Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

So, all your evidence consists of word “almost”? In a blog post? Without actual numbers and methods? And that is enough to get you to believe in that creature of “atheist mythology” - “a kid that believes imaginary friend he made himself actually exists”?

I’m afraid it means that you’re in no position to laugh not just at Catholics or Muslims, but also at ufologists and cryptozoologists… The evidence they use is much more impressive.

That means that some are indeed convinced of the reality of their friends.
It happens. If you really want some stats, here’s a particular stat: children with imaginary friends and schizophrenia (What a combo!):
telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/9828583/We-did-not-know-that-our-schizophrenic-daughter-January-Schofields-imaginary-friends-were-hallucinations.html - “Still, it is incredibly rare – the NIMH study, begun in 1990, has to date identified only 130 children under 13 with the condition.”

Also, tons of stories of imaginary friends here: iusedtobelieve.com/make_believe/imaginary_friends/imaginary_friends_s1.php.

Oh… how about Asperger’s? circleofmoms.com/autismaspergerspdd-awareness/10-yr-old-with-aspergers-imaginary-friends-684154 It even goes on to teenage years and talking to those friends happens in front of everyone.

They would understand their kid is role-playing and, most likely, would play along? Like sane men of other time periods?

Would they?.. What if those “role plays” started affecting life in some negative way? (like when those friends present something extremely gory)

You say many things - it doesn’t make them true. Even the blog post you cited says that 40 per cent of kids did admit that those imaginary friends do not exist - and on their own initiative. It doesn’t look like anything similar to belief leading to martyrdom.

The mere fact that you have to pretend that those cases are somehow “indistinguishable” shows how badly your atheism fits the facts.

40%?
So… 60% don’t admit that they do not exist.
It’s not like most religious people do become martyrs, too… Or are you trying to imply that every (at least, most) religious person is a martyr at heart?

So, now those “psychological flaws” are not reasons to reject religious belief? OK, let’s wait for the full argument.

Those “psychological flaws” are reasons to understand how religious beliefs may have came about, how they are maintained, how they are perpetuated.
If one is aware that religious belief is borne out of such “psychological flaws”, then how can he maintain such belief? Of course, a believer will retain his belief, even knowing about this possibility.
But a skeptical person with no prior belief?.. would be hard pressed to engage in an activity that would lead to permitting such flaws to be exploited.

About that full argument… it’s now 5000 characters long and nowhere near complete… I knew it was quite the endeavor. I’ll probably put it on pastebin, when it’s done, instead of posting it in full here, because of the 6000 characters limit per post and that would be better in just one go, no?

I see, you haven’t actually argued with a real Muslim apologist. And I have to say that they do not argue in the way that you imagine. I’m afraid that even in a thread dedicated to such miracles (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960638), those miracles were kinda downplayed…

You see, that’s the problem of taking evidence you made up as if it was real…

I’ve argued with a few muslims… if they were “real Muslim apologists” or not… I know not.
This sentence reminded me of the “no true scotsman” fallacy… hmmm…

Also, that Muslim seems to value Mo much more than J.C… isn’t that what I said, in a nutshell?

 

[pocaracas]

So, in your words, what exactly is “Metaphysics”?

For no, Physics is not “getting there”.

In computers, meta-information of a file is information about that file: it’s size, where it’s stored on the drive, what sort of information is stored on that file (image, sound, text, binary executable, etc) and some other details… Just for JPEG images, there’s a whole plethora of meta-info that can get stored in an EXIF header.

The meta in metaphysics seems to address something else. Something beyond physics.
A thousand years ago, the information about the Big Bang’s existence was unavailable, so that would be in the realm of metaphysics. Magnetics, too… some rocks “magically” bond! Light was magical, etc, etc, etc…
Nowadays, many things have already been discovered and became the realm of physics, instead of meta-physics. Hence, physics is getting there…

Yes, I could have used that example as well. For without any “temporary assumption” that Higgs Boson exists, Large Hadron Collider wouldn’t have been built (well, why would we build something that costly without thinking of any use for it?). And without it, Higgs Boson wouldn’t have been found.

And that is my point - in general, if you reject something so strongly, you are less likely to find evidence for that “something”.

It is not that different with God - someone who disbelieves in God so forcefully that he will not look for evidence (sometimes some atheists even seem to avoid “reductio ad absurdum” arguments, as they might need a temporary assumption “God exists.”) is unlikely to find any evidence.

Yes, but there was a solid theory behind the hunt for the Higgs Boson.
For God, all I see is a potential exploitation of flaws in human psychology. Yes, many people have believed, have been convinced of the reality of God…but that’s just people being convinced of something that no one can demonstrate exists. There’s no way to build a machine to record the presence of God… but there was one for the Higgs.

But tell me: if I do look for evidence, what will I find?

It is nice to see that agreement. So, does it mean agreement with principle of causality telling us that change (actualisation of potencies) requires something (a “cause”) that is actual already?

Yes.
And there’s a theory that allows for such a cause to be natural… QCD.

Um, do you remember how we got here? For you have just agreed with the statement that you were trying to attack in this “subthread”.

Oh boy… I’ve been a bit sleep deprived this past week… what did I say?
hmmm… it was this:

You have already conceded that without logic there is nothing you can “reason out”.

I see, I’m mixing up these two concepts.
On one hand, there’s the possibility that we can’t know anything. Beyond the Big Bang, lies anything, and that is not necessarily bound to the rules of logic that we cherish, so better not say anything.
On the other hand, in the event that we can say something, then, like I said, “better stick with something that comes from simple processes”.

The sight of you ending up claiming that “findings” of psychology “outrank” scientific arguments is rather amusing… I guess I should wait and see if you won’t have to refute this your argument all by yourself…

What?! when did I do that?

 

[pocaracas]

LOL!

So empty space is space that has particles.

You’re saying that science now has re-defined empty to mean “not empty”.

Science now says “empty” means “well, only kind of empty.”

Space-time in vacuum is not devoid of everything. It is devoid of particles… but there are more things besides particles, out there.
And those things can bring forth particles. That’s the main gist of the theory.

###########

Fair enough.

And why don’t you believe that God exists?

The way the belief is meshed with psychology makes it suspicious. That suspicion hampers belief.

############

What is the above if not a perfect example of the Science of the Gaps ideology.

“We don’t know now, but Science, man, Science. Science has got it going on and will give us the answers, even if we don’t know the answers today.”

Nothing wrong with that, of course. I am a big fan of Science.

But I just think it’s amusing to see the double standard espoused by atheists who object to the God of the Gaps ideology, while also embracing the Science of the Gaps ideology.

Why the double standard (again!), poca?

Because science has indeed moved forward in that respect. And still is.
I’m aware that I’m making an extrapolation that may not pan out. But it does offer some peace of mind (ahaha, psychology attacks).
On the other hand, “God of the gaps” is receding - there seems to be little value in maintaining such a position. More so under some extrapolation… of a recessing into nothingness.

###############

Yeah. Saw the link.

But I had every hope that you really weren’t referencing the movie Aliens in your answer because that would have been really, really inane.

I thought you meant something different.

sigh.

hehe… you guys take somethings way too seriously…
Aliens, the movie, or the xenomorphs from the movie, or any other alien that someone could claim to exist (some actual alien life form, not a generic potential alien intelligence like the ones SETI is looking for), would fit the description "no credible evidence exists for their existence, hence they don’t exist.

Ok. This should be quite easy to demonstrate.

All you have to do is show the post where I espoused the belief that one must be convinced of God’s existence prior to sensing Him.

Please offer the link of my post.

Thanks.

There was a question mark in there… I don’t remember you doing it, so I wouldn’t know where to begin… but some people have done it. Quite a few Christians have done it… and they referenced that book by Luke… so, why wouldn’t you reference it as well?

 

[PRmerger]

Space-time in vacuum is not devoid of everything.

Then you’ve just re-defined vacuum.

I suppose you also could say: I want re-define “clothed” to mean “naked” and you’d be like this guy…
https://twanzphobic.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/emperor-1.jpg]

“Hey, I’m ‘clothed’ in the finest regalia there is!”

…but he was known as a fool, no?

 

[PRmerger]

The way the belief is meshed with psychology makes it suspicious. That suspicion hampers belief.

Seriously?

This is your reason for being an atheist?

Using this model you shouldn’t be vaccinating your children either. The belief that vaccinating your children is meshed with psychology, too. “I love my kids so I am going to try to protect them!”–very psychological.

 

[PRmerger]

There was a question mark in there… I don’t remember you doing it, so I wouldn’t know where to begin… but some people have done it. Quite a few Christians have done it… and they referenced that book by Luke… so, why wouldn’t you reference it as well?

Ah. So it seems you’re moving towards retraction of that statement. That’s good.

Suffice it to say that it’s not a Catholic teaching that one must be convinced of God’s existence prior to sensing Him.

What are you talking about with “that book by Luke”???

 

[DeusExMachina]

Oh, I can certainly imagine hypothetical supernatural situations…
What sort of sci-fi, Marvel and DC geek would I be?!

It’s their connection with the reality where we live that I can’t piece together.
Well, I can piece it together, if the religious aspects are all bred out of some psychological phenomena, instead of the claimed exterior entity which appears in the story.
I can “willingly suspend disbelief” for the sake of a story… but not for the sake of a documentary… (unless the documentary is about the story, like here:imdb.com/title/tt0499516/)

You see, unlike you, I am able to suspend my belief and look at the facts… for example, the nature of god is, atleast in the abrahamic definition,outside the physical world (ie not dectectible by science) and therefore you cannot ask someone to scientifically prove the existance of god

 

[Bradski]

…for example, the nature of god is, atleast in the abrahamic definition,outside the physical world (ie not dectectible by science) and therefore you cannot ask someone to scientifically prove the existance of god

For that you need faith. And I blame that on the left inferior frontal gyrus.

"We examined with functional magnetic resonance imaging the brain activity of 12 supernatural believers and 11 skeptics who first imagined themselves in critical life situations (e.g. problems in intimate relationships) and then watched emotionally charged pictures of lifeless objects and scenery (e.g. two red cherries bound together).

Supernatural believers reported seeing signs of how the situations were going to turn out in the pictures more often than skeptics did. Viewing the pictures activated the same brain regions among all participants (e.g. the left inferior frontal gyrus, IFG).

However, the right IFG, previously associated with cognitive inhibition, was activated more strongly in skeptics than in supernatural believers, and its activation was negatively correlated to sign seeing in both participant groups. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on the universal processes that may underlie supernatural beliefs and the role of cognitive inhibition in explaining individual differences in such beliefs." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956664

We’re just wired differently. Which is no big surprise to me.

 

[PRmerger]

For that you need faith.

No more than you need faith to believe in the possibility of the multiverse.

 

[Bradski]

No more than you need faith to believe in the possibility of the multiverse.

I don’t believe in it. There’s not enough evidence.

Hang on…faIth to believe in the possibility of a multiverse? What an odd thing to say. It’s a proposal that has merit. I don’t need faith to say that. Faith is belief where there is a lack of evidence. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the possibility of a multiverse

None for the existence of it.

Hence I believe in the possibility but I can’t say that I believe it exists.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe in it. There’s not enough evidence.

Excellent!

Now you’re being consistent at least!

 

[PRmerger]

Hang on…faIth to believe in the possibility of a multiverse? What an odd thing to say. It’s a proposal that has merit. I don’t need faith to say that. Faith is belief where there is a lack of evidence. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the possibility of a multiverse

None for the existence of it.

Hence I believe in the possibility but I can’t say that I believe it exists.

Let me amend “possibility” to “viable proposition”.

“It is a viable proposition to assert that the MV exists”.

It’s a puzzling, dissonant note that emanates here–“I believe in A being a viable proposition, without a shred of evidence” and “I don’t believe B is a viable proposition because there’s not a shred of evidence”.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Seriously?

This is your reason for being an atheist?

Using this model you shouldn’t be vaccinating your children either. The belief that vaccinating your children is meshed with psychology, too. “I love my kids so I am going to try to protect them!”–very psychological.

good one mate

 

[DeusExMachina]

For that you need faith. And I blame that on the left inferior frontal gyrus.

"We examined with functional magnetic resonance imaging the brain activity of 12 supernatural believers and 11 skeptics who first imagined themselves in critical life situations (e.g. problems in intimate relationships) and then watched emotionally charged pictures of lifeless objects and scenery (e.g. two red cherries bound together).

Supernatural believers reported seeing signs of how the situations were going to turn out in the pictures more often than skeptics did. Viewing the pictures activated the same brain regions among all participants (e.g. the left inferior frontal gyrus, IFG).

However, the right IFG, previously associated with cognitive inhibition, was activated more strongly in skeptics than in supernatural believers, and its activation was negatively correlated to sign seeing in both participant groups. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on the universal processes that may underlie supernatural beliefs and the role of cognitive inhibition in explaining individual differences in such beliefs." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22956664

We’re just wired differently. Which is no big surprise to me.

Its an interesting possibility, but not enough to make me an atheist. Nice try though

 

[Bradski]

Its an interesting possibility, but not enough to make me an atheist. Nice try though

Hey, no-ones attempting to change someone’s faith here. But we do look at things differently. That’s obvious. We both are receiving the same (name removed by moderator)ut, but we process it differently. So there must be a difference in the software.

If you had exactly the same genes as me and exactly the same experiences, then you would think like I do. You would, in effect, be me, so you wouldn’t have any choice.

Now here comes the bit you won’t like. I believe that my software gives me a more accurate representation of reality. But to be honest, that doesn’t really matter. We’re both happy with the way we view things. it’s only a problem when our views conflict (gay marriage, contraception etc).

 

[PRmerger]

But to be honest, that doesn’t really matter. We’re both happy with the way we view things. it’s only a problem when our views conflict (gay marriage, contraception etc).

Of course it matters, luv.

Truth matters.

Did you see my reference to the Buck Nekkid Emperor?

He was quite happy parading around, thinking he was dressed in some luxurious duds.

But the truth was…he was a royal fool presenting himself to his kingdom absolutely naked.

 

[Bradski]

It’s a puzzling, dissonant note that emanates here–“I believe in A being a viable proposition, without a shred of evidence” and “I don’t believe B is a viable proposition because there’s not a shred of evidence”.

You keep misrepresenting the situation, PR.

You can believe something to be a viable proposition without direct evidence. That’s why it remains a proposition and doesn’t become a theory. There is no Theory of The Multiverse, because you need to make predictions and test them. The only predictions that you might have read in regard to the multiverse are the existence of gravity waves but they are not, in themselves, proof of the multiverse. If they are discovered, they will be a substantiated portion of the proposal. No more, no less.

There is, however, evidence that people put forward for the existence of God. Philosophical and material. This happened. That happened. This was written, someone said that. If you accept the evidence, then you will automatically believe. If you don’t, then you won’t.

So we are talking about two different things. One is impossible to believe because there is no evidence to accept or reject. We can only lean one way or the other in considering the possibilities. The other has lots of evidence and the more you investigate, the more you either accept, so therefore you believe, or the more you reject, and therefore you don’t.

All pretty straightforward.

 

[PRmerger]

You keep misrepresenting the situation, PR.

You can believe something to be a viable proposition without direct evidence.

I will remember this statement forever, Bradski.

And it will come back to haunt you.



'Nuff said.

 

[Bradski]

Truth matters.

Only to a certain extent.

People have happy and fulfilling lives with any number of different beliefs. The vast majority of people on this planet have the wrong beliefs. That’s a given. But if it keeps them happy, then who’s to complain?

As I said, it’s only when someone says my niece can’t get married because she’s gay or there’s a demand to teach children that the world is 6,000 years old (or to use an extreme example, if you start shooting people at a concert), that we have a problem.

Otherwise…no worries, as they say down here.

 

[PRmerger]

Only to a certain extent.

People have happy and fulfilling lives with any number of different beliefs. The vast majority of people on this planet have the wrong beliefs. That’s a given. But if it keeps them happy, then who’s to complain?

As I said, it’s only when someone says my niece can’t get married because she’s gay or there’s a demand to teach children that the world is 6,000 years old (or to use an extreme example, if you start shooting people at a concert), that we have a problem.

Otherwise…no worries, as they say down here.

Well, right.

The above demonstrates exactly what I said: truth matters.