Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Cyberman]

Don't worry, we'll practice our aim.

[Simon Moon]

Ok friends

It's been fun, but I have other things to do. Maybe I'll be back after the weekend is over (if you're lucky). I know I've probably been quite entertaining- boredom sucks. Don't miss me too much...

Hopefully you got something out of your quick stay here.

Mostly I hope you learned that atheism is NOT a dogmatic position, but a provisional one.

[sswhateverlove]

Hopefully you got something out of your quick stay here.

Mostly I hope you learned that atheism is NOT a dogmatic position, but a provisional one.

I get that. Loud and clear. Not all atheists are 100% confident there is no intelligence to design and not all atheists are scientific fundamentalists.

I realize that the subjects of my posts may have been a bit more provocative than I intended them to be. It doesn't change the fact that I'm still interested in the answers to my questions.

To rephrase this thread in a way that I hope no one will take offense to (if anyone is willing to answer):

I'm interested to know your level of confidence (0-100%) with regard to these two statements:
1. There is no god ("sky daddy")
2. There is no intelligent design or influence to existence.

I'm particularly interested to know what (if anything) makes you question the possibility of either.

For me, I'm pretty much 100% confident there is no god as most religions describe it. I'm about 80% confident there is some intelligence to the way things are designed and operating.

[The Grand Nudger]

As certain as I am about the sun rising in the morning. 100% to both.

Nothing, currently......but, if someone could bust a god out of their back pocket, or show a single shred of intelligent design or influence - then I'd have to reassess my position on the existence of either.

There is no god -other than- "how religions describe it", btw...so parse the statement. Show me a fraction of that 80% (regarding that intelligence) and I'll be satisfied. Gimme 1%, a half a percent? What's designed? What about it's "operation" suggests intelligence to you? 80% is pretty high confidence for such a statement, there has to be some meat on those bones.

[sswhateverlove]

Show me a fraction of that 80% (regarding that intelligence) and I'll be satisfied. Gimme 1%, a half a percent? What's designed? What about it's "operation" suggests intelligence to you? 80% is pretty high confidence for such a statement, there has to be some meat on those bones.

Well for me, it started out with personal, "numinous experience" stuff that made me question initially (can't give you that, unfortunately). Later, exploring neuroscience and other areas of psychology and consciousness studies, I couldn't find anything that made me confident that researchers in neuropsychcology, endocrinology, immunology, etc currently have the answers to the hard questions of consciousness. Integrating a lot of learning led me to the neutral monist perspective, which led me to Hammeroff and Pemrose's "Orch OR theory. This theory ties in quantum theory and seems to explain certain things, particularly related to memory. Further, taking this information considered in light of computer science and new revelations of genetics studies, makes me feel that reality could look a lot like a holographic simulation. And with theories (with experimental data http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24...BYyVRbDXZg) proposed stating time is potentially illusory, coupled with the potential of a multiverse, it makes me wonder if we are not experiencing the game play of a simulated life on this planet that was captured in it's entirety (all possibilities) at once, but is being experienced by our awareness in "real time".

I know this all does nothing to actually describe anything about an intelligent designer, influence, however, you asked what makes me question it, so that's it... So far...

[The Grand Nudger]

So you're 80% sure that there is intellignece or influence, yadda yadda- based upon things which you have just stated have nothing to do with intelligence or influence?

Mystifying, amigo.

An alternative theory is that nothing you just described is actually at the core of your wonderings, that it's just overlay on something else. Those things seem to fit, to you, with some other proposition which is, more accurately, the source of your level of certainty.

[sswhateverlove]

So you're 80% sure that there is intellignece or influence, yadda yadda- based upon things which you have just stated have nothing to do with intelligence or influence?

Mystifying, amigo.

An alternative theory is that nothing you just described is actually at the core of your wonderings, that it's just overlay on something else. Those things seem to fit, to you, with some other proposition which is, more accurately, the source of your level of certainty.

Possibly. Like I said, I recognize my personal experiences (through "spiritual-type practices") have played a part in my pursuits. I'm not going to deny that.

But I don't think that negates what I see. My assumption would be that if life operates in such a way that it is similar to something that (in it's simplest forms) intelligent life (humans) has created here, than "intelligence" (or consciousness, I tend to think of it) could be actively involved with the design and operations of life as we know it.

As far as my statement that I could not describe what the intelligence or consciousness is, that would be just guessing. Perhaps some sort of group/shared consciousness, or I don't know... I can't even say I can speculate because I think it's so beyond current understanding or words to describe. Maybe someday.

[ShaMan]

I think it's so beyond current understanding or words to describe. Maybe someday.

(excerpt)

YAY! I take back my insults

[SteelCurtain]

I'm as sure about the existence of a "sky daddy" as I'm sure about the dylexic gay rhinoceros with Asperger's that may live in a field behind my house.

And while I'm sure there isn't an intelligent, purposeful designer (other than nature's blind workings), all it would take is a little bit of evidence for either proposition for some doubt and skepticism to creep in.

The wonderful thing about not thinking that I have all the answers already is that I can take an honest look at the evidence presented an make a provisional decision. If more evidence is presented that contradicts or adds to our common knowledge, then I'll amend the things I hold to be "true."

[sswhateverlove]

I'm as sure about the existence of a "sky daddy" as I'm sure about the dylexic gay rhinoceros with Asperger's that may live in a field behind my house.

And while I'm sure there isn't an intelligent, purposeful designer (other than nature's blind workings), all it would take is a little bit of evidence for either proposition for some doubt and skepticism to creep in.

The wonderful thing about not thinking that I have all the answers already is that I can take an honest look at the evidence presented an make a provisional decision. If more evidence is presented that contradicts or adds to our common knowledge, then I'll amend the things I hold to be "true."

Thank you SteelCurtain, can I ask what you think about the idea that I proposed? About reality as I proposed it and how it makes me question. It doesn't make you?