Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Tonus]

I think that the alternative to reasoned, rational, logical thought is mostly emotional thought. And emotions can make us act irrationally, illogically, and against reason. Anyone who has been head-over-heels in love with someone, or who has been in a blind rage over something that aggravated us sufficiently, knows how emotion can drive us to thoughts and actions that we would ordinarily consider foolish at best. This doesn't mean that we cannot react emotionally to something, or that it's always bad to do so. I cannot help but react emotionally to a view like Niagara Falls, for example. Or to an amazing work of art, such as a painting or a song. Emotion has its place, and helps us appreciate certain things in a way that logic and rationality cannot. But emotion shouldn't replace rational or logical thought in those areas where it best applies. To me, spirituality and religion is what happens when we try to stuff emotion into gaps that are best dealt with rationally and logically.

[Love]

I'm going to give you the very basic reason why I am so aggressive:

Because I hate religion, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate people who pick and choose things in their various religious texts. I hate people who make unfounded assertions and assumptions. I hate people who salute double standards and worst of all I hate people who try to act as if they are authorities on a subject when they have no formal education in it.

I have been reading this passage again, and I would hope that you retract your belief that I am: (1) being intellectually dishonest, (2) picking and choosing passages in scripture and (3) coming across as an authority on a subject without having formal eductation.

I made it very clear from the start that I do not feel that the bible is relevant. In terms of intellectual dishonesty, although my opinions about established facts obviously differ from yours, I am confident that the content of my replies is factually sound; I take pride in accuracy. Also, I never claimed that I studied philosophy academically.

I understand that you hate religion and all of the other things you mention, but I really think you should learn or at least try to have more tolerance and patience, especially when I am endeavouring to be courteous during the debate.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Carefull Rayaan you are not a true christian™... Oh wait

Hardly the oddest part. Little Mosque on the Prairie teaches me Rayaan is a woman's name.

[Angrboda]

Carefull Rayaan you are not a true christian™... Oh wait

Hardly the oddest part. Little Mosque on the Prairie teaches me Rayaan is a woman's name.

Ray in Persian means "wisdom" (which comes from Middle Persian verb Raynitan) and Rayan means "wise" (which comes from Avestan word "Raonat") and is a first name given to males in Persia and Iran.

[Kayenneh]

Ray in Persian means "wisdom" (which comes from Middle Persian verb Raynitan) and Rayan means "wise" (which comes from Avestan word "Raonat") and is a first name given to males in Persia and Iran.

Or:

The baby boy name Rayaan comes from the Hindi word which means, "Lord Vishnu."

Luxuriant; one of the gates of paradise

(Though, that is if you spell it Rayyan.)

[Whateverist]

I think that the alternative to reasoned, rational, logical thought is mostly emotional thought.

I'm going to give you the very basic reason why I am so aggressive:

Because I hate religion, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate people who pick and choose things in their various religious texts.

So the emotion of hate and intellectual dishonesty (revealed by its containing conclusions which differ from my own) thoroughly justify aggression. What would it take to justify tolerance of a differing opinion in matters where conclusive evidence is lacking?

Atheism is no insurance against faulty logic. In fact reasoning which starts with atheism as axiomatic suffers from the same narrowness as fundamentalist theism.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Hardly the oddest part. Little Mosque on the Prairie teaches me Rayaan is a woman's name.

Ray in Persian means "wisdom" (which comes from Middle Persian verb Raynitan) and Rayan means "wise" (which comes from Avestan word "Raonat") and is a first name given to males in Persia and Iran.

You would dare to pit wikipedia against Little Mosque?

---

I think that the alternative to reasoned, rational, logical thought is mostly emotional thought.

I'm going to give you the very basic reason why I am so aggressive:

Because I hate religion, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate people who pick and choose things in their various religious texts.

So the emotion of hate and intellectual dishonesty (revealed by its containing conclusions which differ from my own) thoroughly justify aggression. What would it take to justify tolerance of a differing opinion in matters where conclusive evidence is lacking?

Perhaps believers should lead by example and demonstrate tolerance of atheists. They claim that is their policy but it only became that after it was imposed upon them by civil authority and force. Unfortunately Christian intolerance of non-christians much less atheists goes back to the beginning of their cults and continues to the present day.

Don't start a fight you can't finish.

Atheism is no insurance against faulty logic. In fact reasoning which starts with atheism as axiomatic suffers from the same narrowness as fundamentalist theism.

Of course it is never insurance against faulty logic. It is absolute insurance against taking imagination and fantasy as facts and physical evidence upon which all logic MUST BE BASED else it is not logic but bullshit.

[Tonus]

So the emotion of hate and intellectual dishonesty (revealed by its containing conclusions which differ from my own) thoroughly justify aggression. What would it take to justify tolerance of a differing opinion in matters where conclusive evidence is lacking?

I'm not sure I understand how my comment would lead anyone to the above conclusion. Or at least, my comment in its entirety.

[Creed of Heresy]

So the emotion of hate and intellectual dishonesty (revealed by its containing conclusions which differ from my own) thoroughly justify aggression. What would it take to justify tolerance of a differing opinion in matters where conclusive evidence is lacking?

Atheism is no insurance against faulty logic. In fact reasoning which starts with atheism as axiomatic suffers from the same narrowness as fundamentalist theism.

I have never once made the claim or conclusion that my ire and emotive processes lead to logical outcomes, quite the opposite in the past, in fact. I have readily acknowledged that I am a creature of emotional outbursts that may not lead to rational conclusions, and that I sometimes am biased. I try to overcome these shortcomings, but they are faults to my personality that are deeply engrained and difficult to pacify.

Love: I can at least do away with my statement about intellectual dishonesty, you have at least managed to display that if nothing else you are following a self-contained train of thought that if nothing else at least answers to itself to some extent. The others...ehhhh I'm still not entirely convinced of, though I'm at least going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Love]

Love:

Just to make sure I'm understanding your position correctly: Your answer to my first question (asking what the basis is for your progressive Christianity) could be summarized as "the teachings of the historical Jesus according to scholars like Dr. McGrath, and your direct mystical experience of something malevolent (a Devil?), and of (what you consider to be) God." Your answer to my second question (why bother with the Bible?) is "Actually, I don't." Your answer to my third question (on what basis can you pick out the "nice" parts and discard the "mean" parts of the Bible/Jesus' teachings as portrayed therein) would be "I don't--because I don't follow the Bible in the first place" and/or "I take seriously the parts that NT scholars (Prof. McGrath, et. al.) think are what the historical Jesus taught." Is that a fairly accurate summation of your position?

Everything you have written here is absolutely correct. However, I do not particularly take seriously anything from the New Testament because as I have already explained, The Bible is a "theological" interpretation of Jesus' life and significance. I am only interested in the "historical" evidence related to Jesus. So it is not NT scholars, but rather historian scholars in which I am interested.

In the case of your god, you have defined it as "a panentheistic transcendent consciousness." If it is panentheistic and transcendent and conscious, it should have access to knowledge we do not have (yet)--unless it doesn't have memory or something. If such an entity exists and you or anyone else can communicate with it with any sort of reliability, you could, for example, ask it to tell you about something a space probe is likely to encounter fairly soon that we don't have lots of information about (such as what the Curiosity rover might find over the next rise or whatever). Then you could post its answer before the probe makes the observation. If by doing so you could predict a new scientific surprise, you would provide evidence that would increase the probability of your god's existence. Then we'd have to devise tests to rule out other alternatives (maybe you're just psychic ). Other ways to pursue this avenue of testing: ask your god to provide novel information about history that will be subject to future testing, such as information about the area/culture a new archaeological dig is investigating. Physics or mathematics could also work, if it knows more about these than we do. Post its answers in advance, then you and skeptical observers could test them.

These are all very good points. I am presently of the opinion that human beings are ultimately limited in terms of being able to comprehend extremely counter intuitive ideas. For example, even quantum physicists / theoretical physicists have trouble coming to terms with concepts such as "wave/particle duality" or even Everett's "many worlds interpretation" of quantum theory. As Dawkins has quoted Richard Feynman on a number of occasions: "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". Although this will be seen as a "cowardly cop out" by some members, I truly believe that there are some things that are completely beyond our comprehension; call it intellectual humility. I think God is one of those areas that is completely beyond our grasp. Just like the idea that nothing existed before the emergence of time; it is beyond our intellectual grasp. What I sense, however, is that the "panentheistic transcendent consciousness" is the source of life, morality and love et cetera.

It is my contention that atheists demand far too much from science. Science is exceptional at answering a lot of questions, such as the behaviour of subatomic particles and the structure of water, for example. Of course, science has been immensely helpful in areas such as medicine and techology; we would not be sitting here having this interesting Internet discussion without the advent of physics.

Would you agree that this sort of test would falsify your belief in your god if the results came out negative? If not, can you think of some other kind of test whose results would come out one way if you're correct, and another way if we are?

I very much doubt that any kind of empircial observation could prove or disprove the existence of God. From this point of view, it is unfalsifiable, just like as Dawkins would put "pink unicorns" et cetera. As I have stated, I think you need a certain level of consiousness to be able to experience God, so that you can transcend beyond your five senses.

How could you know this, without some kind of total, infallible knowledge of what the scope of reason is?

This is an excellent and thought provoking question. I had a very interesting conversation with an individual who believed that empiricism and rationalism did not lead to "truth" (in epistemology), primarily because empiricism and rationalism rely on acquiring knowledge via the senses, and that all sense data is ultimately subjective to, as it were, the eye of the beholder. For example, if you and I had an interesting rational and logical conversation about a particular topic (and both you and I had an opinion about what we hold as true), how can you prove that your subjective opinion is actually true? Therefore, in this type of situation relativism trumps rationalsm and empiricism for the opinion held by the individual. I also find this with scientific evidence. If two people are viewing the same peer reviewed scientific document that presents evidence to disprove a theory, each person could be interpreting the evidence completely differently from each other. I think these are good examples that show the limits of reason.

I will address your other questions shortly.