BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:06 PM

Say....I just had a GREAT idea, Mrrzy! Since it is clearly quite important for you to let all other people know where you stand, and that you don't believe what they believe, why not do this: Get one of those sandwich boards for advertising and wear it whenever you go out of the house. Have on one side in big letters: "I AM AN ATHEIST - AND PROUD OF IT"   Have on the other side: "THERE IS NO GOD" Walk around town. Let them ALL know.

This will really help you make it totally clear to everyone in your community exactly where you stand. ;-) It will be a blow in defence of truth, logic, and rationality. It may succeed in converting some of the poor deluded souls who are presently mired in religious idiocy to the real truth of life. Maybe you can even get a film crew to make a documentary about it and help raise more sympathy and support for atheism nationwide.

Go to it, girl! You may achieve fame. You may achieve martyrdom. Either way, at least you will be remembered, and that's more than a lot of people can say.


(Heh! You could do it in Canada, no problem, and people would just look at you kind of weird...and probably keep a little distance away in case you were dangerous. Unless it was dowtown Toronto. People there are too busy to even care or notice, and they've already seen everything anyway. You do it where you live....hmmmm...that would be interesting. I'd love to do a film about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM

"the first few chapters deal with the evolution of the human mind... and I would not discuss non-evidence."

Please explain that. Look, if you are not willing to even discuss someone else's chosen beliefs or interests, why expect them to be willing to discuss yours? Respect has to go in both directions, Mrrzy, meaning this: They don't get to determine your agenda. Neither do you get to determine theirs. One might best be willing to discuss everything if one is going to discuss at all.

Positive aspects are absolutely a matter of faith...as are negative aspects. It's which ones you choose to base your faith on that is the vital matter. Hardcore Nazis (who were following a very mystical political religion with a holy book..."Mein Kampf") had FAITH that they were doing the right thing to beat up, arrest, and kill Jews. That belief was a belief in the rightness of deeply negative behaviour. Mother Teresa, who brought help to thousands and thousands of poor people, had faith in what she was doing too...and she was using more positive aspects.

My way of "coming out" has been that, whenever anybody mentions their religion, to mention my lack of it and then continue the conversation so the poor pole-axed shocked other person has some time to rrecover (and yes, there is a very strong reaction). For instance, when asked "can we get our kids together after church?" I might answer "We are atheists so anytime Sunday is fine with us. Would your kids like to stay to dinner, or should they be home earlier?"

Why? Why do you deliberately seek to confront people by emphasizing differences? When someone mentions their religion to me (whatever the heck their religion is) I don't inform that I am NOT of their religion...as if it mattered. I ask them some questions about it. I am curious to know what their ideas are. In this way I find out some more interesting stuff about humanity. I may mention some of my own ideas too, if they show any interest. If not, I let them be. If someone says to you "Can we get our kids together after church?", the sensible thing to do is say something like "Sure. That would be nice." THEIR kids are available after church, okay? If yours are available at that time of day also, and your kids get along with their kids...then WHAT is the problem???

You don't have to use every occasion to alert other people to the fact that "I'm not LIKE you." (with the strong implication in your statement that says "And boy, am I glad that I'm not like you..."

People don't like it when other people do that. It's not polite. Neither is it wise.

You don't have to pretend you are a churchgoer and compromise yourself in any way. You don't have to pointedly say you're not either, every time the opportunity arises, and to do so is to be unnecessarily confrontational. It's basically nobody's business whether you are religious or you aren't...and you don't have to tell them. Why should you tell them? You're not under some kind of obligation to.

I think that you are having trouble with religious folks mainly because your own defensive behaviour is setting you up for trouble with them. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Regarding the word "faith". I define "religious faith" the way you define "faith". Religious faith is simply one among many types of faith. Does your dog have faith in you? I bet he does. ;-) (assuming you have a dog...) Do your kids have faith in you? I bet they do.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 07:51 PM

Positive concepts (such as respecting everyone, hurting no one, treating people in an equal fashion, respecting others' beliefs) aren't a matter for faith. Those are behaviors which can be chosen, principles, whatnot - but again, that's not faith. That's the golden rule. It doesn't take faith to make good moral choices. And I guess we're arguing about whether the golden rule applies to respecting beliefs you consider harmful...

My way of "coming out" has been that, whenever anybody mentions their religion, to mention my lack of it and then continue the conversation so the poor pole-axed shocked other person has some time to rrecover (and yes, there is a very strong reaction). For instance, when asked "can we get our kids together after church?" I might answer "We are atheists so anytime Sunday is fine with us. Would your kids like to stay to dinner, or should they be home earlier?"

Or, if it's someone I already know well (but not with strangers) I'd correct usages of Thank God that followed praise of humans. As in, the doctors saved his life, thank god, I might say I'm so glad, but I'd thank the doctors.

The problem as a teacher came up because I taught psychology, so the first few chapters deal with the evolution of the human mind... and I would not discuss non-evidence.

And if we're going to argue constructively (that's not an argument! Yes it is! - Monty Python reference) then let's agree on terms, and not use faith to mean anything other than belief in the absence of supporting evidence (which is highly akin to dogma's definition) and/or the continued belief in the presence of counter-evidence. Not being nice to people, not believing in something that's been demonstrated, just belief without evidence or in denial of the evidence that there is.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM

Mrrzy - I am repelled by the kind of thoughtless religiosity you describe just as much as you are, and I always have been. I want no part of it. I do not ascribe the problem to "faith", however, I ascribe the problem to small-mindedness and chauvinism in people. People who have faith in positive concepts (such as respecting everyone, hurting no one, treating people in an equal fashion, respecting others' beliefs)...those people are no problem. People who have faith in negative concepts (such as condeming those of different belief, rejecting all ways other than their own, thinking their group is the only one that will "get to heaven" and God will punish the others, having NO respect for others' beliefs)....THOSE people are the problem in the world! It isn't faith itself that is the problem. It's faith in extremely bad, destructive ideas that is the problem.

I have faith, Mrrzy, in things and people I have confidence in...based directly on my past experience with those things and people. A faithless lover, Mrrzy, is one who betrays you (not one who doesn't believe in God). A faithless business partner is one who cheats you (not one who doesn't go to church). Faith is a concept that applies to far more in this life than religious beliefs. To have faith can also mean to have full confidence and trust in the goodness and reliability of someone or something...BASED DIRECTLY on your past experience with them and your expectations of their further behaviour.

Evidently, that kind of faith is not what you mean when you use the word "faith". You use it in only one very specific way. I don't. Do you have a partner? If so, do you have faith in your partner? And if you do, why would that have to have anything to do with religious beliefs?

My condolences on your experiences in the bible belt. If you were living almost anywhere in Canada, you could freely express your atheist views and not lose your job over it...unless, I guess, if you were working for a reigious school or something like that. There are a few such schools here. There is usually a Catholic schools, for example, in any larger community. I doubt that they would want a teacher who openly professed atheism...! (grin) But why would you go to work there in the first place if you weren't a practicing Catholic?

Why did you feel you wanted to make a point of it on your job, and officially "come out"? Did it occur to you that it might arouse confrontation? If so, were you ready to deal with that? Were you seeking to make a stand for freedom of thought? I assume so. I can't fault you for that if that was the case.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:40 PM

I concur completely with your distaste for people asserting that a reasoning process supports what is actually a clump of dogma painted green, Mrrz.

There is a gray area, of course, which arises in the frequent situation when an individual does not have enough data to do a rigorous deduction. He therefore has to induce, and estimate probabilities, based on a higher order of generalization or a higher principle of some kind. He has to guess where the final dots are going to be when he runs out of known dots to connect. The reasons for his doing so will always have some element of subjectivity in them. Trying to objectify the decisions supporting extrapolation of this kind (unless it is a purely mathematical graph extrapolation) leads you around and around in circles.

Another gray area is the inclination toward optimism and hope in predicting futures when there are too many variables to deduce precise outcomes. Or pessimism, for that matter.

Another gray area is when one is consciously creating data from whole cloth, which usually occurs in the arts rather than the sciences, I would hope. There's an element of faith in the forward projection of one's creative impulse that could be called faith-based.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:24 PM

Under the buckle on the bible belt, little hawk!
My dead dad visited both his eldest daughter, and his namesake grandchild, after his death. I don't disbelieve either occurrence - I just think the experience came from the heads of my sisters rather than From Beyond.
Also, LH, you say "The FIRST thing I do and always have done IS to draw intelligent conclusions...I begin to have faith in something or someone AFTER doing all of the the above. First I observe, I gather all the information I can, then I think about it all thoroughly, then I may move to a level which can be termed "having faith". - again - use the dictionary if you have to- if it's a rational conclusion then *it* *is* *not* *faith* and so I am not arguing against it.
But it wasn't my losing my teaching job (and another job, actually, I have lost 2 to coming out) that gets my goat - it's the way that religion has pervaded the American school system so that it's practically (I mean practically, not almost) impossible to raise freethinking children.
What I mind about the faith thing is people claiming to have rational reasons for their faith. Again, if it's a conclusion, it isn't faith. It bugs me especially that many people THINK they are drawing conclusion from evidence, when they aren't. They are instead concluding *from something that isn't evidence* --and so they are back to taking whatever it was, on faith. I don't mind people with faith admitting that there is no rational reason for their beliefs. I mind them claiming that there ARE rational reasons that are based on evidence, when no such actual evidence exists.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

That's an interesting theory, Bee. I've wondered about that possibility myself. Here are 2 family anecdotes I can offer.

My mother and I had the experience of seeing the ghost of a cat...one day after the cat died. He looked and acted much like usual, just walked out of some bushes and meowed at us, then turned around and walked back into the bushes. It was definitely the same cat. Even his distinct tone of voice was totally recognizable (he had a rather low and scratchy sounding meow...quite charateristic). My mother was just momentarily frozen on the spot, because she knew the cat had died and been buried the day before. I didn't. Then she said, "Look for him!" and we did look very thoroughly through the bushes, but no cat was to be found.

My mother insisted that my father dig up the grave, thinking maybe the cat had revived and dug his way out. My father very skeptically went out back and dug up the grave...and we watched...and voila! There was the dead body of the cat.

So we saw a cat's ghost, and it spoke to us. Interesting, eh?

My father later had an unexpected experience when he was confronted by his brother's ghost several months after the brother had died, and his brother spoke to him (asking him what was happening with the inheritance money to his children...my father being the executor of the will). It was a brief manifestation. My father didn't believe in the least in stuff like that....but he could not deny having had the experience when it happened. (and it made sense, knowing his brother)

I might add that my mother and father were atheistic humanists at the time both these events occurred. They had no explanation for the events other than...well, they did happen.

You don't deny your own personal experiences when they do happen...unless of course you are technically insane, I suppose, in which case you can deny anything if you want to. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM

Thank you, Ebbie. I ask because it is always interesting to hear details.

"(I could add here a thought that is rather disturbing to me: If I were to try to explain the presence and behavior of the 'ghostly being' I'd say that she was wondering where her husband was and who it was in her bed, that she was not aware that he was downstairs in the old garage. That implies a lack of knowledge of those 'on the other side' that is not how I prefer to think of them.)" - Ebbie

I have a vague (very vague!) theory that ghost phenomena are not in any way sentient or aware, or even there. Many ghost stories seem to be old events replayed, as if recorded, and I suspect that is what they are, a kind of natural but rare 'recording' or perhaps a quick glimpse through time. Most of the time, people who see ghosts have no communication with them, which makes sense if there's no conscious creature present.

So perhaps what you 'saw' was an impression/recording of an event that happened many times over - a woman walking around the bed to join her husband -so there was no personality to wonder why things had changed. This image might continue to play in that spot long after the house is gone and trees have grown where the bed stood.

Obviously, I'm pretty convinced that there is no 'other side', but that doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot about the nature of time and matter and energy that we don't yet know.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:51 PM

AHA! Mrrzy, I see that you posted this on another thread:

"I used to be an adjunct at PVCC and was fired for coming out as an atheist."

Okay. That gives me some insight into why you may be so concerned with the specific issues you are raising on this thread, and why you have such a negative attitude toward the concept of "faith" (as you define it). I can hardly conceive of someone being fired from a teaching job for "coming out as an atheist". Where the heck do you live?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:03 PM

Mrrzy - "but why have faith in *anything* when you can draw intelligent conclusions? Isn't thought preferable to acceptance without thought?"

Mrrzy, you are again totally misconstruing my meaning. The FIRST thing I do and always have done IS to draw intelligent conclusions (on the basis of direct observation and logical deduction and rational processes). That is the first thing that any reasonably sentient being does. It's basic to existence.

I do not accept anything without thought.

I begin to have faith in something or someone AFTER doing all of the the above. First I observe, I gather all the information I can, then I think about it all thoroughly, then I may move to a level which can be termed "having faith".

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:22 PM

"Not doubting your experience, Ebbie (I've had a couple of 'ghostly' experiences, though I'm satisfied they weren't actual independent visitors), but could you give us some details about the appearance of the form, what it looked like (solid, transparent, shadowy?), how it moved (as a person walking, a floating object?) and as to 'looking', were you able to see a face, (features, eyes, mouth, hair?). Was it clothed, (could you describe clothing, shoes?), had it visible hands, did it move them normally as a walking person?"

Thanks for asking. What I "saw" was more a massed form than an articulated human form. More solid than a cloud (I hate to use the term "force field" but if pinned down that is how I might describe it), it moved (floated?) smoothly around the bed at the height of a walking person. I did not see a face or arms or even color. The question of whether the form was clothed wasn't pertinent.

I would say that I did not see it with my physical eyes so much as a sensing. (I should add, as a disclaimer, that it was not the first or only time I have 'seen' things.)

What the boy saw- and by the way, I didn't/don't know him - as recounted by his mother, was a thin, tall woman ("taller than you, Mom!) in a print dress of some sort. In other words, he saw the phenomenon with his physical eyes.

This is just one of a number of things on which I agree with Little Hawk. The things you yourself have seen, you know. This, however, is one of the few things I have seen that were independently corroborated.

(I could add here a thought that is rather disturbing to me: If I were to try to explain the presence and behavior of the 'ghostly being' I'd say that she was wondering where her husband was and who it was in her bed, that she was not aware that he was downstairs in the old garage. That implies a lack of knowledge of those 'on the other side' that is not how I prefer to think of them.)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:48 AM

"One night in the king-size bed I was reading late when I became aware that a 'form' was across the room on the other side of the bed. "She", because it was unmistakably female, moved silently around the bed and then stopped at the foot of the bed, looking at me.",/i> - Ebbie

Not doubting your experience, Ebbie (I've had a couple of 'ghostly' experiences, though I'm satisfied they weren't actual independent visitors), but could you give us some details about the appearance of the form, what it looked like (solid, transparent, shadowy?), how it moved (as a person walking, a floating object?) and as to 'looking', were you able to see a face, (features, eyes, mouth, hair?). Was it clothed, (could you describe clothing, shoes?), had it visible hands, did it move them normally as a walking person?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:44 AM

Because, perhaps, there are orders of knowing that are not what you would normaly describe as thought, using data.

Or because, perhaps, there is faith required in order to commit an act of creation and the certainty that one's acts of creation are good is, largely, an assumption taken on faith.

I am not at all in favor of blind faith about data, especially data that leads one into some sort of authoritarian construct. But I think there is as sort of high creative confidence that could well be called faith, a certainty about the flow of things in the absence of sufficient data.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:17 AM

*sigh* but why have faith in *anything* when you can draw intelligent conclusions? Isn't thought preferable to acceptance without thought?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:43 PM

Most males are, LH, at least until they reach a certain age...


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:03 PM

To be religiously or mystically inclined does not necessarily require blind faith, Mrrzy...it just requires an interest in certain possibilties, that's all...a curiosity regarding certain aspects of life that are not physical or quantifiable, but nevertheless still affect many people. There are millions of things to have faith in, and only a few of them are religious matters.

I define the word "faith" less narrowly than you do, Mrrzy.

I was unaware you were a female...so thanks, Ebbie, for that info. I assumed Mrrzy was male for no particular reason.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:57 PM

There's many different kinds of stuff that gets folded under that label of faith, but I can only assume, knowing you to be a keenly analytical person, that you mean the sort which substitutes sme kind of blind acceptance, usually iconfied, as a substitute for reason. I think Joe will agree with me that this is not the only cognitive event-class that sometimes gets called "faith", however.

I think you will agree that there is a wide difference and a lot of bandwidth between the two extremes "I must accept datum X because it is part of my decreed faith and the Great So-and-So said it..." and "I have faith in the ability of the human mind to sort out the mystery of the human mind...". Just as a sort of off-the-cuff example.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

A respectful difference of opinion is not a problem.
What I clearly meant was this: Any opinion that is expressed in a respectful manner deserves to be responded to in a respectful manner.
Little Hawk, you're right, I misunderstood your usage of respect.
But when I say Don't deserve to be respected, mein herr, I didn't mean it would be up to any government to decide what not to respect. I meant for individuals.
But again, if someone is completely politely and courteously explaining why (fill in your ethnic group here) just isn't the same as (fill in the speaker's different ethnic group here), I again don't think I should just say Yes, I can see how that is reasonable, I just don't agree.
So I still don't agree with your point that people ought to respect others' opinions if they are courteously expressed. I think that thinking grownups have a responsibility to correct such misguided notions.
And I also think that the harm done by faith far outweighs the good, especially since all the good can be done withou faith, whereas most of the harm requires faith for its propagation.
I also think that after 9/11, most rationalists, if that is the term, think the same, but aren't brave enough to speak out.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:04 PM

THe independent verification of the son's expeirence kinda puts it in an almost scientific light, even though no ghost with any self respect will start doing handsprings because a physicist wants a repeatable outcome. That's the problem with trying to capture life force in a bottle. It always slips out through the interstices -- the ones you ddn't even think were there. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 07:42 PM

Just for the record- and for the facilitation of communication, Little Hawk - unless I'm greatly mistaken, Mrrzy is not a him but a young woman who grew up in Africa; she has twin boys and lives in a southern state.

This statement of mine doesn't belong in this subject, I suppose, but whenever people heatedly claim certain things it pushes buttons of mine. So, here goes:

Mrrzy, it's kind of a long story but while I was 'living in' as an aide to a stroke-handicapped widower I slept in the bedroom that he and his wife had shared before her death 12 years before. Because of his crippled condition his family had built him a bedroom out of the attached garage.

One night in the king-size bed I was reading late when I became aware that a 'form' was across the room on the other side of the bed. "She", because it was unmistakably female, moved silently around the bed and then stopped at the foot of the bed, looking at me.

Knowing that they'd had a happy marriage I just smiled at her then turned off the light and went to sleep.

I did NOT tell either the widower or his girlfriend what I had "seen".

Time went on, the patient became better and I moved out but continued to return three times a week. In the meantime, his girlfriend's 16-year-old son moved in and he took the bedroom I had had.

One Monday morning when I rang the doorbell there was no answer. I knew that the patient and his girlfriend had gone to the Oregon coast for the weekend but they were supposed to return on Sunday evening. Rather miffed I took my leave.

That evening the girlfriend called me. She said that they were late in returning and her son was supposed to have let me in so I could wait for them.

The reason, she said, that the son was not in the house was because the previous night a woman had appeared to him in his bedroom and stared at him. It freaked him out so bad that he grabbed his clothes and left the house. He spent the rent of the night sleeping in his VW bug.

These experiences are most definitely not repeatable - but they are also most definitely true.

Ebbie/Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:40 PM

Dogma-gone it, you guys, now I have to make myself as new tee shirt one of these days:
"My Dogma got run over by somebody's Karma".

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM

Huzzah, Little Hawk.

You know I love ya, doncha?

Lemme know if you catch that karma, though. Slippery little devils. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:41 PM

I admit to most of the common human foibles. ;-) The only reason I express myself, Amos, is simply that I like to express myself. It makes me feel realer than sitting silently in a corner and never daring to speak, lest someone might disagree with me.

I suspect most others here feel the same. They like to speak their thoughts. Why else would they post?

I certainly am not here to convert anyone. I just want to express who and what I am. Period. Without fear. Everyone wants to express who and what they are, and be accepted as what they are.

I don't want to have a single "dogma". I want to be able to freely consider and discuss the merits of all interesting dogmas and to do so without fear. I want all dogmas to be given some calm consideration by people, some benefit of the doubt, not instantly rejected out of hand due to an established mental habit.

I want to see a world made richer by many ways of thinking, not dominated by one.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:32 PM

I suspect that Little Hawk would be the first to admit that when he rants about dogmatism in others, it is a projection of his own desire to be a lecturer in matters both philosophical and even dogmatic. Just a different dogma, chasing a different karma.

'Course the problem with a dogma that chases karmas is, what will he do when he catches one?


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 05:26 PM

I did not infer it, I implied it... ;-)

But, yes, my remarks are, as you say, mostly a bit of heated hyperbole. Anyway, when I am complaining about people in the world who are dogmatic...and there are plenty of them, both religious and not...why would you have to assume that it is you I'm referring to?

But we probably all do things like that, and react defensively like that. I know I do, often as not.

Communicating with people over a keyboard is just not the best way to do it. We'd be better off discussing things in real 3-D life, so we could see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, and remember not to be totally rude to one another.

The Internet can be a not very nice place...and the trouble is, it's so damned easy! That's what sucks people in. They don't even have to get out of their chair. Like watching TV only you get to make your own input too...so it's even more addictive.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:35 PM

Little Hawk, perhaps you misinterpreted Mrrzy's comment - I'll leave that to him.

However, you have several times inferred, by my interpretation that people who are materialists like myself, and who believe there is available a physical, rational explanation for everything (given enough time, knowledge, and research, even if the answer is hundreds of years away), are somehow lacking, are stunted in some mysterious manner. For example, this comes from one of your responses to Mrrzy, I think, but you include enough generalisations to point at myself and others: see bolded:

"You, like they, are an absolutist who thinks he knows THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, and that's all there is to it. You, like they, are probably quite wrong in that assumption.

I bet you that in a hundred years from now science will have greatly modified or even superseded the theory of evolution with a brand new one, and some self-important fellows like you will be quite sure that the new theory is "absolutely beyond question".

Why not admit that maybe you don't know for sure how human life developed on this planet, and that no one else does either? Would that hurt too much?

I admit that I don't know for sure, and it doesn't hurt a bit. I am not afraid to admit that I don't know. We have theories. We will continue to have theories. Lazy thinkers will continue to cling to those theories with the absolute faith of a religious fanatic. It has ever been so. People are deeply afraid to admit how little they know...so they just parrot stuff someone else, someone in authority, has told them with utter and absolute assurance. ("Daddy" must know best, right?)" - Little Hawk

Some of us 'lazy thinkers' have spent a great deal of time researching these subjects, for the pure joy of learning. It is neither faith nor fanaticism that leads most of us to the conclusions we draw regarding, for instance, evolution, but study and reason.

However, I usually read those parts of your comments, when they seem a touch insulting, as a little heated hyperbole, and therefore don't let them bother me. Especially as there are plenty of issues on which we likely agree.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:44 PM

Yes, BEE, but I am merely making a point by answering an unscrupulous and unfair stretching of a previous statement I made with a similarly unscrupulous and unfair stetching of Mrrzy's statement in response to it....

Tit for tat. Satire.

I find a certain dark humor in that.

You see, it is always possible to totally fuck with a reasonable argument by stretching the interpretation of it to an absolutely unreasonable position. Mrrzy did that to my argument when I said that any opinion deserves respect, so it seems only just that I return the favor by doing the same back to him.

To draw an analogy between opinions embodying "faith" (a tremendously broad general subject) and opinions that are bigotted, racist, and sexist is such an unscrupulous and manipulative stretch of hyperbole, that it amazes me that someone could have the gall to even do it, at least not without blushing while he did so... ;-)

What I clearly meant was this: Any opinion that is expressed in a respectful manner deserves to be responded to in a respectvul manner.

Opinions that are racist, sexist, and bigotted are, by definition...NOT respectful. Therefore we do not respect them. DUH!!! If I have an opinion, however, that people have souls (for example), or that we reincarnate (for another example), there is no disprespect intended or given to anyone when I express such opinions.

Mrrzy's response therefore was inappropriate, misleading, and unjustified. It showed no respect for what I had said. No desire to really listen in a fair fashion. It showed only a desire to score a debating point (in an unscrupulous manner). Therefore I did not respect it in return....as a demonstration of what had just been done to me.

Do you get that? If not, well I guess we'll probably both forget it in a week or two... Hopefully.

I wish I could forget how to log in to this place. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

Rather unfair, Little Hawk. It's a long way from not respecting an opinion that is racist, sexist, or just plain ignorant, and not allowing such opinions to be held at all. Also, one can respect an individual without respecting every opinion or belief they hold.

My grandmother believed that a dream about a red-haired man foretold a death in the family. Did the rest of us believe that, or respect her many superstitious ideas? No, we did not, but we respected her for her generousity, her hard work, her sense of humour and other good qualities.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM

"But some opinions do not deserve respect."

REALLY???? And which Big Brother or Fuhrer or Grand High Inquisitor gets to decide which opinions those are?

And how would you feel if the force of their disrespect was brought down to bear on your opinions?

"We don't tolerate racist or sexist or bigoted opinions, for example."

Ach, NEIN! As a matter of fect, vee do not tolerate qvite a broad RRRange uff zees kind uff un-accEPTable opinions zat vee, in our visdom, haff decided ARE unaccEPTable! Ze list of zem grows daily, in order to make society safer for decent people.   Und vee haff vays of dealink viss people who are foolish enuff to express zem (ze bad opinions) in public. Ya! Zere is alvays ze ruination uff ze carreer und ze possibility uff legal achsuns und even imprisonment! Zo you bedder keep your bad, bad opinons strictly behind a closed set of lips, mein herr.

Chust buy our liddle official rule book. In it iss a list uff all ze opinions vich are not to be respected...or permitted. Vee haff vays to shut you up. Bedder believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:27 PM

Wal, there's faith, and then there's faith.

I have faith that life will spring back when suppressed, up to a point, and that if allowed to, things will get better. Call it an optimistic extrapolation. I have no faith in specific entities said to exercise magic powers of much greater breadth and efficacy than the individual human can.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM

But some opinions do not deserve respect. We don't tolerate racist or sexist or bigoted opinions, for example. Why not? Because they are harmful to society. Well, some argue that faith is harmful to society too, and for that reason deserves no more respect than other separationist views. Especially since those with the separationist views usually consider the opposing or inclusive view to be detrimental to society. Which is where I came in.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:52 AM

Crystal, if you don't believe in a God figure, that's fine with me. I only believe absolutely in things that I have directly experienced myself, and I have not yet directly experienced any conscious encounter with "a God figure". Therefore, I have no final opinion about it, although I regard it as a bit unlikely. I think of "God" in much less anthropomorphic terms than would be implied by the phrase "a God figure". Again, congratulations on your scholastic accomplishments.


Oh, Mrrzy...what I meant about people who use the Bible as authority was this: They DO think the Bible is evidence. They think it is unquestionable evidence, because they have total confidence in every word it. I don't. Okay? I also don't have total confidence in the science community's present view of evolution (or a number of other things), and I regard it as a theory which may have a good deal of merit, but may also be partially or even largely in error. I have no final opinion about it. Okay?

I neither deny it nor do I totally accept it and take it for granted...which is what I see most modern people doing...just like their ancestors took for granted a lot of previous scientific (and/or religious) ideas which were later changed greatly or completely discarded.

I have a lower regard for most people's powers of objectivity than you do, perhaps....they are very quick to adopt whatever they have heard others say, whatever is the commonly held viewpoint...and from then on it is gospel to them, and they are inclined to ridicule anyone who doesn't step into line and agree with them. It is that rather common chauvinistic attitude of ridicule that I object to, not the difference of opinion itself. A respectful difference of opinion is not a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 02:31 AM

Mrrzy, I totally respect data and evidence wherever they can be brought to bear. They cannot be brought to bear in regards to certain spiritual matters which are of great interest to me, that's all.

I am in no way scorning empirical evidence where it can be found and where it is useful.

Please don't read silly things that I don't mean into what I am saying to you. I am no sillier than you. I grew up on the scientific, logical, rational, empirical view of life, and I fully believed that there was no God and no soul and nothing at all like that...probably for the same reasons that you do.

Congratulations on your degrees.

I would frankly rather talk to you about it in PMs, because other people jump in and the conversation gets pulled in some other direction and it gets all screwed up in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:52 PM

Oh, yeah, and I have many degrees, including a PhD in a science, and am eligible to teach several sciences and languages at the secondary and tertiary levels.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:47 PM

Little Hawk, you said above that "The same is true of people who think the Bible is the literal word of God. They think that all the evidence points in the same direction too...they direction THEY want it to. ;-) - but when it's pointed out to you that they *have no actual evidence...

But then you say you don't give a hoot if it's data or not (rubbing hands with glee and chortling)...

Resolution, please? Or as a Star Trek fan might exclaim, Norman, coordinate!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Crystal without a cookie
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM

Hi LH,
I'm not sure if I am quite a "legitamate scientist" yet, but I am a PhD student in my third year with an honours degree in molecular genetics (from the University of Dundee) studying Breast Cancer and Nutrition.
I'm not sure if I have faith in the scientific status quo (three stories about HRT being bad, then good, then bad in a year will do that). However I definatly do not believe in a god figure either, in a research group of 7 people only one guy has any sort of religous belief at all.
I wouldn't describe myself as an athiest though!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 04:08 PM

There are ways to measure and experience thoought. One way is to use various kinds of meterts to detect indirect effects. ANother is to carefully observe the individual. These aren't direct measurements. But if you're talking about individual thought, you won' find the core meanings comparable even when you take high-end MRI images and compare them, if I understand that subject correctly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 04:00 PM

Bee:

Pardon me if I don't jump onto the thought-from-meat bandwagon. Material science loves taking apart the sections of the brain and observing that doing so interrupts certain behavors, or watching various significance light up different parts of the brain. What these actually show is that the brain is an intermediary between thought and activity. What they would like to tell you it shows is that the brain is the source of thought and action. These are very, very different conclusions and the broader one is an assumption of faith that there will always be a material explanation for everything including consciousness.

Why so much faith should be placed in something as mindless and inert as molecules is a little biut beyond me, really. But ther eis such a glaring gap between all th eknown capabilities of brain-ware, and the known high-end capabilities of thought, that I think conflating them is just ...unthoughtful.. :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:45 PM

Frank, you said "I know of no legitimate scientists that have a rock-like faith in anything."

Fine. I am not complaining about legitimate scientists! I am complaining about ordinary armchair idle computer key tappers from the general public who happen to be on this forum, who are not professional scientists, and who yet have an unfounded faith in the scientific status quo and seem to regard it as gospel, and think it explains everything. They are the ones who strike me as having a rock-like faith in their assumptions.

I don't know any legitimate scientists, and I doubt that I have heard from any yet on this forum. (I may have heard from one or two. Perhaps Wolfgang is a legitimate scientist.)

I am also talking about some people who may have have some unfortunate childhood experiences with organized religion, and have since set themselves on a course where they automatically attack and disparage anything mystical or "unusual" that they think might possibly have anything to do with something like religion, and they blame religion for most of the world's ills. As such, they are fanatics...they are as bad as religious fanatics, as deeply prejudiced and unreasonable, and they should get that monkey off their shoulders.


Mrrzy - "if it can't be duplicated, and it isn't physical, measurable, or empirical, then it isn't data."

Fine. I don't give a hoot if it isn't data! I don't care. There are a lot of things I am interested in that will probably never be data, and I am not trying to prove them to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

"But when you start talking about the dynamics of thought itself, the continuum suddenly looks full of holes, and the core character of "real" versus "unreal" gets a lot mre nebulous. This is sometimes frustrating and grounds for washing your hands of the whole business because it is obviously imaginary.

But that is exactly the question. What are the laws, or at least patterns, behind the realm of imagination, intention, aspiration, and those non-tangible aspects of experience which seem to play so large a part in individual well-being?
" Amos

But those are among the multitude of things that science is attempting to decipher, Amos, and I think it is likely that they will be gradually understood as research continues and tools improve.

I think the workings of the human mind are marvelous and complicated, but I don't see them as eternally inexplicable. Already, a great deal of the way people think, and why, is at least tentatively understood. Some of the newer neurological research is poised, I think, to cast a bright light on thought.

I think some people are afraid that if we can understand, on a physical level, thought, imagination, aspiration, etc., that we are somehow reduced to robots, but that's just not true. Understanding how nerve, muscle and blood function does not make an outstanding athlete less admirable, or less accomplished. Understanding how thought and creativity arise will not make a great thinker or talented writer less, either.

The brain is a marvellous organ, and its interdependency with the rest of the body is astounding, and the variety of human minds, imaginations, revelations, and relationships that stem from that juicy bit of meat are a wonder of the universe, IMO. But I don't think it's inexplicable forever.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

There will always be stuff you cannot possibly duplicate in a lab...because it is not physical, measurable, or empirical...but it's still something that people really do experience. - if it can't be duplicated, and it isn't physical, measurable, or empirical, then it isn't data. People do all kinds of things inside their minds *which then become their experience* - doesn't make it any less a figment of their imagination.
Take the "voices" heard by schizophrenics and the odd manic-depressive - they are real *to the person experiencing them* but they are, nonetheless, figments of their imagination *in the real world*. If we didn't know what we do know from scientific exploration of brain and mind, we might think the people who hear the voice of god are actually hearing the voice of god.
Take the wonderful mystical experiences that lead "victims" of right-temporal lobe epilepsy to refuse treatment, as they'd rather have the wonderful mystical experience and fall down, drool and quiver, than not have the wonderful mystical experience and not fall down, drool nor quiver.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:10 PM

Hi Amos,

These are good questions you ask.

"But that is exactly the question. What are the laws, or at least patterns, behind the realm of imagination, intention, aspiration, and those non-tangible aspects of experience which seem to play so large a part in individual well-being?"

I agree that these are yet to be determined. But I think that if they emanate from the brain, there is to be biological explanation in the future. Dawkins mentions "memes" to describe some of the results of these "non-tangibles".

"The question also raises the issue of what is "legitimate", as you use the word, when applied to the unknown lands behind the ordinary material frame of operation?"

Science is the map by which we are guided into the unknown lands. The question becomes can we validate any "non-material" references without testing them?

"Trying to reduce this entire spectrum of things down to purely functional and bio-mechanicaql elements does not seem to me to work very well."

It works only as well as our understanding at the moment of what we can verify.
You can say reasonably that science, like democracy, doesn't work very well at times but better than any other method of operation including religion and metaphysics. Being unverifiable except for opinion or "experience", the latter don't work at all.

" If these matters were understood there would be far more efficacious remedies, for example, for people like bitter young Cho of VT fame, because the workings (and restoration) of happiness and sanity would be accessible."

It is my opinion that there are efficacious remedies but they are resisted precisely by those who hold to dogmatic creeds or pooh pooh the role of science. Psychology is an infant science and as we know more about it we see a progression of knowledge that is applicable to social engineering. Cho obviously could have used some help in this area.

I don't see that religion or abstract philosophy is particularly helpful here. I see that the US today has an environment that is conducive to this kind of malady. It is the cancer of violence that has been exemplified from the top down by our present government representatives in the White House. The reliance on religion is apparently not working at all at the State level.

"Faith" will not solve the problem of a Cho. It would be interesting to know the background of Cho. Was he religious? Chances are that he wasn't a freethinking,secular humanist.

As to the question of happiness or sanity, I don't think it requires any religious conviction or an injection of a vague "spirit" to acquire this. Most of the religious people I know are pretty much not that happy because they are guilt-wracked and concerned about their mortality. Many attend their churches out of a duty very much like Sysiphus's (sp?) rock pushing.

No science doesn't always work that well but when it does....................

Frank





A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM

Hmmm...Frank, an admirable position, and clearly writ, too.

That last sentence is a doozy, though.

By "real", in this context, I assume you mean consistent with and measurable within the normal bounds of space and time, and repeatable in that framework so that any one repeaating the conditions will also get a repetitiion of the result as measured? That's good scientific protocol.

But when you start talking about the dynamics of thought itself, the continuum suddenly looks full of holes, and the core character of "real" versus "unreal" gets a lot mre nebulous. This is sometimes frustrating and grounds for washing your hands of the whole business because it is obviously imaginary.

But that is exactly the question. What are the laws, or at least patterns, behind the realm of imagination, intention, aspiration, and those non-tangible aspects of experience which seem to play so large a part in individual well-being?

The question also raises the issue of what is "legitimate", as you use the word, when applied to the unknown lands behind the ordinary material frame of operation?

Trying to reduce this entire spectrum of things down to purely functional and bio-mechanicaql elements does not seem to me to work very well. If these matters were understood there would be far more efficacious remedies, for example, for people like bitter young Cho of VT fame, because the workings (and restoration) of happiness and sanity would be accessible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:28 AM

LH,


I know of no legitimate scientists that have a rock-like faith in anything. Faith is the opposite of scientific evidence. Again, I know of no legitimate scientist that has faith in any scientific view. The nature of science is always to test and question.

The history of science is that the biggest challenge to any science did not come from scientists but from religionists. This "blind faith" you talk about can't apply to the subject of science because science is not "blind faith" but a continual testing and questioning of hypotheses. Now when someone says that gravity can be repealed, there will be resistance on the part of those scientists who have done considerable study on the subject, testing it, questioning it and spending years of their lives on it. Then someone invents an airplane or a gas balloon. But the questioning goes on. There simply is no "blind faith" here.
Any respectable scientist will deal in relativity in that there are no complete answers, only verifiable tested conclusions.

As to non-belief, we are discussing theology or religion. I don't see it being foolish or close-minded to reject constructions that impact negatively on society, cause wars, create authoritarian hierarchies or simply talk about ephemeral or vague notions of spirit or metaphysical ramblings.

In science, there are no absolutes. The "blind faith" doesn't apply.

"Direct experience" of an individual to be accepted has to be tested for its grounding in reality. George W Bush has waged pre-emptive war on his divine "experience" in conversing with a god.

I think it's ok to hypothesize but testing it is way to prove it is real.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM

I think the ESSENCE of scientific method can be applied to naything, providing you recognize where the differences in application are required. Data is data, and it makes sense or it doesn't. ANd if you ain't got a datum, you create 'em. :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 09:21 AM

"And they are the subjects I love. Always did. Science is great, but it doesn't talk to me about many of the things I most care about, and I don't expect it to. That's not the job of science."


          There seems to be a growing pool of academics who profess to be able to apply the "scientific method" to prove anything. All of the recent scientific developments feed their energy, and they seem to think, over time, anything can be explained.

          The problem they seem to have is, they start out with a concept they want to prove, and then take all the evidence that proves it, and discard anything that does not. In much the same way that the Bush administration proved the necessity of invading Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:04 AM

We won't figure it all out someday, Mrrzy, and we don't have all the answers now. We have some of the answers. There will always be further questions. There will always be stuff you cannot possibly duplicate in a lab...because it is not physical, measurable, or empirical...but it's still something that people really do experience. As such, there are many things science cannot and does not deal with. Those things fall in the realm of spirituality, philosophy, pschologhy art, ethics, and all such nebulous and extremely interesting subjects...without which we would not be fully human.

And they are the subjects I love. Always did. Science is great, but it doesn't talk to me about many of the things I most care about, and I don't expect it to. That's not the job of science.

I cannot live by science alone. If you can, fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:07 PM

It isn't rocklike faith, it's an acceptance of the lack of opposing *data* (I'm giving up on html bolding after the above post...). There are no reproducible facts that supports anything supernatural, and the theories we've developed have so far explained all the facts of life.
No, we don't know yet *how* biochemical electrical patterns in the brain become what we experience as "thought" but now we got fMRI... I SO wish that had been around when I was in grad school! Anyway, we'll probably figure it out someday (no faith, see - hope, yes, but not faith), and I doubt it will involve anything other than physics and chemistry. See, we do know *that* consciousness in the mind comes from bioelectricity in the brain.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 06:57 PM

No, I'm referring to their rock-like faith in the scientific status quo they take for granted. I am referring to the absolutely rigid adherence that so many science's followers give to the scientific view they take for granted at any one moment in history...as if it were gospel and the final word on the matter. It almost never is. If you study the history of science, you will see that the status quo has been overturned again and again by new scientific discoveries...yet at any moment along the chain most of the followers of the status quo insisted that anyone who questioned it was a raving loony....or a fool...or a charlatan.

Their insistence is similar to the blind faith in basic assumptions that is so often demonstrated by religious people.

They will not admit that they don't know for sure. Such an admission is more than they can handle, it seems.

As for "non-belief" in this or that...well there are times when it seems justifiable to me not to believe, and there are other times when it seems foolish or close-minded....but there are simply millions of different possibilities when it comes to that. It depends what the subject is.

There is a lot of stuff none of us believe in the present day. I doubt that anyone here believes the Earth is flat. Fine. There is other stuff we may differ on, for a variety of reasons. In regards to that other stuff...an open mind is more reasonable than a closed one. But an open mind has to admit that it doesn't know for sure.

That's where people won't bend. They inSIST that they know. Well, if they've had direct experience of something...then they know. If not, they don't, and they had best admit that they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM

LH,

"I regard science's less self-aware and more vociferously close-minded aherents as being religious about science. Their attitude about it is religious."

If you are referring to non-belief then you are missing the whole point. You can't be religious about science because it is ever changing without fixed principles. In a religion, there are absolutes. Religious belief does not change with new information. Science is in constant motion and scientists do not approach it with religious awe. They know that today's theory might be obsolete with new information.

If you were to poll the top scientists in the country you would find that the majority of good ones are non-believers.
Einstein was one of them.

It is not close-minded to expect that absolute statements should be backed up by evidence.

Close-mindedness is a product of denying that new information exists. Non-believers do not do this. Most agnostics and atheists are open to new information when it is credible and not based on someone's untested "experience".

Frank Hamilton