P
Pag_Hingowa
Guest
How de we apply the scientific method to dreams?
- Status
S
sedonaman
Guest
Why don’t you ask one?
R
Rascalking
Guest
Do athiests dream? Are you serious?
No, they don’t dream, and don’t require food and water either. They are a special breed of human that should be studied in test tubes.
Yes, they dream.
No, they don’t dream, and don’t require food and water either. They are a special breed of human that should be studied in test tubes.
Yes, they dream.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Atheists are not necessarily ‘scientific.’ In fact, quite the contrary.
Their religious views–that God does not exist–are totally non-empirical, irrational, and without concern for science. In the recent spate of ‘New Atheism,’ the irrationality of their religious beliefs bleeds through into their arguments, and their OBSESSION with refuting theology.
The fact that you consider it problematic that an atheist’s dreams must be scientific is disturbing. Its clear that their propaganda and imagined-self has crept into your understanding of them.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Well spoken.
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Dogs dream.
How do we know this?
H
Hokomai
Guest
Some atheists and non-believers are interested in theology. The vast majority are not. I know this because I try to have conversations with others of my persuasion about religion. I might as well be talking about Etruscan bull-leaping. In fact they would be more interested in that. To an atheist or non-believer there is nothing to discuss. You cannt study something which do not exist. the word 'obession;. in upper- or lower- caps is therefore rather extreme as a descriptor. By the way I dream, though I don’t use the word atheist to describe my state of non-belief. Do does my dog. I know because he makes yipping noises while asleep and runs with this feet while they stick out to the side in his usual sleeping position. “Dreaming” seems a perfect theory to fit the facts.
G
GEddie
Guest
Everybody dreams. Dreaming per se is not spiritual and need not be interpreted. It is no more nor less than the editing floor of your conscious mind. (And, someone like me would say, so we are not left looking at the darkness while asleep
).
While I have not studied animal science, I’d say most likely higher animals exhibit the same limb, eye and brain action associated with dreaming.
ICXC NIKA
).While I have not studied animal science, I’d say most likely higher animals exhibit the same limb, eye and brain action associated with dreaming.
ICXC NIKA
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Cool, but our statements are perfectly compatible. No disagreement.
The OP clearly had a conception of an ‘atheist’ influenced by the new push–largely by ‘New Atheists’ and other ideologues–for people to see (1) atheism as synonymous with scientific progress, and (2) faith and reason in zero-sum competition.
You’ll notice that I stated that it was the ‘OBSESSION’ of New Atheists, an umbrella term but an umbrella term for a very specific cluster of opinions. For many of the people who have earned this description from their public speaking, written works, &c. … or those influenced by them… the term ‘OBSESSION’ fits perfectly.
I did not intend this to describe all atheists, agnostics, and people living in doubt… among them, of course, are many good Christians.
B
Boulder257
Guest
I am pretty sure that they have a reaction to garlic, so carry some with you at all times to ward them off. I don’t think they can be in direct sunlight, so you should be cool during the day.Do athiests dream? Are you serious?
No, they don’t dream, and don’t require food and water either. They are a special breed of human that should be studied in test tubes.
Yes, they dream.
J
JoeNuzzolo
Guest
LOL at the below…
To the OP… Why wouldn’t they dream?
To the OP… Why wouldn’t they dream?
I am pretty sure that they have a reaction to garlic, so carry some with you at all times to ward them off. I don’t think they can be in direct sunlight, so you should be cool during the day.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
My conception is that dreams are best observed from the inside and not the outside. If I told you about a dream, this will never fully recreate all the nuances that occurred in my dream, which made it significant enough for me to want to discuss it. Direct dream experience is the best way to get all the data, which you remember and record.Cool, but our statements are perfectly compatible. No disagreement.
The OP clearly had a conception of an ‘atheist’ influenced by the new push–largely by ‘New Atheists’ and other ideologues–for people to see (1) atheism as synonymous with scientific progress, and (2) faith and reason in zero-sum competition.
You’ll notice that I stated that it was the ‘OBSESSION’ of New Atheists, an umbrella term but an umbrella term for a very specific cluster of opinions. For many of the people who have earned this description from their public speaking, written works, &c. … or those influenced by them… the term ‘OBSESSION’ fits perfectly.
I did not intend this to describe all atheists, agnostics, and people living in doubt… among them, of course, are many good Christians.
The scientific method would need to involve the scientist also becoming the source of the experiment. The scientists needs to self observe direct brain data, since no external perspective will give you the same thorough data. External observation wil have significant data loss, with the consensus theory which results lacking. The result is like developing a theory with selective data. This is why science of the mind is not considered fully rational (second hand data). Dah!
Although another scientist we not be able to verify my exact dream, in terms of content, they can still collect data and verify their own dream. With a lot of data collected from different scientists/experiments, we would then look for common themes. Jung called these the archetypes. Collecting first hand data is different that just reading about it in the second person.
God type output can also appear in dreams. This is associated with certain central or core aspects of the psyche and brain. It is not clear if this data is due to the brain acting as the generator or receiver/ transmittor. The trick would be to figure out how to induce this and then measure it from the outside to see how the brain reacts.
Those who look for dreams outside them, in the closet, will not find them there. They may infer dreams do not exist. Unfortunately if the leaders do this, then the entire herd is led astray due to incompetence in the scientific method. You do not collect data for fire under the water and say fire does not exist. You need to go where the data is likely to be generated.
How do we know this is the result of dreaming and not just random firings of nuerons?
Getting ack to the atheist question…if they are honest, the only thing they can say is that they dream. They do not know through any scientific measure if anyone else dreams, and really there is no science we possess that will conclusively measure a dream.
The same measure they use to conclude no God also precludes anyone dreaming.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Care to specify on the last paragraph? Perhaps throw in an example or two.
If you were writing for a research journal, I don’t think ‘leaders’ and ‘herd’ would be acceptable terms…
N
NonServiam
Guest
Sure, but no one claims that a dream is a being who exists outside of a person’s head, like a god is supposed to be. A dream – by definition – is something purely subjective, created by an individual’s mind.
So while we cannot observe someone else’s dreams – any more than we can observe a person’s thoughts or emotions – we have very, very good reasons to think it’s likely that most other people dream. We know that others have brains of similar structure and that similar-structure brains likely produce similar kinds of results (like thoughts, emotions, dreams, etc.), we have extensive testimony of others, and we even have consistency in the kinds of dreams reported, such that we can conclude that the similar human brain – in the similar circumstances of the human condition – prioduces similar kinds of images while sleeping.
In fact, we have so many good reasons to think that it’s likely that most other people dream that it would be absurd to seriously question it.
Well, first of all atheism isn’t “the conclusion that there’s no gods” – it’s “not being convinced that there are any gods.”
Second of all, a god is – again, by definition – an objective being that does not just exist in an individual’s head. So, as a result, we can’t demonstrate that a god exists by noting that people can have “inner experiences” of one (unless we want to conclude that gods exist only in the ways that thoughts, dreams, and emotions exist).
The implication of the OP – that atheists can’t accept anything at all that isn’t strictly measurable by science – is both wrong and silly. When I start my car in the morning, I know that it will start when I turn the key (unless it’s broken, of course) – I don’t need to do a scientific experiment before I can accept that claim. All I need is evidence.
It’s the same with coming to the conclusion that others dream – as I noted above, there’s so much evidence for it that it would be absurd to question it.
The question of whether gods exist, though, can’t be demonstrated by subjective appeals, as I noted earlier, because the claim isn’t a purely objective one. So, based on the lack of evidence, a lot of people aren’t convinced of the claim that any gods exist (and hence, they are atheists, “those who are not convinced that there are any gods”)
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
But totally understandable given what’s being pushed down our throats under the banner of New Atheism.
Example: Wikipedia’s definition of ‘New Atheism’
An exaggeration, but completely in line with what some of the more rabid adherents of this ideology seem to believe about themselves and their beliefs.
And regarding the car example, one could argue that your reasoning is simply a bastardized or imperfect set up of the scientific method.
N
Neildown
Guest
. . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-%. . . …`
nuff said!
~., . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\, . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.} . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./ . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./ . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./ . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/ . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../ . . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../ . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-” . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\ . . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ ,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, . .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-%. . . …`
nuff said!
Nope, what you are describing is closer to agnostic the atheistic.
Common definition for atheism specifies a belief that there is no God.
If you like, you can check for yourself…
thefreedictionary.com/agnostic
allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm
dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm
And we are back to the lack of evidence argument that atheists are so fond of.
Which also means a number of other things must also be disbelieved, dreams among them.
G
GEddie
Guest
- Status