U.S. Atheists Know More About Religion Than U.S. Christians

[Jollybear]

All the ones I've looked into. Certainly all the "revealed" religions are a better fit with the explanation that they're human creations than with the explanation that they were creations of gods, IMO.

What about veridical NDEs? Are they fabricated?

 

[shmogie]

But it isn't a matter of proof. How something appears to me is how something appears to me.

Back to the issue at hand: all you have to do is cite one (1) example and you will have answered 9-10ths_Penguin's question.

What good is there in religion that can't be achieved without religion?​

My question is, what's holding you up? Why is it you can't come up with a single example that stion is flawed, shows there is a good in religion that can't be achieved without it?

.

.

Your question is flawed, it is a hypothetical based upon the wrong premise. Here is the real and only possible question, ¨ What good is there in religion that isn´t achieved without it ?¨ Then, you must address your question to a place and time. As an example, in early America, education was conducted by the Church, without the Church, there would have been no institution to provide education. Another, when in ancient times, when life expectancies were terribly short and death was a rampant and daily event, Christianity offered a sense of peace and hope that was not available to non believers. I am sure the same can be said for other faiths

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about veridical NDEs? Are they fabricated?

Well, anything veridical isn't fabricated by definition.

There are real phenomena that people interpret through a religious lens. An altered state of consciousness can be a real thing, whether it's caused by the faulty firings of a dying brain as in an NDE, or with drugs, or through physical stress (e.g. a sweat lodge), or mental illness. Still, even these things are better explained as a malfunctioning brain due to purely physical causes than they are explained by gods.

 

[Jollybear]

Well, anything veridical isn't fabricated by definition.

There are real phenomena that people interpret through a religious lens. An altered state of consciousness can be a real thing, whether it's caused by the faulty firings of a dying brain as in an NDE, or with drugs, or through physical stress (e.g. a sweat lodge), or mental illness. Still, even these things are better explained as a malfunctioning brain due to purely physical causes than they are explained by gods.

Ok....but, how do you explain the veridical experiences?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok....but, how do you explain the veridical experiences?

Which experiences are you calling "veridical?" I assume you mean something different from "the ones that really did involve someone near death."

A dying brain is an unreliable brain. Brains deprived of oxygen tend to fail in similar ways.

 

[shmogie]

Well, anything veridical isn't fabricated by definition.

There are real phenomena that people interpret through a religious lens. An altered state of consciousness can be a real thing, whether it's caused by the faulty firings of a dying brain as in an NDE, or with drugs, or through physical stress (e.g. a sweat lodge), or mental illness. Still, even these things are better explained as a malfunctioning brain due to purely physical causes than they are explained by gods.

Better explained by whom, and why do they explain these things the way they do ? Could it be that because their philosophy demands that they categorically deny any explanation other than the physical ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Better explained by whom, and why do they explain these things the way they do ?

Not "by whom." The physical evidence better fits the facts.

Could it be that because their philosophy demands that they categorically deny any explanation other than the physical ?

Funny thing about the divide between "the physical" and "the non-physical" or "the supernatural:" the line between them is generally based on evidence. When something is well-supported by evidence, we call it "physical;" when it isn't well-supported but people want to believe in it anyway, we call it "supernatural."

Then, along come people like you, who point to people who only accept well-supported - and therefore "physical" - explanations and accuse them of being biased because they don't accept "supernatural" (i.e. specious) explanations.

IOW, the issue is about standards of evidence, not about prejuducially rejecting the "supernatural" or the "non-physical."

 

[shmogie]

Not "by whom." The physical evidence better fits the facts.


Funny thing about the divide between "the physical" and "the non-physical" or "the supernatural:" the line between them is generally based on evidence. When something is well-supported by evidence, we call it "physical;" when it isn't well-supported but people want to believe in it anyway, we call it "supernatural."

Then, along come people like you, who point to people who only accept well-supported - and therefore "physical" - explanations and accuse them of being biased because they don't accept "supernatural" (i.e. specious) explanations.

IOW, the issue is about standards of evidence, not about prejuducially rejecting the "supernatural" or the "non-physical."

What is the ¨standard of evidence¨ ? Who decides what it is ? I didn´t accuse anyone of anything. My field is the law. At law, there are a number of forms of evidence. Apparently, from your perspective, the rules of evidence only apply to the physical, thus defacto, declaring all other forms of evidence void. Sort of like a judge declaring only physical ( forensic, written ) evidence valid, excluding eyewitness testimony as invalid. So, in this case, those who make the rules get the results they demand. It is the sophistry of ignorance, we choose not to know, therefore we cannot know, or worse, any other evidence leads to totally false conclusions. Rather an insular, self restricting methodology, don¨t ya think ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the ¨standard of evidence¨ ? Who decides what it is ? I didn´t accuse anyone of anything. My field is the law. At law, there are a number of forms of evidence. Apparently, from your perspective, the rules of evidence only apply to the physical, thus defacto, declaring all other forms of evidence void. Sort of like a judge declaring only physical ( forensic, written ) evidence valid, excluding eyewitness testimony as invalid. So, in this case, those who make the rules get the results they demand. It is the sophistry of ignorance, we choose not to know, therefore we cannot know, or worse, any other evidence leads to totally false conclusions. Rather an insular, self restricting methodology, don¨t ya think ?

Did you not read my post or did it go right over your head?

Tell you what: if you think that near death experiences are better explained by some sort of non-physical phenomenon than they are by the physical, go ahead and make your case.

 

[shmogie]

Did you not read my post or did it go right over your head?

Tell you what: if you think that near death experiences are better explained by some sort of non-physical phenomenon than they are by the physical, go ahead and make your case.

Most NDEś can be explained on the basis of physical causes, but not all. I find them theologically unsettling, as ! believe a dead person, is dead. Nevertheless, there are well investigated and documented cases that simply defy any explanation, other than something we don´t understand is at work. No, your post didn´t go over my head, are you already playing the bogus atheist ¨ you are stupid ¨ card ? About number 6 on the atheist personal attack list.

 

[Aupmanyav]

OP: U.S. Atheists Know More About Religion Than U.S. Christians

A person becomes an atheist only after studying religion. Bible is a prime example of what pushes people into atheism. I am a Hindu atheist, I am fairly well informed not just about Indian religions but also Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions as well.

What about veridical NDEs? Are they fabricated?

There are no 'veridical' NDEs. Christians will consider resurrection of Jesus as 'veridical'.

Then, you must address your question to a place and time. As an example, in early America, education was conducted by the Church, without the Church, there would have been no institution to provide education.

Necessity is the mother of invention, they say. Greece, India and perhaps China are examples that a religious organization is not essential for education.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most NDEś can be explained on the basis of physical causes, but not all.

Which ones can't be explained by physical causes? How do you know?

I find them theologically unsettling, as ! believe a dead person, is dead.

The transition between life and death isn't like an on-off switch. It's a process that occurs over time. Sometimes - like in the case of people who have an NDE and survive - the process is stopped before it's complete.

Nevertheless, there are well investigated and documented cases that simply defy any explanation, other than something we don´t understand is at work.

But you went a step further: from "something we don't understand" to "something necessarily not physical." Again: how do you know?

No, your post didn´t go over my head, are you already playing the bogus atheist ¨ you are stupid ¨ card ? About number 6 on the atheist personal attack list.

I figured I'd make the more charitable assumption than the assumption that you were knowingly misrepresenting my position deliberately. "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance" and all that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A dying brain is an unreliable brain. Brains deprived of oxygen tend to fail in similar ways.

While I agree with the last sentence, I do not agree with the first. Probably, evolution has designed it in this way. How could it be otherwise? The motor control and the sense of pain are first to go, then goes speech (because it requires movement). So, NDE is what the brain can do with just sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste and touch. Brain gets the inputs but cannot respond. If the person is resuscitated, then his report is based on that experience.

 

[wellwisher]

What is the ¨standard of evidence¨ ? Who decides what it is ? I didn´t accuse anyone of anything. My field is the law. At law, there are a number of forms of evidence. Apparently, from your perspective, the rules of evidence only apply to the physical, thus defacto, declaring all other forms of evidence void. Sort of like a judge declaring only physical ( forensic, written ) evidence valid, excluding eyewitness testimony as invalid. So, in this case, those who make the rules get the results they demand. It is the sophistry of ignorance, we choose not to know, therefore we cannot know, or worse, any other evidence leads to totally false conclusions. Rather an insular, self restricting methodology, don¨t ya think ?

In the philosophy of science, evidence and proof is based on that which we can all agree upon using our sensory systems, and then independently reproduced in the lab. This method factors out subjectivity. Although this philosophy is useful for differentiating physical reality, there are nevertheless aspects of reality that are real which are ignored by this standard.

For example, say I had a dream. I carefully relate the details of my dream. This would not be called evidence or proof of this particular dream, even I was 100% objective and accurate. The reason is, even if I was being objective to what I saw, others cannot directly see my dream to verify the details, nor can this particular dream be reproduced in the lab. Yet, science knows we dream and everyone has had a dream to know that dreams are real. Dreams detail is just outside the philosophy of science. Religious experiences tend to overlap this unique area of realty, that is just outside the philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science was originally designed to factor this area of inner reality, so science could specialize, and deal only with external sensory reality. Atheism has misinterpreted this specialization of science and assumed that if science does not make provisions for certain things, it does not exist. Science was not designed to deal with certain types of phenomena, and therefore has little to say in terms of things outside its own standards.

It is possible to bridge the gap, but this requires a revised version of the philosophy of science, that would allow science to better deal with this final frontier. This final frontier is connected to the software side of neural reality, that has an impact on how we perceive the physical reality of science.

For example, consider two opposing political parties looking at the same social data. Each will draw different conclusions, using the same proof. This is due to an overlap of external with internal reality, that then impacts the philosophy of science. Also consider, manmade climate change and how different scientists see this differently. Religion deals with this software side.

Genesis, in the bible, is less about physical reality, as it is about the software side of brain, impacting how we collectively perceive external reality. Science theory is always evolving, yet at each point in its evolution, humans think they are looking at the final version, due to the software side coming to a collective focus. God ruling the realm of mankind is sort of a metaphor for this affect.

 

[shmogie]

Which ones can't be explained by physical causes? How do you know?


The transition between life and death isn't like an on-off switch. It's a process that occurs over time. Sometimes - like in the case of people who have an NDE and survive - the process is stopped before it's complete.


But you went a step further: from "something we don't understand" to "something necessarily not physical." Again: how do you know?


I figured I'd make the more charitable assumption than the assumption that you were knowingly misrepresenting my position deliberately. "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance" and all that.

Have you ever seen someone die ? Unfortunately , I have. A person is alive, the heart stops, then the brain dies shortly thereafter, They are dead. Certainly as the brain dies, chemical changes take place, and these changes no doubt are responsible for many NDE´s.

Nevertheless, there are comprehensively documented and thoroughly investigated cases that simply defy a natural, physical explanation.

So, why this occurs, is not understood. Your default position then is it has to be physical, we just don´t understand it. That then ensures that nothing can be anything but natural, physical. Ignorance being the lack of knowledge, the position is the sophistry of ignorance.

Something can me a manifestation of the non physical. They are rare, but exist.

How do I know ? The evidence, when evaluated objectively and in an open minded, non biased fashion, leads to this conclusion.

Impeaching evidence for no good reason than other than it doesn´t fit the mold of a desired conclusion can lead to something, but not always the truth.

 

[shmogie]

In the philosophy of science, evidence and proof is based on that which we can all agree upon using our sensory systems, and then independently reproduced in the lab. This method factors out subjectivity. Although this philosophy is useful for differentiating physical reality, there are nevertheless aspects of reality that are real which are ignored by this standard.

For example, say I had a dream. I carefully relate the details of my dream. This would not be called evidence or proof of this particular dream, even I was 100% objective and accurate. The reason is, even if I was being objective to what I saw, others cannot directly see my dream to verify the details, nor can this particular dream be reproduced in the lab. Yet, science knows we dream and everyone has had a dream to know that dreams are real. Dreams detail is just outside the philosophy of science. Religious experiences tend to overlap this unique area of realty, that is just outside the philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science was originally designed to factor this area of inner reality, so science could specialize, and deal only with external sensory reality. Atheism has misinterpreted this specialization of science and assumed that if science does not make provisions for certain things, it does not exist. Science was not designed to deal with certain types of phenomena, and therefore has little to say in terms of things outside its own standards.

It is possible to bridge the gap, but this requires a revised version of the philosophy of science, that would allow science to better deal with this final frontier. This final frontier is connected to the software side of neural reality, that has an impact on how we perceive the physical reality of science.

For example, consider two opposing political parties looking at the same social data. Each will draw different conclusions, using the same proof. This is due to an overlap of external with internal reality, that then impacts the philosophy of science. Also consider, man made climate change and how different scientists see this differently. Religion deals with this software side.

Genesis, in the bible, is less about physical reality, as it is about the software side of brain, impacting how we collectively perceive external reality. Science theory is always evolving, yet at each point in its evolution, humans think they are looking at the final version, due to the software side coming to a collective focus. God ruling the realm of mankind is sort of a metaphor for this affect.

An excellent post, thank you. I find your point re the way atheists have adopted the scientific method as the way to determine the validity of everything extremely important. This methodology must, as they use it, reject as specious that which cannot be quantified by their chosen method.

Some refer to science as a religion for some. This inflames many atheists, but, in fact it is true.

A religion, as opposed to a faith structure, is dogmatic and considers itself the arbiter of truth, those atheists who misuse the scientific method, as you have pointed out, are worshiping at the altar of science.

The term evidence means different things to different people. Since my education. training and experience is related to criminal law, I tend to view evidence from that perspective.Rules of evidence at law, is of course, different in many perspectives from scientific evidence. The law assigns value to eyewitness testimony. At least for most of the atheists I have come across, it has no value. Their fist task is always to impeach the witness based upon what could have, from a natural perspective, caused the witness statement. If the statement is contrary to the dogmatic position,then thy are a liar, a charlatan, or insane.

There are ways to test eyewitness testimony, one being other corroborating testimony. This is irrelevant to many atheists position, if need be, thousands are crazy

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you ever seen someone die ? Unfortunately , I have. A person is alive, the heart stops, then the brain dies shortly thereafter, They are dead. Certainly as the brain dies, chemical changes take place, and these changes no doubt are responsible for many NDE´s.

Nevertheless, there are comprehensively documented and thoroughly investigated cases that simply defy a natural, physical explanation.

So, why this occurs, is not understood. Your default position then is it has to be physical, we just don´t understand it. That then ensures that nothing can be anything but natural, physical. Ignorance being the lack of knowledge, the position is the sophistry of ignorance.

Something can me a manifestation of the non physical. They are rare, but exist.

How do I know ? The evidence, when evaluated objectively and in an open minded, non biased fashion, leads to this conclusion.

Impeaching evidence for no good reason than other than it doesn´t fit the mold of a desired conclusion can lead to something, but not always the truth.

Do you have well documented cases of inexplicable events during an NDE? Anecdotes are not worth much in such a discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An excellent post, thank you. I find your point re the way atheists have adopted the scientific method as the way to determine the validity of everything extremely important. This methodology must, as they use it, reject as specious that which cannot be quantified by their chosen method.

Some refer to science as a religion for some. This inflames many atheists, but, in fact it is true.

A religion, as opposed to a faith structure, is dogmatic and considers itself the arbiter of truth, those atheists who misuse the scientific method, as you have pointed out, are worshiping at the altar of science.

The term evidence means different things to different people. Since my education. training and experience is related to criminal law, I tend to view evidence from that perspective.Rules of evidence at law, is of course, different in many perspectives from scientific evidence. The law assigns value to eyewitness testimony. At least for most of the atheists I have come across, it has no value. Their fist task is always to impeach the witness based upon what could have, from a natural perspective, caused the witness statement. If the statement is contrary to the dogmatic position,then thy are a liar, a charlatan, or insane.

There are ways to test eyewitness testimony, one being other corroborating testimony. This is irrelevant to many atheists position, if need be, thousands are crazy

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "religion". By the standard dictionary definition the acceptance of science is not a religion.

 

[Holdasown]

Yes, and i also have had discussions with christian pastors who wer not rational. That said, i yet claim to believe the bible.

But heres my thing, everytime i discuss with atheists it always happens, they say stuff like this:

"Your not honest

Your stupid

Your ignorant

Your biased

You dont research"

Just a bunch of nonsense. It gets old and very annoying.

But, let me tell you why its annoying. Its not annoying because i want them to percieve me as smart, honest, and well informed, no, thats not why. Its also not because i somehow start doubting that im honest, smart or well informed. Thats not why either because i in fact KNOW im being honest, smart, rational and do my research.

Heres why its so darn annoying. Because THERE the ones who are trully the dishonest, unrational and biased and ignorant ones, yet i wont even spit that out my mouth at them, they will be always the first to toute it at me. They are these things, yet project it on me, which ANGERS ME and it WASTES a bunch of time. It distracts from the content of the subjects. And through that process, i learn crap all from them.

Thats why its so dang annoying.

And atheist say theists are not rational, stupid, liars, bad parents and do evil in the name of our gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And atheist say theists are not rational, stupid, liars, bad parents and do evil in the name of our gods.

Not all theists, but I can say that you've misrepresented me a number of times.