Suspending Reality

[Ross Dolan]

Because I don't consider a lack of belief to be a belief. Anymore than I consider my lack of collecting stamps to be a hobby.

Neither do I.

But you saying that ALL GODS ARE UNLIKELY...is not a lack of belief.

It is a belief that no gods exist...OR...it is a belief that "no gods exist" is more likely than "at least one god exists."

Grow up...and acknowledge what is blatantly obvious. Or continue to try to sell the lie. That certainly is your prerogative.

 

[Kafka]

Neither do I.

But you saying that ALL GODS ARE UNLIKELY...is not a lack of belief.

Are you into homeopathy? Do you believe homeopathy is real?

If you do not would you then characterize your lack of belief that homeopathy is not real as a "belief"? Remember, you COULD be wrong. EVERYONE could be wrong on EVERYTHING because we lack perfect knowledge of anything.

Ergo you cannot disbelieve in anything per your use of the word. You are eternally in a state of active belief that fairies and unicorns don't exist. It is your BELIEF.

Grow up...and acknowledge what is blatantly obvious. Or continue to try to sell the lie. That certainly is your prerogative.

Well, now it is clear that the pleasantries are over now. Now it's time for the insults.

Sorry, not going to play the game this time.

Thanks.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Atheists say it doesn't exist. Theists say it does exist. Then there's many in between. I had an NDE so I'm inclined to believe there is something beyond existence, but I don't understand its nature. I didn't see God, Jesus or Siddhartha.

BTW, there's a great movie titled "The Quiet Earth" you might like that relates. It's New Zealand's first SF movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/
It's on Plex and Tubi.

I will say that Dawkins and Hitchens are very annoying and belligerent in their atheistic belief in a way that the Dalai Lama is not about his Buddhism.

Falwell was hella annoying.

 

[domer76]

I will say that Dawkins and Hitchens are very annoying and belligerent in their atheistic belief in a way that the Dalai Lama is not about his Buddhism.

Yeah, I don’t care much for their condescending militancy. I listen to Bart Ehrman a bit. I enjoy his learned expertise without the “attitude”.

 

[Kafka]

Yeah, I don’t care much for their condescending militancy. I listen to Bart Ehrman a bit. I enjoy his learned expertise without the “attitude”.

I love Bart Ehrmann. His books, even his podcast.

But there's a role for the "New Atheists" as well. The most strident. After a life time of hearing the stridency of religions shouted at me it is refreshing to hear an equal and opposite full-throated defense of atheism as well.

When I was first in my journey to atheism I had come across Sam Harris's first book and it really was fun to read. In fact it was a revelation to see others could be thinking thoughts I once considered "off limits". It kind of showed me the real power of reason...the ability to see a path beyond the fear of blasphemy.

I do NOT think the entirety of atheism should be represented by aggressive folks like Hitch or Dawkins; but there's still a role for their brand.

 

[domer76]

I love Bart Ehrmann. His books, even his podcast.

But there's a role for the "New Atheists" as well. The most strident. After a life time of hearing the stridency of religions shouted at me it is refreshing to hear an equal and opposite full-throated defense of atheism as well.

When I was first in my journey to atheism I had come across Sam Harris's first book and it really was fun to read. In fact it was a revelation to see others could be thinking thoughts I once considered "off limits". It kind of showed me the real power of reason...the ability to see a path beyond the fear of blasphemy.

I do NOT think the entirety of atheism should be represented by aggressive folks like Hitch or Dawkins; but there's still a role for their brand.

The thing about Ehrman is not just his expertise, it’s also that he’s been on both sides of the fence. He is able to speak to the mindset of the evangelicals. Plus, his delivery, if you will, is accessible to the non-scholar.

Yet, he seems non-judgemental. I watched a podcast recently where he discussed Christmas. Rather than talking about the myth, he indicated how he rather enjoyed the birth story. Hitchens or Dawkins would be attacking that notion.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. So what was under those ice sheets? We don't know.

I still disagree with your "blinked into existence" idea since you are positing that nothing existed before. I'm saying that we only lack evidence of previous existence. What manmade objects last longer than 50,000 years? IDK.

Do apes doodle in the wild or are they taught in captivity? My understanding is it's only the latter, but I could be wrong. Still, doodling indicates an ability to visualize. That's an ability required to look forward and plan; see something that doesn't exist, visualize it, then make it happen. IMO, that's an excellent evolutionary trait.

Stone and clay implements can last millions of years. Paint in a dark cave should have a long time span given the right environmental conditions.

Blink might not be the right word, but the secure science we have shows sophisticated ritual art and clay figurines showed up across the world beginning around 30k years ago, in a fairly short time frame, given that archaic humans have been around for hundreds of thousands years.

It is a long standing and interesting scientific questions about how religion and ritual art burst onto the scene for Homo Sapiens, and in a way that we don't see for other archaic human lineages.

It's not magic. It's a great scientific mystery.

It can't be related to brain size, and it really can't be due to any Darwinian principle of natural selection I can think of. My blind guess is that there were was a random genetic mutation in Homo sapien brains, similar to how it is hypothesized random genetic mutations in the FOXP2 gene resulted in the ability to cognitively develop advanced languagez

 

[Cypress]

Yeah, I don’t care much for their condescending militancy. I listen to Bart Ehrman a bit. I enjoy his learned expertise without the “attitude”.

Bart Ehrman is a scholar and he is highly informative. He has managed to piss off both holy rollers and atheists.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Are you into homeopathy? Do you believe homeopathy is real?

If you do not would you then characterize your lack of belief that homeopathy is not real as a "belief"? Remember, you COULD be wrong. EVERYONE could be wrong on EVERYTHING because we lack perfect knowledge of anything.

Ergo you cannot disbelieve in anything per your use of the word. You are eternally in a state of active belief that fairies and unicorns don't exist. It is your BELIEF.

If you stand by your comment about the unlikelyhood of all gods...you are expressing a belief. There is absolutely no way you can know there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one.

So that is a belief...or a guess or blind estimate or whatever else you want to call it.

But apparently you want to continue to play your game.

Fine.

Well, now it is clear that the pleasantries are over now. Now it's time for the insults.

Sorry, not going to play the game this time.

Thanks.

The pleasantries ended when you tried to bullshit me...and the others following this discussion.

When you finally get off the bullshit, let me know. We can have a reasonable discussion. As it is now, you apparently think I am going to buy the bullshit.

I am not.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Someone has now said there is a teapot orbiting Mars. That thought is out there now (since Russell). So are you agnostic about it? There is literally no way to know one way or the other.

Science has a really good system for operating like this: it's called testing against the null hypothesis. The null would be that there are no teapots orbiting Mars. That would be the "baseline". Is there any evidence for a teapot orbiting Mars? Nope. None. Right now the ONLY reason to even consider it would be that someone (Russell) said it is there. Are you now required to consider the entire concept up in the air?

In reality given that we cannot know ANYTHING with perfect knowledge then ALL things have "doubt" in them. Science, when testing against the null hypothesis, NEVER says that they are 100% perfectly sure of the decision to reject the null or fail to reject the null. But I am completely comfortable to simply fail to believe that there is a teapot orbiting Mars.

That is my position with regards to God. I am hence "without God" and per the definition an atheist.

Is it TRULY a "belief" if you fail to believe something some rando just told you? Do you believe the homeless guy talking to the streetlights MIGHT actually be communicating with the streetlight? No, of course you don't. But now you tell me this is merely a "belief" you have.

Yes. As stated, I consider it unlikely, but human beings have been around for about 300,000 years and we only have historical relics going back 50,000 or so. That's a lot of empty space for previous civilizations to grow, advance and place teapots around Mars. In short, IDK.

Thanks for your POV.

 

[Kafka]

If you stand by your comment about the unlikelyhood of all gods...you are expressing a belief. There is absolutely no way you can know there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one.

So that is a belief...or a guess or blind estimate or whatever else you want to call it.

But apparently you want to continue to play your game.

Fine.



The pleasantries ended when you tried to bullshit me...and the others following this discussion.

When you finally get off the bullshit, let me know. We can have a reasonable discussion. As it is now, you apparently think I am going to buy the bullshit.

I am not.

Fascinating. I am always amazed at people who cannot carry on a conversation without it becoming personal attacks. I guess your reasoning is limited and hence I can easily dismiss any things you espouse.

Enjoy yourself. In future, though, try to be better.

 

[Kafka]

Yes. As stated, I consider it unlikely, but human beings have been around for about 300,000 years and we only have historical relics going back 50,000 or so. That's a lot of empty space for previous civilizations to grow, advance and place teapots around Mars. In short, IDK.

Thanks for your POV.

What is your belief in regards to homeopathy?

 

[BidenPresident]

That's true. But like all cliches there's some truth in the phrase. We've all seen threads started by atheists mocking or disparaging religious beliefs. IMO though most atheists consider the topic a null set and don't bother arguing or discussing it. They only get involved if a religionist gets in their face and insists that they are "sinful," "evil," have no morals or conscience, and/or are going to hell.

Ironically, the most ethical, compassionate, moral people I know personally tend to be atheists.

I never see threads started by militant athiests.

 

[BidenPresident]

Holy roller is a cliche too, but I use it without mercy!

Unless I am mistaken, Richard Dawkins embraced the concept of militant atheist. As did the New Atheist movement. The Soviet Union definitely embraced the term.

Richard Dawkins does not post here.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thanks for the recommendation!

Most of those polls we see showing dropping church attendance, also show that an abstract belief in spirituality is as strong as ever. That's why it seems instinctual, and that's the thread I drew back to the shamanistic rituals of early homo sapiens.

Rejecting the God of Abraham doesn't seem atheistic to mer. It seems to just be reaction against Christianity.

Things like pantheism, Taoism, Buddhism don't neccesarily have a Creator god in the way Americans concieve of it. But they all assume a transcendent reality beyond what we can percieve in the physical world.

So that seems to be the dividing line between atheism and agnosticism to me, whether not one rejects the possibility of a transcendental reality

I'm certain you'll find it interesting.

Agreed that a move away from dogmatic religion isn't moving toward atheism as the militants assert. Agreed spirituality is still strong. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/

83% of all U.S. adults believe people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body.
81% say there is something spiritual beyond the natural world, even if we cannot see it.
74% say there are some things that science cannot possibly explain.
45% say they have had a sudden feeling of connection with something from beyond this world.
38% say they have had a strong feeling that someone who has passed away was communicating with them from beyond this world.
30% say they have personally encountered a spirit or unseen spiritual force.
Overall, 70% of U.S. adults can be considered “spiritual” in some way, because they think of themselves as spiritual people or say spirituality is very important in their lives.

Agreed on your points that spirituality doesn't require a "Creator god". That said, I think a collective intelligence can be seen as a "god" even if it's not an old man on a throne dictating who goes to Heaven or Hell.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I never see threads started by militant athiests.

This thread was. Same for this one: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?211162-Does-the-universe-have-a-cause

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What is your belief in regards to homeopathy?

It appears to exploit the placebo effect. The power of positive thinking is a powerful tool. It goes along with the idea of "there are no atheists in foxholes". Belief is a strong tool regardless if it's factually based or not.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Stone and clay implements can last millions of years. Paint in a dark cave should have a long time span given the right environmental conditions.

Blink might not be the right word, but the secure science we have shows sophisticated ritual art and clay figurines showed up across the world beginning around 30k years ago, in a fairly short time frame, given that archaic humans have been around for hundreds of thousands years.
It is a long standing and interesting scientific questions about how religion and ritual art burst onto the scene for Homo Sapiens, and in a way that we don't see for other archaic human lineages.

It's not magic. It's a great scientific mystery.

It can't be related to brain size, and it really can't be due to any Darwinian principle of natural selection I can think of. My blind guess is that there were was a random genetic mutation in Homo sapien brains, similar to how it is hypothesized random genetic mutations in the FOXP2 gene resulted in the ability to cognitively develop advanced languagez

Agreed, but it's a big planet with lots of tectonic activity, glaciers, floods, etc. Trying to find the figurines of a species which only had a few thousand members from 100,000 years ago is a huge needle in a haystack. Again, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not an expert, but I think that relates to how much dirt has covered those items over the millenia.

Agreed on the mystery.

Not a biogeneticist like Dawkins, but intelligence appears to be an evolutionary step. Along with intelligence is the ability to visualize possible futures. Look at the MAGAts who can't see past their own noses and those who look forward to an American future akin to the Federation where everyone is offered food, shelter and healthcare.

 

[domer76]

It appears to exploit the placebo effect. The power of positive thinking is a powerful tool. It goes along with the idea of "there are no atheists in foxholes". Belief is a strong tool regardless if it's factually based or not.

The placebos.

That’s what I call the night crew at my work. They don’t actually do anything. They just think they do.

 

[Cypress]

Yes. As stated, I consider it unlikely, but human beings have been around for about 300,000 years and we only have historical relics going back 50,000 or so. That's a lot of empty space for previous civilizations to grow, advance and place teapots around Mars. In short, IDK.

Thanks for your POV.

For the record, we have stone artifacts going back two million years to Homo erectus and Homo Habilis.

Owl's post shows that ocher paint on rock can be at least 77 thousand years old. And we can reasonably assume it could potentially be older and last longer than that

But everywhere on the planet we have looked, sophisticated ritual art and clay fired figurines only date about to the last 30k years, and only at sites securely identified as homo sapien.

You are correct that someday we might find older ritual painting and figurines created by Neanderthal or Denisovans. But that is just speculation right now.