Search for Truth: Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am obliged to disagree re "no evidence".
While it is true to say 'no proof' it is not true to say 'no evidence'...they are not one in the same/interchangable.

It may be fair to say from a given perspective "No evidence that I, or Science or Police Forensics would find acceptable"...but that is still not to say there is 'no evidence'.

By the same token, would you agree that there is evidence against the existence of deities?

 

[Wombat]

By the same token, would you agree that there is evidence against the existence of deities?

Possibly. Show me the evidence and I'll take it to the Lab.

 

[doppelganger]

In a string of threads I want to analyse different religions, and non-religions to see which ones hold some grain of truth. There is often a variety of beliefs in each belief group so believers can even debate among each other.

I'll save you some time . . . . they all do, though maybe some of them do not for you.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

"Atheism" is the lack of belief in "God" (by which I mean, specifically, belief in deity). So of course "atheism" is "negative." It is linguistically axiomatic that it be so because that is its function. It can be combined with active methods of projecting "truth" though that do not depend on belief in deity. And it usually is. Pantheistic naturalism is most common, and frequently that is also combined with a worship or holy reverence of "Science".

You will learn much more about the grains of truth if you learn to think in terms of the method of knowing rather than look at the substance of belief generated by a method of knowing.

Procedure is power.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Possibly. Show me the evidence and I'll take it to the Lab.

Off the top of my head, how about the inefficacy of prayer?

It's definitely not proof, and maybe it's not particularly earth-shattering evidence, but when we think of the balance of evidence with "God exists" on the one side and "God doesn't exist" on the other, this item falls squarely on the "doesn't exist" side, IMO.

Also, there's always the old argument that says evidence for one god is evidence against any other incompatible god. For instance, if the "Milk Miracle" is evidence for the existence of Ganesha, then it's evidence against the existence of Jesus Christ (the God-man... not necessarily the itinerant preacher).

 

[doppelganger]

Off the top of my head, how about the inefficacy of prayer?

Inefficacy to accomplish some things . . . yes. I daresay the main purpose of prayer is not to effect magic outside the pray-er.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inefficacy to accomplish some things . . . yes. I daresay the main purpose of prayer is not to effect magic outside the pray-er.

I think that depends on the person praying.

And that study (and the others like it) don't need physical effects to be the main purpose of prayer, just for those effects to be a predicted result of a given god-hypothesis.

 

[doppelganger]

I think that depends on the person praying.

Not really . . . as the study you linked to shows.

Whether they get more food pellets or not, the pigeons are reducing their anxiety . . . at least in the short run . . .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really . . . as the study you linked to shows.

Whether they get more food pellets or not, the pigeons are reducing their anxiety . . . at least in the short run . . .

I think we're using different definitions for "purpose". I was thinking you meant it in terms of "intent", but it sounds like you mean it more as something like "main effect".

 

[doppelganger]

I think we're using different definitions for "purpose". I was thinking you meant it in terms of "intent", but it sounds like you mean it more as something like "main effect".

I mean in the sense of - "psychological motivations for engaging in the behavior."

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am obliged to disagree re "no evidence".
While it is true to say 'no proof' it is not true to say 'no evidence'...they are not one in the same/interchangable.

It may be fair to say from a given perspective "No evidence that I, or Science or Police Forensics would find acceptable"...but that is still not to say there is 'no evidence'.

When determining what's real or not, the only evidence I am prepared to accept is empirical objective scientific evidence.
Everything else is, again according to my view, opinion.

Also, proof is only relevant in Mathematics.

If this is so, and a satisfactory explanation for what 'love is', is there >any< thought, experience or belief held by humans that cannot be defined/explained in exactly the same terms?

Not really, no.

"Contentment is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Violence is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Theism and/or atheism is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?
"Marxism is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain"?

Those reactions/views as held by an individual can certainly, at least in theory, be narrowed down to electrochemical reactions in the brain.
It is important to note though that the brain does not exist in a vacuum all by itself. It lives in an environment filled with things that affect it directly or indirectly, not the least of which is other brains.

Love, like anger, may register as a stronger 'electrochemical reaction'...but all emotion and thinking will register as 'electrochemical reactions'.

Yes, but different electrochemical reactions.

Does the fact that everything we think and feel registers as an electrochemical reaction not render the conclusion that "love is the result" of such reaction...well... useless?

Not at all. Neurological-psychology is fascinating.

One might just as well say 'Love is the result of existing', no existing- no love.
Likewise "Love is the result of electrochemical reactions"...what transpires in the brain that >isn't<?

Also true, but the point I was making was that while some people insist on saying that "god is love" (or similar), there is absolutely no reason to. We can explain love as a natural (as opposed to supernatural) physical (as opposed to metaphysical) phenomenon, and that makes it not god by the dictionary definition of the word.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It is my understanding that the classical distinction goes like this
Strong Atheist: "There is no god".
Weak Atheist: "I don't believe (or trust) there is any god".
Sure, it isn't the sharpest of distinctions, but it is clear and real enough.

Well, that seems to be the exact distinction between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist though, so I don't really see the need for those terms, but that may be just me.

There are certainly those who hold such an opinion, but it is classicaly considered incorrect.

Agnosticism is usually defined as a philosophical stance theorically unrelated to any personal degree of conviction about whether there is a god.

It is a belief about the possibility of knowledge of god's existence, not a degree.

Going back to the dictionary definition as well as the Greek root of the word this seems inconsistent.

 

[Alceste]

Atheism does not deny that the universe, but there is no reason to call the universe God.

I can only assume there is a reason, for some, or else pantheism would not be such a popular incarnation of theism.

 

[Alceste]

In normal conversation I go by the dictionary definition of 'god' which states: "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity", and there is no evidence that such a being exists.

Love is the result of electrochemical reactions in your brain, voices in your ear when no-one is around is a sign of schizophrenia, the universe is the universe, Ganges is a river and the moon's phases is merely the result of the Earth's shadow upon it.

So, yeah, I go by the dictionary definition.
All that other stuff is just 'flowery language', which, while it has a place in poetry and the like, is just silly when trying to define what's real.

It isn't "flowery language". What people actually mean when they say "god" is pertinent information without which the question can not be answered.

When a theist asks if I believe in god, they generally mean THEIR god, not Merriam-Webster's god. Then again, pantheists and nature worshippers don't tend to ask.

 

[Orias]

Then again, pantheists and nature worshippers don't tend to ask.

Yes, we seem to be a step above most (JK)

 

[Willamena]

Off the top of my head, how about the inefficacy of prayer?

The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

Reading that reminds me of studies set up to test "the working of astrology" in the 80's. A rational review of the experiment* demonstrated that, the way the experiment had been set up, all they were really testing was the astrologer's ability to read symbols on a chart.


*by Geoffrey Cornelius

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reading that reminds me of studies set up to test "the working of astrology" in the 80's. A rational review of the experiment* demonstrated that, the way the experiment had been set up, all they were really testing was the astrologer's ability to read symbols on a chart.

I've just skimmed over the article, but my first impression is that it doesn't say this. From what I gather, it really did test whether astrologers were any good at doing what they say they can do.

 

[Willamena]

I've just skimmed over the article, but my first impression is that it doesn't say this. From what I gather, it really did test whether astrologers were any good at doing what they say they can do.

It's there in the premise and the conclusion. But okay.

...From what I gather, it really did test whether astrologers were any good at doing what they say they can do.

Yes: that would stand in contrast with "the astrologer's ability to read symbols on a chart".

 

[doppelganger]

Both studies are really only testing variations on the age-old question: "Is being superstitious a form of superstitious behavior?"

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the efficacy of prayer or divination, though it does pertain to certain things superstitious people say about prayer and divination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the efficacy of prayer or divination, though it does pertain to certain things superstitious people say about prayer and divination.

Yes... it has to do with the question "what does prayer (or divination) do?" IOW, its efficacy.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes... it has to do with the question "what does prayer (or divination) do?" IOW, its efficacy.

In other, other words (IOOW) its efficacy for certain types of things (the results of which were a foregone conclusion, since the tests only test superstition) . . . just as I said above.