I started our conversation esq by quoting you. You eventually asked (3rd or 4th response) "what other evidence could there be". In line with my summation of your position, still evident in your post above, that you don't think any other evidence is possible.

So yes, it's your dodge

We have had this conversation a few times before. Your feigned memory loss is unimpressive.

Have you read the Wikipedia article on scientism yet?

What is reality and is it possible for humans to reason anything separately from it?

(June 16, 2014 at 9:08 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I started our conversation esq by quoting you. You eventually asked (3rd or 4th response) "what other evidence could there be". In line with my summation of your position, still evident in your post above, that you don't think any other evidence is possible.

No, actually, what I asked was, and this is a direct quote, "what else would you like there to be?" A question you still haven't answered, and which I asked because, as my next response to the first in your long line of evasions hinted at, I suspected that you were going to try and slip faith under the door as a justification for belief, or perhaps the logic that you continually refer to without ever expanding on.

See, I have a sort of metric for evidence that determines how much or how little I'll believe a thing. Empirical evidence isn't required for me to believe something, but what does need to happen is the claim or proposed evidence needs to be falsifiable and testable, so that at some stage it might yield some empirical result, as obviously empirical evidence is sufficient to fully confirm that something is real. So while claims based on observations and so on may be justifiably believable, I don't feel that it's sufficient to just rest on those laurels like I get the feeling you would.

Don't mistake a request for additional information, for a comprehensive overview of my entire position on an issue.

Quote:So yes, it's your dodge

We have had this conversation a few times before. Your feigned memory loss is unimpressive.

What is impressive, it seems, is your complete unwillingness or inability to actually comprehend what's being typed at you. And to answer questions.

Quote:Have you read the Wikipedia article on scientism yet?

I read it when you first posted it. Given that it didn't apply to my position, no matter your mewling protestations, I discarded it as irrelevant.

Quote:What is reality and is it possible for humans to reason anything separately from it?

Reality is that which exists in the real world, and humans can reason themselves into all kinds of positions regardless of that; every single god claim that you don't believe in should be proof of that.

Be prepared to be dissapointed and frustrated in 3...2....1

But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

(June 16, 2014 at 8:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Take a look in the other thread you just posted in irrational.

Are you referring to the post where you make a distinction between empiricism and rationalism and, somehow, make it sound like rationalism supports your position?

The problem is that you really didn't provide any clear examples to demonstrate your point, and you don't seem to understand what empiricism really is if you think that empiricism and rationalism are independent of each other.

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Yes, god claims are grounded in something. God claims originated in ancient times to understand unexplainable events, such as lightning, the seasons, weather in general, etc.
People came to conclusions such as "Only a powerful being could do that" and "The gods have rewarded us with a bountiful harvest", etc. In those times, when science and knowledge were so small compared to now, these explanations were reasonable, since there was no way of knowing why certain things happened. Another motive for god claims is power. Ancient civilizations such as Egypt and Rome had a whole system of gods. Whoever first devised each god probably did it for money and power (gained through temple revenue and positions in the government and church). Old civilizations were ingenious at inventing religion to get money, power and control the people, it was a smart tactic. Would it work today? To a certain extent, but it wouldn't be a smashing success like it used to be (we don't see Scientology sweeping across the globe).

So yes, god claims are rooted in reality. They were used to explain things and give hope when we didn't know anything about the world, and they were used for power and control by ancient governments.

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Sure: people from long ago didn't have the answers to questions, and so they posited the existence of even bigger, more powerful people that made the things they didn't know about happen. That's why gods always have similar traits to the people that invented them, regardless of whether or not they logically would.

There's nothing strictly wrong with imagining like that, but as I said above, you need to have some way of testing those claims, and if those tests come out negative, then you should relinquish your grip on the claim. And you should always keep in mind that, before the tests come back positive, the real answer to the question you're trying to resolve is "I don't know."

Quote:I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

I have a healthy respect for empirical evidence, and think that a lot of the things that we can detect in our world can be empirically verified, but I'm aware of the limitations of it with regards to how we operate.

But I've never once asked strictly for empirical evidence for a claim, and you don't get to strawman me by pretending I have; I've only ever asked for evidence, period. Because if there's no effect of a thing in reality, something you can point to as the origin point of your observation, then you have no reason for considering that thing to begin with.

About sikhism

They are nice people and they have great values and principles. Why I'm muslim and not sikhi..

(I'm talking about me here.. not meaning to offense sikhi people at all)

cuz Islam is more detailed and defined .. Islam has more knowledge.

cuz the Holly Quran is the only book which people claim that it is the exact words of God while sikhi books are written by their scholars.

You can read it if you want..

The nobel Quran

cuz Quran is not only a book of instructions and guidance.. It has the knowledge of the past, present, and future.

You can always search about the knowledge of the Quran on the web. There are tuns of lectures and documentaries on youtube. To me I find this lecture so helping in understanding the Quran.. this man is really clever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OGm5I6Ccz8

Although he was a previous atheist.. I personally have learned a lot from this lecture.. and even if you don't want to be a muslim I can ensure you that you will like this man and his clever ideas and way of thinking

(June 16, 2014 at 8:18 am)Confused Ape Wrote: From the article about the atheist who believes in God.
I know what he means in those bolded sentences. I'm very much aware of the offstage existence because I can sense that, deep down, my unconscious mind is dreaming while I'm awake. If I tune into it I get experiences like the Earth is a goddess. I believe you when you say you can feel what you interpret as being God but, from my point of view, your experience is purely subjective the same as my experience of the Earth being a goddess was purely subjective.

It's not only dreams.. you can't really ignore the big sensation of the existence of something "offstage" as you described it

I myself have experienced the existence of the "Jinn" as we call it.. spirits.

I felt him moving my legs and arms .. It was an awful experience!! I know many people would find that hard to believe.. but to me it's as clear as the water I mean I felt him really ..

To me I just can't ignore this "fact", as I see it.. If you didn't experience anything like that before than its fine.. but knowing that and ignoring is lying to myself and I can't lie to myself

Quote:Ever since I was a child I've been interested in comparative religion, mythology and folklore. I then discovered Jungian psychology. Humans have experiences of something which they interpret as being one deity or another. If these experiences are objective reality it means that every god and goddess humans have worshipped must be real which makes nonsense of religions promoting their deity as the only one which exists.

That's very interesting what've said

I actually feel the same.. a human can't just invent a thought! cuz the human mind is like a hardisk (since I'm a computer engineer I'm gonna explain this example )

If you have a hard disk.. full of files and folders.. would say that the hard disk invented or created them by itself?! No of course

They have to be inserted using a USB or wireless device or any kind of connectors or cables.

The hard disk is the human mind.. the cables and connectors are the senses we have like .. hearing .. seeing .. tasting .. touching.. etc.

That's why I think the idea of a God was not created by the creative humans!!

and about that clever idea you said.. "which makes nonsense of religions promoting their deity as the only one which exists."

Not all Gods people worship are suppose to be the deity we worship!
They could be worshiping some other creature! Let me give you examples..

For christians for example (I like christians and believe they are good people .. I just differ with them in faith that doesn't make them my enemies )

They believe that Jesus is God.. they believe on the father and mother etc..

To us muslims who believe on one God.. that's what our Quran says about worshiping Jesus. (we actually have a whole chapter named after his mother peace and blessings be upon her)

"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs." Quran 4:171

So the pervious christians teachers have manipulated the truth and say that Jesus is the son of God while Jesus was nothing but the prophet of God ,peace and blessings be upon him.

another example.. The maya

They worshiped creatures ( we believe they worshiped the spirits or Jinn)

since one of their beliefs is to sacrifice an innocent person to Gods.. and that what people who worship the devil do.. to please the Gods..!! You can search about satanism if you want.

So people can worship the son, cows, trees, nature, spirits.. But that doesn't mean that they worship God (the one and only)

Or they may say God is two , three, thousands.. but that doesn't mean that God is multiple !

People tell lies all the time

But I like they way you think.. you seem very deep !

Quote:In my personal world view things don't have to be literally true in order to be symbolically true. If someone believes that a deity is supporting them through a crises it's a symbol of them drawing on their own inner strength etc.

Or it could be God

You never know.........

Quote:I'm aware that there is a dark side to human nature but I don't regard it as original sin or the result of giving in to temptation from demons or whatever.

We are biologically programmed to be humans but some of the programming comes from millions of years ago. Behaviour patterns which would have been useful to ancestors who were reptiles or early primates living in trees aren't always useful to us now. For example, conflicts over territory are very common in other animal species but do we really need them in the 21st century when our species is armed to the teeth with lethal weapons rather than just being armed with teeth?

I try to be aware of the dark side of my own nature and not give in to it. Jungian psychology works for me although it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I know it's not our subject.. but it hit me !

I actually think that all these inventions and technology are preventing us from finding our true strength.. as you said we may used to have certain powers but we don't need them any more!

We think we don't!

I think the real development is to communicate with nature and find our strengths .. and develop them.

For example.. women used to get pregnant all the time and produce healthy babies.. But now with all these medical improvements and medications I think we are becoming weak and dependent.

Exactly like if you were used to antibiotics all the time.. your body won't be able to fight the disease by itself.

That's why I refuse to take antibiotics as much as possible.

Quote:One group of people projecting their own dark natures onto another group of people has led to all kinds of horrors in history. "They are a threat/evil/not fully human etc. so must be eliminated." Humans are the only animals who fight each other over beliefs - "My religion/version of this religion is THE TRUTH - convert or die."

That could be true in some religions.. although I don't think that any religion or cultural differences should lead to violence!

I think its bad people only.. "personality types"

an extremist would always be an extremists .. even if he was muslim, atheist, christian, scientist.. etc

In Islam we have beautiful teachings.. how to be peaceful and merciful and understanding.. BUT still there bad muslims cuz they are bad and will always be bad..as long as they continue to hate and be selfish.

There are good and bad evil in all families .. all countries.. all religious communities.. being atheist doesn't really prevent people from being violent and evil.. So I don't think that saying "God made them violent, their book is violent.." is true!!

Actually our Quran says this:

Say, "O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

Quran 109

But I know that some muslims are so arrogant.. they just want to force people into Islam!!!

Whatever.. some atheists do that mistake too.

Quote:I'm always interested in what people believe even if I don't believe it myself. Your beliefs obviously mean a lot to you and I regard them as having value for you if they helped you deal with the loss of your babies. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Thank you don't be..

Actually I'm pregnant with my third child now she will be my first.

wish me luck .. and thank you for this great conversation.

---

(June 16, 2014 at 8:23 am)Irrational Wrote: I would suggest you not think homework is over. For me, I may be an atheist now, but that does not mean I must be an atheist for life no matter the evidence made available later on.

That's a great advice.. I'm on it !!

Quote:Personally, I don't think you could ever convert me to your faith as I could never see myself accept your god Allah as God, but you could still convince me it's true. All I need is the evidence. No evidence, no reason to believe.

Actually there are tuns of lectures, documentaries, essays about Islam and God.. on the web.

If you want my advice you can watch Jeffery Lang he is wit and clever! You would like him even if you didn't believe him

I can help you if you want.

I mean when I want to know about atheism I prefer to watch a documentary or an atheist who is a great writer or famous for his bright ideas.. I would seek knowledge from a good source.

I don't think that talking to me is good source .. I'm not a scholar.. I'm just a thinking muslim who reads a lot!

(June 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Irrational Wrote: you don't seem to understand what empiricism really is if you think that empiricism and rationalism are independent of each other.

An empiricist needs examples. Empiricism and rationalism are opposites. I don't think they are independent.

---

(June 16, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 16, 2014 at 1:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Sure: people from long ago didn't have the answers to questions, and so they posited the existence of even bigger, more powerful people that made the things they didn't know about happen. That's why gods always have similar traits to the people that invented them, regardless of whether or not they logically would.

There's nothing strictly wrong with imagining like that, but as I said above, you need to have some way of testing those claims, and if those tests come out negative, then you should relinquish your grip on the claim. And you should always keep in mind that, before the tests come back positive, the real answer to the question you're trying to resolve is "I don't know."

Quote:I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

I have a healthy respect for empirical evidence, and think that a lot of the things that we can detect in our world can be empirically verified, but I'm aware of the limitations of it with regards to how we operate.

But I've never once asked strictly for empirical evidence for a claim, and you don't get to strawman me by pretending I have; I've only ever asked for evidence, period. Because if there's no effect of a thing in reality, something you can point to as the origin point of your observation, then you have no reason for considering that thing to begin with.

1. The old "primitive people were ignorant" red herring where you know very well that those people were not making scientific observations in the bible.

2. Spoken like a true empiricist. You insist on that point of fact, where biblical Christianity, for one, is based upon the premise of an unknowable fact.

Until you can get over that self imposed restriction, you're stuck with your illogical/ contradictory position.

Just to let you know esq, this is the end of my engaging with your sophistry in this thread.

Rationalism is useful for theoretical conjecturing, nothing more, nothing less. Without empirical verification, you're left with nothing but definitions that may or may not have any bearing in reality. Clearly some words are more helpful in describing our states of mind than others, these unintelligible efforts being the life blood of religious demigoguing.