Considering atheism [Currently Christian]

[Brian37]

When I was an atheist, it seemed like a natural conclusion I came to and not really a "choice." I wish you well as you figure it out for yourself.

Falling back into even a "generic" idea of "super cognition" is no better a claim than any old woo.

When you were? I will take you at your word that you were. But what evidence do you have for your own personal belief that is any better than any other claim? 

1. Define in detail what you think is out there if you are not in the "off" position that you once were.

2. Provide neutral scientific peer reviewed material that confirms your position outside your own personal bias.

If you cant do those things then you really are in no better a boat than anyone else.

[Lek]

Agreed, if it's beyond the ability of science to test or verify, it's utterly irrelevant and no one can pretend they know anything about it because the only mechanism which we know of to go about finding out things is unable to be utilized. It's when people pretend to know it exists, know its attributes, and yet can't say HOW they know this, that we've got problems. Unfortunately that's exactly how everyone behaves when it comes to that type of unknown woo.

Why is it irrelevant if science is unable to test or verify it?

[mordant]

Agreed, if it's beyond the ability of science to test or verify, it's utterly irrelevant and no one can pretend they know anything about it because the only mechanism which we know of to go about finding out things is unable to be utilized. It's when people pretend to know it exists, know its attributes, and yet can't say HOW they know this, that we've got problems. Unfortunately that's exactly how everyone behaves when it comes to that type of unknown woo.

Why is it irrelevant if science is unable to test or verify it?

That which cannot be verified cannot be usefully discussed as it hasn't exited the realm of hearsay and speculation. It's not irrelevant, as it might be worth pursuing further study of to gain more facts, but in the meantime, it's not actionable, either. For example, we don't know what dark matter is or even if it exists for sure. It's a hypothesis at this point, we have some evidence pointing to it, some against. It's not irrelevant, in fact it's a subject of keen interest, but we are reduced to speculation (educated or otherwise) until we know more.

Dark matter is an example where you at least have a falsifiable, scientifically valid hypothesis to work with and test. Invisible beings and realms / the spiritual / the supernatural are all unfalsifiable concepts that no one can make credible knowledge claims for or against. They are just asserted without evidence, and so are dismissible without evidence.

[Jesster]

The natural world that science probes is reality. Anything off limits to science is not real.

I have to disagree with the bolded part above.

It is possible that there is something off limits to science, that actually may exist. But since there is no way to test and verify it, there is no warrant to believe it is real.

The non testable and non verifiable are indistinguishable from non existence, but they still might exist.

I'm with you on this one. There may be things beyond the limits of science, but we have no reason to believe in them yet. We'd need another method of properly testing for these things first. The problem with religion in this sense is the promotion of ideas without actually giving us a way to test for them.

[*Deidre*]

When I was an atheist, it seemed like a natural conclusion I came to and not really a "choice." I wish you well as you figure it out for yourself.

Falling back into even a "generic" idea of "super cognition" is no better a claim than any old woo.

When you were? I will take you at your word that you were. But what evidence do you have for your own personal belief that is any better than any other claim? 

1. Define in detail what you think is out there if you are not in the "off" position that you once were.

2. Provide neutral scientific peer reviewed material that confirms your position outside your own personal bias.

If you cant do those things then you really are in no better a boat than anyone else.

Um, I actually posted a thread about some of this, I'm at a cross roads with my own ''issues'' with all of this. But no one is better than anyone else, so please watch how you judge people.

[drfuzzy]

I actually understand that struggle quite well. Particularly if a person has been raised in a belief system - the idea of breaking from that system is emotionally painful, even without threats of hell and the disappointment and fury of family.  Combine that with grief (I'm sorry for your loss) and oh boy, do you EVER want to know that your loved one is in a wonderful place, and that you will be reunited one day.  (Actually a piece of me still longs for that fantasy.  I have so many people that have passed away that I would love to see again.)  You will walk your path - in your time.  You have already challenged your belief multiple times, and for many of us, it's part of the process.  It was for me.  Best wishes.

Oh my gosh, your post here, it just...I needed to read this. You have no idea. Hearing that I'm not crazy for going through this ''process'' multiple times is beyond comforting. Thank you

You're welcome.  Just relax, read, soak it all in.  Nothing needs to be forced. - - It's cliché, but . . . que sera, sera.

[Astonished]

Why is it irrelevant if science is unable to test or verify it?

That which cannot be verified cannot be usefully discussed as it hasn't exited the realm of hearsay and speculation. It's not irrelevant, as it might be worth pursuing further study of to gain more facts, but in the meantime, it's not actionable, either. For example, we don't know what dark matter is or even if it exists for sure. It's a hypothesis at this point, we have some evidence pointing to it, some against. It's not irrelevant, in fact it's a subject of keen interest, but we are reduced to speculation (educated or otherwise) until we know more.

Dark matter is an example where you at least have a falsifiable, scientifically valid hypothesis to work with and test. Invisible beings and realms / the spiritual / the supernatural are all unfalsifiable concepts that no one can make credible knowledge claims for or against. They are just asserted without evidence, and so are dismissible without evidence.

I should have clarified, that primarily applies to those things which people define as specifically being 'forever' outside the reach of science. You know, the pathetic dodge to ensure that science can never disprove god even if a means to do so someday presents itself, depending on definitions. Gotta love religious wordplay, so their tap-dance becomes a sing-along too.

[Whateverist]

The natural world that science probes is reality. Anything off limits to science is not real.

I have to disagree with the bolded part above.

It is possible that there is something off limits to science, that actually may exist. But since there is no way to test and verify it, there is no warrant to believe it is real.

The non testable and non verifiable are indistinguishable from non existence, but they still might exist.

Maybe God is a Klingon with good cloaking ability?

---

I've fucked Christian men in the ass, Christian men have fucked me in the ass, I have given Christian men blow jobs, and Christian men have given me blow jobs . . .

You have a (barf!) wonderful lifestyle Vorion.

Getting a little flirty with ole' Vorly, aren't you?  Shouldn't lead him on if you don't intend to put out (or take it in).

---

Falling back into even a "generic" idea of "super cognition" is no better a claim than any old woo.

When you were? I will take you at your word that you were. But what evidence do you have for your own personal belief that is any better than any other claim? 

1. Define in detail what you think is out there if you are not in the "off" position that you once were.

2. Provide neutral scientific peer reviewed material that confirms your position outside your own personal bias.

If you cant do those things then you really are in no better a boat than anyone else.

Um, I actually posted a thread about some of this, I'm at a cross roads with my own ''issues'' with all of this. But no one is better than anyone else, so please watch how you judge people.

She's right, Brian.  The xtians have the patent on shoulding on people.  You shouldn't infringe on their franchise.

[Court Jester]

I've fucked Christian men in the ass, Christian men have fucked me in the ass, I have given Christian men blow jobs, and Christian men have given me blow jobs . . .

As long as they repent before getting hit by a truck, they’re okay. Otherwise… damnation and hellfire for those poor saps.

[mordant]

That which cannot be verified cannot be usefully discussed as it hasn't exited the realm of hearsay and speculation. It's not irrelevant, as it might be worth pursuing further study of to gain more facts, but in the meantime, it's not actionable, either. For example, we don't know what dark matter is or even if it exists for sure. It's a hypothesis at this point, we have some evidence pointing to it, some against. It's not irrelevant, in fact it's a subject of keen interest, but we are reduced to speculation (educated or otherwise) until we know more.

Dark matter is an example where you at least have a falsifiable, scientifically valid hypothesis to work with and test. Invisible beings and realms / the spiritual / the supernatural are all unfalsifiable concepts that no one can make credible knowledge claims for or against. They are just asserted without evidence, and so are dismissible without evidence.

I should have clarified, that primarily applies to those things which people define as specifically being 'forever' outside the reach of science. You know, the pathetic dodge to ensure that science can never disprove god even if a means to do so someday presents itself, depending on definitions. Gotta love religious wordplay, so their tap-dance becomes a sing-along too.

I do not think it's any sort of dodge, much less a pathetic one, to say that unfalsifiable propositions like invisible beings and realms can never by falsified or proven. For that to happen would not depend on new scientific methods, it would depend on restating the hypothesis in a scientifically valid / falsifiable manner. If god for example cannot be detected because he's outside of nature, then no being or device in the whole universe can in any way "see" a thing that's not in that universe. By definition. The definition is what's lacking, not the methodology.

This gets into the whole problem that "the supernatural" is a useless concept. Gods and heaven and hell and spirits and the like are just asserted without evidence, which is bad enough ... but then the evidence is made permanently unobtainable by placing it outside the universe / existence itself. Since the universe, by definition, is "everything that exists" this is a logically fallacious concept anyway.

You say science might "prove god" "depending on definitions". My definition for god is an all powerful intentional agent that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of existence, but which is not detectable by any of our senses or instrumentation. This definition covers most god concepts, except that deists might say god no longer maintains existence; that and other god-concepts are non-interventionist at least in the present. The absent watchmaker. Since absent, indifferent and non-existent gods are for all practical purposes the same thing to a potential believer, I leave those aside and stick to the more typical / common definition for a deity. My definition leaves open the question of HOW interventionist the deity is; most people think the deity cares about us and makes claims / demands on us, and rewards / punishes us, but I don't see those as inherent to the concept.

If one defines a deity as just an extremely powerful intentional agent, sufficiently more powerful than a human to seem "god-like", I don't think that counts. A highly technologically advanced alien could "seem god-like"; that wouldn't be a god per my definition. Similarly a god that is detectable or measurable by some natural faculty, sense or instrument, would not qualify. That, too, would just be a very powerful being, different from us only in degree.

A common gambit of more new-age / mystical types of believers is to redefine existing and adequately defined and commonly understood terms such as "universe", "existence", "reality", "all that is", "life", "nature" etc. as divine and call that god and declare it proven. "Here's the universe, therefore, god". But these are just semantic games. Just because something is vast, impressive, unspeakably ancient, or super-pervasive and encompassing, does not make it to be an intentional agent that created and sustains existence, much less that makes claims / demands on us or sets rules for us, or cares about our sex life or what we eat for breakfast. It's also generally advanced via various composition fallacies (an example of faulty reasoning being that the universe contains beings who ARE conscious, therefore it HAS consciousness).