken as such.

 

[ArtieE]

Then all "atheist arguments" are anti theism by that.

I disagree with you, and argument against god x existing is not anti theism.

anti theism would be believing in god x is bad.

very different

Check out http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm