Atheism is DEAD!

cybercoma · December 21, 2009

...and all the alternate endings in the special features of the D... erm, I mean life.

jbg · December 21, 2009

Does a rock have point of existing? Do you have a point of existing? A diety does not require a point or a purpose.

Quite correct. But a diety is important to any binding ethical system. Theoretically it isn't but without one everything becomes relative.

ToadBrother · December 21, 2009

Quite correct. But a diety is important to any binding ethical system. Theoretically it isn't but without one everything becomes relative.

I don't buy that at all. We're social animals, moral behavior, or more generally, altruistic behavior, is in our genes. Even chimps have basic rules of conduct by which they abide, all in the absence of invented higher powers.

ToadBrother · December 21, 2009

The link I gave you posulates many universes suspended in some meta-verse that allows them to bump into each other causing big bangs. The hypothesis requires that these universes be real - not mathematical constructs. We will never have evidence that these universes really exist since they exist outside our realm of physical perception.

There are, in fact, theoretical ways in which other branes could be detected. It requires gravitons to exist, mind you, but still, it is conceivable to eventually test them.

It is also worth noting that the hypothesis is not universally accepted. Some scientists think it is bunk. But it is still a legimate scientific hypothesis. Given that context I do not feel it reasonable to restricting a discussion of a diety to our realm of physical perception.

It isn't really accepted at all. It is a hypothesis based upon certain mathematical models that even its formulators admit may have nothing at all to do with reality.

Neither am I. You seem to be caught up in the idea that only concept of a diety is the one described in the Christian Bible.

So far the only form of deity you've managed to invoke is a pointless one that speaks to people but does nothing else. Mind you, even communicating with the human brain is in fact interacting with the physical universe, so you haven't really invoked another kind of deity, just simply an incredibly impotent one.

bloodyminded · December 21, 2009

Quite correct. But a diety is important to any binding ethical system. Theoretically it isn't but without one everything becomes relative.

Everything is relative within belief-in-deity systems. The disagreements are profound, often total, even often within specific denominations.

Shwa · December 21, 2009

Given that context I do not feel it reasonable to restricting a discussion of a diety to our realm of physical perception.

So basically your perspective is that a deity is unknowable outside of personal experience or personal internal knowledge?

GostHacked · December 21, 2009

So basically your perspective is that a deity is unknowable outside of personal experience or personal internal knowledge?

I'd say that is correct. It is more of an agnostic approach, but I can get behind this.

Riverwind · December 21, 2009

So basically your perspective is that a deity is unknowable outside of personal experience or personal internal knowledge?

What I am saying is that is a valid definition of a deity and one that is shared by many Christians I know despite what their Church teachings say.

cybercoma · December 21, 2009

Quite correct. But a diety is important to any binding ethical system. Theoretically it isn't but without one everything becomes relative.

I don't believe in a deity, nor am I moral relativist.

cybercoma · December 21, 2009

So basically your perspective is that a deity is unknowable outside of personal experience or personal internal knowledge?

Protestant sects believe in a personal relationship with God. However, some of their sects also believe in spreading the word of God to everyone and trying to "save" them from their ignorance: the ignorance of not having a personal relationship with their God.

Riverwind · December 21, 2009

There are, in fact, theoretical ways in which other branes could be detected. It requires gravitons to exist, mind you, but still, it is conceivable to eventually test them.

Hypothesis: contact with a deity via prayer and meditation can resolve many psychological issues such as addiction.

Test: take 1000 subjects suffering from addiction and teach 1/2 of them that believing and praying to a diety will help them resolve their issues. Use standard psychology with the others.

Verfication: After 5 years see if the subjects who choose to believe in a diety showed a greater improvement than the control group who did not.

The test I described would provide evidence for any conventional treatment. Why would it not be sufficient to provide evidence for a diety?

Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

wyly · December 21, 2009

How so? I mean, what are you basing your comment on?

it requires an ability to think/create in an abstract manner which animals cannot do...we were at one time no better than animals and I don't know of any animals other than man that has religion...early man was not capable of conceiving religion or a god...

Shwa · December 21, 2009

What I am saying is that is a valid definition of a deity and one that is shared by many Christians I know despite what their Church teachings say.

OK, so...

If that is a valid definition - and I presume you hold this to be true - then is there a language that can successfully communicate personal experience or personal knowledge from one person to another?

Shwa · December 21, 2009

atheism predates all religions hands down...

+

it requires an ability to think/create in an abstract manner which animals cannot do...we were at one time no better than animals and I don't know of any animals other than man that has religion...early man was not capable of conceiving religion or a god...

Anthropocentrism. How do you know that animals cannot think/create in an abstract manner? Do you mean early humans? Or how about chimps that use sticks and stone tools for food gathering and processing? Or are they not 'animal' enough for you?

How do you know that "early man" was not "capable" of conceiving religion or a god? Do you have a source on this that you can share please?

ToadBrother · December 21, 2009

Hypothesis: contact with a deity via prayer and meditation can resolve many psychological issues such as addiction.

Which says nothing about whether said deity exists.

Test: take 1000 subjects suffering from addiction and teach 1/2 of them that believing and praying to a diety will help them resolve their issues. Use standard psychology with the others.

Verfication: After 5 years see if the subjects who choose to believe in a diety showed a greater improvement than the control group who did not.

The test I described would provide evidence for any conventional treatment. Why would it not be sufficient to provide evidence for a diety?

It would simply provide evidence that there is a psychological "soothing" factor to believing in a deity. It is not evidence for a deity any more than schizophrenia is evidence that there are indeed voices in a sufferer's head.

Riverwind · December 21, 2009

It would simply provide evidence that there is a psychological "soothing" factor to believing in a deity. It is not evidence for a deity any more than schizophrenia is evidence that there are indeed voices in a sufferer's head.

The same logic would apply to all physical phenomena that cannot be directly observed such as those alternate universes I pointed to earlier. Your response was their existence could be inferred by looking at other phenomena. You seem to be willing to accept indirect evidence in one case but not others.

In any case, if it could be demonstrated that believing in a diety has a beneficial effect does it really make a difference if it is real or not?

Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

wyly · December 21, 2009

+

Anthropocentrism. How do you know that animals cannot think/create in an abstract manner? Do you mean early humans? Or how about chimps that use sticks and stone tools for food gathering and processing? Or are they not 'animal' enough for you?

How do you know that "early man" was not "capable" of conceiving religion or a god? Do you have a source on this that you can share please?

because animals and early man did not have a sufficently developed frontal lobe. the frontal lobe makes us what we are, without that we're just another dumb animal...

wyly · December 21, 2009

It is not evidence for a deity any more than schizophrenia is evidence that there are indeed voices in a sufferer's head.

WHAT!...are you claiming those voices I hear in my head are't really there?...how do you know, all four of us agree you're wrong...

GostHacked · December 21, 2009

Anthropocentrism. How do you know that animals cannot think/create in an abstract manner? Do you mean early humans? Or how about chimps that use sticks and stone tools for food gathering and processing? Or are they not 'animal' enough for you?

Animals may have some primitive ability to think creatively. And many animals use tools in some fashion. But I doubt they have the capacity to ponder their existence along with the thought of a 'creator'.

How do you know that "early man" was not "capable" of conceiving religion or a god? Do you have a source on this that you can share please?

I'd say it is because of lack of shrines and lack of proof of said rituals. All deities have shrines dedicated to them. Some deities have many shrines dedicated to them. Also, the lack of leisure time did not allow much room for this kind of thought and behavior. Most of early-man's time would have been spent on surviving.

Shwa · December 21, 2009

because animals and early man did not have a sufficently developed frontal lobe. the frontal lobe makes us what we are, without that we're just another dumb animal...

Could you cite a couple of credible sources about that please? Just to clarify between what is your opinion and what is something like accepted fact. Specifically if you can show that a lesser developed frontal lobe (such as the modern human one) precludes the development of religious concepts and/or abstract thinking/creating. Thanks!

ToadBrother · December 21, 2009

The same logic would apply to all physical phenomena that cannot be directly observed such as those alternate universes I pointed to earlier. Your response was their existence could be inferred by looking at other phenomena. You seem to be willing to accept indirect evidence in one case but not others.

In any case, if it could be demonstrated that believing in a diety has a beneficial effect does it really make a difference if it is real or not?

For any inference, one requires a mechanism. Simply having people pray and feel better does not describe a mechanism. The minute you have to describe a mechanism, it becomes an epistemological question. Would you care to expand your hypothesis in such a manner?

Besides, your hypothesis seems to be violating a key tenet of any study, that correlation does not imply causation.

Shwa · December 21, 2009

But I doubt they have the capacity to ponder their existence along with the thought of a 'creator'.

What you likely mean to say is 'equivalenty ponder.' Either way, your doubts are noted, but you cannot demonstrate that you have knowledge of that correct?

I'd say it is because of lack of shrines and lack of proof of said rituals...

How about distinct mortuary rites along with grave goods and ceremonial objects? These suggest ritual especially with mortuary practices. How about chimp morturary customs?

But again, this scant material evidence does not prove they actually had some sort of religion or god-belief system, but it leans more toward 'capable' that outright dismissal.

Also, the lack of leisure time did not allow much room for this kind of thought and behavior.

If early man had enough time to chip an elaborate stone tool kit, complete with specialty task tools, sire children, prepare or cook food, etc., then I think it is certainly within the realm of their capabilities that they had room for this kind of thought and behavior.

Riverwind · December 21, 2009

For any inference, one requires a mechanism. Simply having people pray and feel better does not describe a mechanism.

Many medical discoveries are accepted long before any mechanism is found. HIV-AIDS is one that immediately comes to mind. Are you someone who rejected the idea that HIV could cause AIDS simply because the mechanism was unknown?

Besides, your hypothesis seems to be violating a key tenet of any study, that correlation does not imply causation.

You were asking for evidence - not proof. Coorelation is evidence.

GostHacked · December 21, 2009

How about distinct mortuary rites along with grave goods and ceremonial objects? These suggest ritual especially with mortuary practices. How about chimp morturary customs?

But again, this scant material evidence does not prove they actually had some sort of religion or god-belief system, but it leans more toward 'capable' that outright dismissal.

You are right, This does not prove that they thought a creator existed. However, they do seem to understand death and it's finality. But like you said, it does not prove in the belief of a deity.

If early man had enough time to chip an elaborate stone tool kit, complete with specialty task tools, sire children, prepare or cook food, etc., then I think it is certainly within the realm of their capabilities that they had room for this kind of thought and behavior.

Like I said, if they had enough free time to ponder it all, then possibly. But when your life if filled with the tasks of basic survival, you won't have time to ponder your existence, you just got time to exist.

Shwa · December 21, 2009

However, they do seem to understand death and it's finality.

Ah, that's the problem. When you include grave goods or some form of mortuary 'dressing' are you preparing the person for the after-life? If death was final, one would think that they'd just toss the body or eat it and spare a day or two of hunting so they could ponder their existence. (and there is some evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism so...)

The point being is that from evidence we have of human behaviour with the grave goods and the mortuary dressing and all of that, is that this was in preparation for an after-life or something 'beyond.' There isn't any reason to suggest that early humans did not have the same ideas, even if they were rudimentary in that wee frontal lobe of theirs. There are some folks who believe that we are hardwired for religious or spiritual thought even as an abstraction.

the tasks of basic survival

When you watch the Discovery documentaries on chimps, do you see them without leisure time and constantly looking for food? Hardly. And they spend their time in many social activities like play and grooming and settling differences. The common reference today was that early man of the hunter-gatherer type had plenty of leisure time for other activities besides subsistence. No duobt there was social interaction, playing and the settling of differences.