Believing in Deities is a Form of Psychosis

[brewer]

Wrong, wrong, wrong once again.

The original point was whether the physical reality can or can not alter your consciousness and the answer is not unless you produce an action with the intent in which case it does, so it is the intent that determine whether the action will alter the consciousness or not.

Our consciousness is connected to our body and brain so it is obvious that when our body or brain suffer in any way our consciousness feel the hit so to speak but to alter the consciousness is a totally different story.
The only thing that will alter our consciousness is not a reaction but an action.
When you have an unintentional accident that is a reaction to previous action-s.
Any thing you do in good faith that produce reactions are due to previous actions.
On the other hand anything that you do with the intent to do produce a reaction.
There is no such a thing as good or bad luck.
Everything is due to actions and reactions so a reaction can not possibly alter your consciousness but an action will.  

So the answer is that physical reality (science) can alter consciousness, you just admitted it. Stop squirming to try and get out of it.

Are you really going down the path of which came first, action or reaction? Please, nice dodge attempt.

[mordant]

I as an anti-theist will oppose theism because of its lack of truthfulness but I will not oppose it because I think I have the right conclusions about life.

One of the reasons I oppose theism is because it is a failed epistemology that does not and inherently cannot lead towards truth. As such, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I have all the 100% correct conclusions about life, meaning purpose and so forth, I do not let my epistemological humility go so far as to say I'm not confident I have more accurate conclusions vs someone who is just embracing unsubstantiated assertions.

I will not even oppose all types of theism the same since conflating the semantics of pantheism to Abrahamic monotheism is unfair.

Totally agree with you here. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly the fundamentalist-leaning parts, are the biggest problem by far. I have a lot of common cause with liberal Christians, post-Christians (e.g. Unitarian/Universalists), pantheists, etc.

I would not even oppose those who are like myself and enjoy the mythology of religion or what religions has to offer because I feel upset about that religions past. I would happily rejoin Islam if it dropped the theistic Muhammadiyyah bullshit and became a purely secular religion based on the practical opinions of al-Ma'ari and Zakariya al-Razi. That's not happening at the moment so I will have to hold my subscription.

A non-theistic version of Islam, I agree, isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Non-theistic Buddhism and Taoism already exists, though. Do you have any particular objection to those?

The hate given towards religion as a concept though is unfounded and completely misinformed.

"Hate" is an overdetermined charge. Most atheists don't "hate" religion, literally. Many of us find it highly problematic, and I grant you, the confusion of religion with theism isn't 100% justified (maybe just 90%) because of the examples I gave just above, of non-theistic religions. I think our true beef is probably more with theism and more precisely with affording belief to the unsubstantiated, whether that be gods, the supernatural invisible realms / afterlives, unsupported cosmologies, and the like.

[Astonished]

I as an anti-theist will oppose theism because of its lack of truthfulness but I will not oppose it because I think I have the right conclusions about life.

One of the reasons I oppose theism is because it is a failed epistemology that does not and inherently cannot lead towards truth. As such, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I have all the 100% correct conclusions about life, meaning purpose and so forth, I do not let my epistemological humility go so far as to say I'm not confident I have more accurate conclusions vs someone who is just embracing unsubstantiated assertions.

I will not even oppose all types of theism the same since conflating the semantics of pantheism to Abrahamic monotheism is unfair.

Totally agree with you here. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly the fundamentalist-leaning parts, are the biggest problem by far. I have a lot of common cause with liberal Christians, post-Christians (e.g. Unitarian/Universalists), pantheists, etc.

I would not even oppose those who are like myself and enjoy the mythology of religion or what religions has to offer because I feel upset about that religions past. I would happily rejoin Islam if it dropped the theistic Muhammadiyyah bullshit and became a purely secular religion based on the practical opinions of al-Ma'ari and Zakariya al-Razi. That's not happening at the moment so I will have to hold my subscription.

A non-theistic version of Islam, I agree, isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Non-theistic Buddhism and Taoism already exists, though. Do you have any particular objection to those?

The hate given towards religion as a concept though is unfounded and completely misinformed.

"Hate" is an overdetermined charge. Most atheists don't "hate" religion, literally. Many of us find it highly problematic, and I grant you, the confusion of religion with theism isn't 100% justified (maybe just 90%) because of the examples I gave just above, of non-theistic religions. I think our true beef is probably more with theism and more precisely with affording belief to the unsubstantiated, whether that be gods, the supernatural invisible realms / afterlives, unsupported cosmologies, and the like.

I think any of those that involve 'faith' are a problem, regardless of the content. Being irrational is not a good idea. If you can somehow invent a religion or theistic framework or other mythology that somehow requires a dogmatic belief in it that somehow doesn't involve faith, then that wouldn't fall under the umbrella of something that deserves hate or opposition. It's just one doesn't generally find any of those things that are able to be entirely divorced from that.

[ComradeMeow]

One of the reasons I oppose theism is because it is a failed epistemology that does not and inherently cannot lead towards truth. As such, while I wouldn't go so far as to say I have all the 100% correct conclusions about life, meaning purpose and so forth, I do not let my epistemological humility go so far as to say I'm not confident I have more accurate conclusions vs someone who is just embracing unsubstantiated assertions.

*applaud

Totally agree with you here. The Abrahamic faiths, particularly the fundamentalist-leaning parts, are the biggest problem by far. I have a lot of common cause with liberal Christians, post-Christians (e.g. Unitarian/Universalists), pantheists, etc.

*double applaud

A non-theistic version of Islam, I agree, isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Non-theistic Buddhism and Taoism already exists, though. Do you have any particular objection to those?

I have no objections at all. I only bitch about Islam a lot because I spent all of my teenage years dedicated to it as a convert and it invested much of my intellectual pondering. I wanted to leave private school when I was a kid and I was homeschooled throughout high school until I entered college. I literally spent 4 years understanding Islam and western philosophy which was the major reason I wanted to be homeschooled. I literally screwed up my entire education due to my infatuation of Islam.

So if I seem stuck on it for unreasonable purposes I wish you can understand why. I feel that if I do nothing with my own wisdom I will have wasted my teenage youth. This is something I hold a lot of faith in which makes me very unreasonable toward it but at least I can acknowledge it. 

"Hate" is an overdetermined charge. Most atheists don't "hate" religion, literally. Many of us find it highly problematic, and I grant you, the confusion of religion with theism isn't 100% justified (maybe just 90%) because of the examples I gave just above, of non-theistic religions. I think our true beef is probably more with theism and more precisely with affording belief to the unsubstantiated, whether that be gods, the supernatural invisible realms / afterlives, unsupported cosmologies, and the like.

I did not make an assessment as to whether atheists hate or love religion as a whole. I am sure a significant portion do but I encounter this online only which does not say much since everybody hates everybody else on the internet. It seems to be an endearing quality of religion though to redefine atheism as something it is incompatible with such as a dogmatic belief or set of tenets followed by a community. I have to agree with people like Alain de Botton in that we cannot religion be left alone to the theists who only seek to spread their insecurity. There is nothing wrong with having a belief, opinions, rituals, community or a moral code. These sorts of things should be promoted more if anything.

When I see atheists leaving religion only to leave such things to the theistically inclined I cannot help but wonder how idiotic of a move it is. Religion came about for a reason and not because some crackpot smoked a bad joint and saw some spooky shit. We have beliefs and we have faith in things but as long as we can evaluate why we hold them we cannot assess what we need to do to improve our lives. 

Also 90% is too low of a number if you ask me 

[The Industrial Atheist]

No, it isn't. But if you think you are hearing god speak to you, which I have known some preachers and religous people to say, that may not be a good sign.

[mordant]

When I see atheists leaving religion only to leave such things to the theistically inclined I cannot help but wonder how idiotic of a move it is. Religion came about for a reason and not because some crackpot smoked a bad joint and saw some spooky shit.

I understand the whole Atheism 2.0 / Alain de Botton thing is trying to distill the benefits of community / refuge / ritual that religion historically has provided, with all the god-content exorcized. I think there's some merit in that. I am rather more a concrete thinker and introvert than most, and probably don't benefit from these things as much as most. But I don't disparage the potential value to many.

We have beliefs and we have faith in things but as long as we can not evaluate why we hold them we cannot assess what we need to do to improve our lives.

I assume you accidentally left the word "not" out of that statement which I added above?? Otherwise I can't understand your statement.

I think we can evaluate the basis of any belief and also why certain beliefs are more attractive than others, and why often that attractiveness varies independently of the soundness of its basis.

In my experience (coming out of fundamentalist Christianity), religious faith is generally based on a desire for certitude that doesn't exist, fed by confirmation bias and agency inference, and reinforced by people's natural need for social reciprocity and belonging. Clearly that belief system would have few adherents if it didn't provide more perceived benefits than perceived harms -- at least for the people it does in fact appeal to. In my case the cost / benefit ratio ran aground on the shoals of reality. A lot of what it promised was just that: abstract promises, largely fulfilled not in this life, but in an alleged life to come. But even the promises that were supposed to accrue in this life were not fulfilled, resulting in much frustration, consternation, suffering and disappointment. Life being too short for much of that sort of thing, I moved on from it.

Personally (and this is just me) I don't miss the community and I don't pine for it or seek to recreate it elsewhere. I did for a short time, simply because it takes time to adjust to a new normal, but I was in it for the alleged theological perks, not the pot lucks and camaraderie. Other's mileage can, and will, vary. There are as many unique mixes of reasons to adhere to a faith as there are individuals.

[Little Rik]

Wrong, wrong, wrong once again.

The original point was whether the physical reality can or can not alter your consciousness and the answer is not unless you produce an action with the intent in which case it does, so it is the intent that determine whether the action will alter the consciousness or not.

Our consciousness is connected to our body and brain so it is obvious that when our body or brain suffer in any way our consciousness feel the hit so to speak but to alter the consciousness is a totally different story.
The only thing that will alter our consciousness is not a reaction but an action.
When you have an unintentional accident that is a reaction to previous action-s.
Any thing you do in good faith that produce reactions are due to previous actions.
On the other hand anything that you do with the intent to do produce a reaction.
There is no such a thing as good or bad luck.
Everything is due to actions and reactions so a reaction can not possibly alter your consciousness but an action will.  

So the answer is that physical reality (science) can alter consciousness, you just admitted it. Stop squirming to try and get out of it.

Are you really going down the path of which came first, action or reaction? Please, nice dodge attempt.

You are more obtuse and thicker than I previously though.  
You are confusing the physical reality with the I.
It is the I with his-her actions that determine the altering of the consciousness.
External reality are totally unable to alter you even when a reaction take place.  

[brewer]

So the answer is that physical reality (science) can alter consciousness, you just admitted it. Stop squirming to try and get out of it.

Are you really going down the path of which came first, action or reaction? Please, nice dodge attempt.

You are more obtuse and thicker than I previously though.  
You are confusing the physical reality with the I.
It is the I with his-her actions that determine the altering of the consciousness.
External reality are totally unable to alter you even when a reaction take place.  

I'll probably regret this but could you give us your dissertation on the "I"?

[Astonished]

Comrade, I think you still have extremely grave misgivings about this whole thing and you can't seem to help yourself insulting the rest of us, so I am BEGGING you to please stop doing that, it's not done in mean-spiritedness as far as I know but it is still terribly irksome.

Please just, if not acknowledge these points, understand that thinkers here do acknowledge them (because they're correct) and why what you are saying can be construed as offensive:
1. People who don't embrace irrationality do not, by definition, use faith. In a religious context or otherwise, belief in something based on no evidence is something rational folk don't hold truck with. Saying we do otherwise is to insult our intelligence. Yes, everyone is CAPABLE of doing it, but you've said all people DO engage in it and that's not okay, even if you turned around later on and said the former is what you meant. It's best not to say either as a blanket statement, or one that includes rational skeptics.
2. Religion in and of itself is worthless as a means of doing anything you seem to believe it is responsible for. It is a cancerous manifestation of our in-built evolutionary development as a social species. The earliest and most primitive attempt to figure shit out and organize a power structure. If a rational skeptic framework had been adopted in its stead from very early on, we wouldn't be having these unbelievable problems still to this day. To say it's useful or in any way good is to misunderstand psychology and evolution on a scale that would embarrass the most devout apologists. Because of its lowest-common-denominator station, religion is able to appeal to the most people and it preys upon the mind's evolutionary programming, causing misfires of the otherwise useful or no-longer-needed survival mechanisms in the way that cancers do within the body. Yes, it was here first, but isn't that usually the worst version of anything? But that's all it has going for it. And it's not doing us any good staying on top.

[Little Rik]

You are more obtuse and thicker than I previously though.  :banging-head-on-desk:
You are confusing the physical reality with the I.
It is the I with his-her actions that determine the altering of the consciousness.
External reality are totally unable to alter you even when a reaction take place.  :think:

I'll probably regret this but could you give us your dissertation on the "I"?

It is pretty obvious that atheists find very very hard to understand something so simple.
Most atheists believe that we are here in this world with our knowledge and consciousness thanks to previous generations or better say thanks to the evolution of the species.
That is garbage that unfortunately grip the mind of most atheists.
Life teach us that that is not possible.
Nobody give you something for free.
Even a pedo that give lollies to a kid does that for a reason.
If we got something it is obvious that we earn it in this or in previous lives and everything that we have to endure is a consequence or result of previous actions in this or in previous lives.
This is not only karma but also science.
Doesn't science teach that every action has an equal and opposite reaction?
So who is responsible for the actions other than us.
Us is the I.
The I is our consciousness.
An earthquake or any other calamity is not our own creation.
We are not responsible for it.
If we die because of it our karma does not alter, activated and produce any further bad reaction.
Bad reactions are only due to our previous actions so if we die under the rubble of an earthquake it is because of our previous bad actions.