Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 16:35:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 9, 2014 9:51:07 GMT -5
If he has doubts, then exploring other points of view is the thing to do. But doing so publicly seems like a bit of a stunt. Or maybe at the end of the year he's planning to publicly denounce atheism.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 10, 2014 14:58:51 GMT -5
In my early 20s as I was struggling with being a Christian I attempted something similar. I was having problems reconciling science, treatment of women, and the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Christianity and so had become a "liberal" Christian. But still the issues weighed heavily. So I too experimented but only for 5 minutes: what would it be like to be an atheist for five minutes and then go back to being a Christian. After the 5 minutes were up I was unable to go back to being a Christian. I really did not expect that to happen but for the first time in my adult conscious life I wasn't having to try to find a way to make Christian morality jibe with what I knew was right and wrong (plus the stuff).
As for your question I cannot imagine trying out Christianity for a year (or 5 minutes) as it is something I did for like 15 years as it was plus there is no reason (as above) to do so except, perhaps, idle curiosity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2014 16:04:14 GMT -5
You're very similar to many of the atheists who are or have been members of FACTS in that they have had the history of being turned off by dogmatic fundamentalism. The other factor, which oddly enough you haven't mentioned, is the rejection of anything that smacks of the supernatural.
What I find really interesting is neither you nor the pastor in the article talk about having problems with the belief in God. It seems to be other people and the institutions that bother you both.
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 10, 2014 20:12:16 GMT -5
It was not a matter of rejecting church dogma. It was coming to the conclusion that God is immoral (via his views on women and homosexuality). But how can God be immoral if God is omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of everything, and the sole arbiter of what is good and evil? By definition he can't be immoral. Unless the first part of that (omniscient et al) is wrong. So by rejecting God's moral code I was in fact rejecting the existence of God.
And once God is out of the picture the rest falls like dominoes. I had not then nor have I since experienced anything that I felt could only be explained as caused by the supernatural. So now the only evidence of the supernatural was the Bible. But the only thing that makes the Bible a reliable source is if God (as defined above) exists. Without God the Bible is not a reliable source and therefore there was no evidence (that felt compelling to me) left that anything supernatural had ever occurred.
So my path to atheism did result in rejecting the supernatural as well as the concept of God.
Edit: I should also mention that this was the thought process I used over 20 years ago. In the years since my thoughts on the subject have become more nuanced.
Edit 2: Also worth noting, I was part of the original original Skeptic's board way back when but haven't been around in a long long while.
Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2014 23:54:54 GMT -5
Hi, Dave. Welcome back. I wasn't around on the board back then, but there are probably some here who would remember you.
And by "nuanced" you mean what?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 11, 2014 1:31:21 GMT -5
I was wondering if you were Barefoot Dave. Nice to hear from you after a year or ten.
I was raised catholic. For as long as I lived "at home" there was no option about it, or even any discussion. But by the end of high school religion had lost most of whatever grip it might once have had on me, and I was just going to mass with the family because that is what we did. Religion was an empty shell, a fancy package holding nothing.
When I went off to college, and didn't have the family routine to keep it alive, the last of my religiosity [that must be a word as spell check didn't object] quietly and quickly slipped away. It was not missed. In today's jargon, I was a "none" at 18.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 13:30:35 GMT -5
Oh, hey! I do remember Barefoot Dave. What took you so long?
|
|
|
Post by bfootdav on Jan 11, 2014 14:13:23 GMT -5
Lily, by nuanced I mean I now include various philosophical ideas concerning what we know, how we know what we think we know and so on. Plus the history of the Judeo-Christian religion(s) via textual analysis as well as historical records. The more one looks into all this the more one sees the clear hands of human intervention and invention in the entire process. It's all far more interesting as a phenomenon of human construction than one of supernatural creation.
Raybar, yep, I am Barefoot Dave. I have been checking in over the years but only now decided to post. I'm sure a debate on free will is imminent once Bob gets wind of my presence.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 11, 2014 17:06:28 GMT -5
Lily, by nuanced I mean I now include various philosophical ideas concerning what we know, how we know what we think we know and so on. Plus the history of the Judeo-Christian religion(s) via textual analysis as well as historical records. The more one looks into all this the more one sees the clear hands of human intervention and invention in the entire process. It's all far more interesting as a phenomenon of human construction than one of supernatural creation. Raybar, yep, I am Barefoot Dave. I have been checking in over the years but only now decided to post. I'm sure a debate on free will is imminent once Bob gets wind of my presence. Yep. I'll make a new thread. Bob P.S. Great to see you again Dave.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 18, 2014 12:30:50 GMT -5
I didn't have to try it out for a year, I grew up in a totally Christian environment. Never even met someone who was not a Christian until I was a senior in high school. My drift from belief did not come from being upset with the worst Christian extremists - instead, I was quite serious about the religion and I wanted to know more about it. Slowly, over several years, I found that the deeper I dug, the less there was to find. Once my faith in Christianity began to wane, I studied other religions, the supernatural and the paranormal. After years of study, I found that none of them were true. I wanted them to be true, and was very, very disappointed when I discovered that they were not. I'm not afraid of the supernatural, or any of the other things that believers often say about skeptics. It's just not real. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 13:16:31 GMT -5
Fred, what were you expecting/hoping to find in your religious/supernatural search?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 19, 2014 16:36:13 GMT -5
Well, since I grew up immersed (drowned?) in religion and superstition, I assumed that at least some of must be true. Somewhere. I was looking for the "real" thing. After many, many years, I gave up on that and followed Susan Blackmore's idea. If there is no such thing as the supernatural, why do people have "supernatural" experiences? Which led me to read about studies on how the brain works. And that's where I found my answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 18:41:05 GMT -5
But what would you have expected to be the "real thing"? That was really the point of my question.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 20, 2014 16:49:50 GMT -5
Actual supernatural or paranormal anything. Instead of people believing that things are supernatural or paranormal when they are not. Does Thor make lightening and thunder? Nope. Can yogis live without food or water for months? Nope. Did God wipe out New Orleans because of their sinful lifestyle? Nope.
And so on.
There are no gods, goddesses, angels, spirits, demons, etc. Just people mistaking material things for such beings.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 20, 2014 18:44:26 GMT -5
The fact that people mistake material things for non-material things doesn't mean that non-material things don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 20, 2014 18:57:20 GMT -5
The fact that people mistake material things for non-material things doesn't mean that non-material things don't exist. Non-material things such as light and gravity exist. But there is no evidence whatsoever that [to quote Fred's list] "gods, goddesses, angels, spirits, demons" or any other supernatural or paranormal anything exists. If I am mistaken, and there is verifiable objective evidence that something supernatural or paranormal does exist, present it please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2014 19:23:57 GMT -5
Actual supernatural or paranormal anything. Instead of people believing that things are supernatural or paranormal when they are not. Does Thor make lightening and thunder? Nope. Can yogis live without food or water for months? Nope. Did God wipe out New Orleans because of their sinful lifestyle? Nope. And so on. There are no gods, goddesses, angels, spirits, demons, etc. Just people mistaking material things for such beings. And specifically how did you test these things that you say are just material things that people mistake for supernatural things? I suppose you used the scientific method?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 20, 2014 19:26:48 GMT -5
Well, as I'm sure you know, scientific research into various kinds of psychic ability has produced overwhelmingly positive results. In fact no major research into this area has ever found negative results.
Apart from that, "paranormal" phenomena tend to be spontaneous occurrences. A person who experiences a premonition, for instance, doesn't get 24 hours advance notification that this is going to happen. Just as a person about to undergo surgery has no way of knowing that they are about to have an out-of-body experience. So by their very nature these things are difficult to verify objectively. That doesn't mean they don't happen, or that they aren't real.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 20, 2014 20:17:00 GMT -5
Actual supernatural or paranormal anything. Instead of people believing that things are supernatural or paranormal when they are not. Does Thor make lightening and thunder? Nope. Can yogis live without food or water for months? Nope. Did God wipe out New Orleans because of their sinful lifestyle? Nope. And so on. There are no gods, goddesses, angels, spirits, demons, etc. Just people mistaking material things for such beings. Hi Fred! Just one question....how has it been proven that these people are all mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 21, 2014 14:39:13 GMT -5
Contrary to Mr Blarney's assertion that "...no major research into this area has ever found any negative results...", the truth is exactly the opposite: no major research into this area has ever found any positive results that stood up under scrutiny. All positive claims fail once errors in procedure and such are corrected. There are, in fact, many, many studies over the years that began with joyous claims of "AT LAST!", only to deflate into embarrassed silence once outsiders looked at the protocols. Susan Blackmore is a good reference for details of such things. She got a doctorate in parapsychology from a university in Britain. After 10 years post-grad work of looking at the best positive paranormal claims that science could offer (and finding them ALL bogus), she finally gave up and decided that there was nothing there.
And, no, Zak, I don't want to get into dueling experts with you. We've been through that before. There are plenty of people like Susan Blackmore and various skeptic sites that keep track of the failures and what was wrong with them.
Tricia - We don't have to prove that all of people are mistaken, since that's impossible. We look at the best claims, those that are supposedly supported by the best evidence and research. If those fail, then the odds are very good that other, lesser supported claims will also fail. We also consider how the average brain works to create "paranormal experiences" in all of us. Claims of the paranormal or supernatural have to exclude the possibility honest error, along with all the many fakes and money-making paranormal frauds.
In other words, we don't have to fingerprint everyone in the world to make sure that fingerprints are a good method of identification. If we do a couple of million and no two are exactly alike (except possibly twins), then we can extrapolate and say that, unless someone can present future evidence to the contrary, fingerprints are unique. After about 150 years of research into the paranormal, nothing has been found. Each year that passes without finding such evidence only increases the odds that there was nothing there to begin with.
I have often stated that those who honestly believe in the paranormal should join skeptics in rooting out the frauds and those who believe, but clearly have no paranormal abilities. Clears the air for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 21, 2014 14:57:27 GMT -5
Thanks for that Fred. Well said. I wish I had time to post more, but work and (once again) f***ing house guests (not that I don't love them) are really interfering with my real life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2014 15:34:52 GMT -5
Just to bring this thread back in to focus, it never was about proving or disproving anything. It's really a search about "life, what is it all about." People don't become religious or atheist after doing a bunch of research and experimentation and then picking one side or the other. Or making a list of advantages and disadvantages. Not usually anyway. No one who really believes is going to "try out atheism" just to see if that may be more easy, convenient or intellectual. Yes, some are born into some religion and either really believe or just go with it because it's comfortable or more accepted in their social circle. There's all kind of reasons for anything people choose.
"There are eight million stories in the naked city; this has been one ..."
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 26, 2014 21:04:36 GMT -5
"the truth is exactly the opposite: no major research into this area has ever found any positive results that stood up under scrutiny."
Under scrutiny from people like Susan Blackmore, James Randi and others who have made a career of "debunking" psychic phenomena. These people - and I have had dealings with both Randi and Blackmore - are neither honest nor objective. They attack studies which find positive evidence of psychic abilities by *claiming* that the tests weren't carried out properly, or that there were insufficient controls, or - when all else fails - that the researchers cheated. In fact double-blind methods are used in parapsychology more than in any other area of scientific investigation.
As I said, every major study into psychic abilities has found positive evidence, and none of that evidence has ever been refuted by Randi, Blackmore et all. If you think differently, post your evidence here.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 27, 2014 17:01:17 GMT -5
Like I wrote before, I don't have the time or interest in playing dueling experts with you over the Internet. We've done that before over the years and it's just a waste of effort. Just as you accuse my experts of making a career out of debunking, I accuse yours of making a career out of gullibility, and, in some cases, outright fraud. No point in us discussing the matter.
There's much, much more money to be made in supporting claims of ESP and such than there is in debunking them. Whoever had a best-selling book about why ghosts DON'T exist? LOL. Why would any reasonable person choose not only the wrong side, but the one that leads away from riches? Unless it's true. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 17:18:27 GMT -5
That is really unfair, Fred. Out of the few rich celebrity psychics, there are many more who do have psychic abilities who are just everyday people. You're using a red herrring argument.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 28, 2014 9:33:46 GMT -5
Nay, Lily, that's not what I said. My statement is that you can make more money selling and promoting paranormal beliefs than you can debunking them. I didn't say that EVERY psychic is rich or that EVERY debunker is begging on the street. Yes, most psychics, professional and otherwise, are not rich. But no debunker has come close to making the kind of money that the top professional super-star psychics make from their books, DVDs, TV shows, etc. Even obvious psychic frauds can do very well financially, if they have the talent as entertainers.
Just check US TV listings. There are dozens of current shows promoting the paranormal as real, maybe as many as 10-20 per day. How many debunking shows are there? One or two, on a good day. Some days none at all.
Follow the money. 8->
That's
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 28, 2014 9:49:29 GMT -5
That is really unfair, Fred. Out of the few rich celebrity psychics, there are many more who do have psychic abilities who are just everyday people. You're using a red herrring argument. But do they really have psychic abilities, or do the just think they do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 18:51:31 GMT -5
Since just about everyone has had some kind of psychic experience especially along the lines of precogntion, we know it's real. It's just that some people have it stronger than others.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 28, 2014 19:11:35 GMT -5
"My statement is that you can make more money selling and promoting paranormal beliefs than you can debunking them." Not true. This is one of those claims repeatedly made by "skeptics" that is completely without substance. As someone who has written and published several books in the "psychic" genre, I keep a close eye on sale figures in this category, and I know for a fact that books "debunking" psychic abilities do just as well, and in many cases better, than books "promoting" the paranormal. There are three reasons for this. 1. Most skeptical-orientated books are nevertheless aimed at the "psychic" demographic, and appear on bookshelves alongside, "pro psychic" books. In other words they target the same market; and in most cases the cover and blurb is designed to appeal to readers with an interest in psychic topics. In many cases, skeptical-orientated books are quite cynically and dishonestly written to appeal to believers in psychic abilities. A good example of this is James Randi's "Test Your ESP Potential (A Complete Kit with Instructions)" - a book clearly aimed at the "psychic/paranormal" market with a title which strongly implies that the author accepts the reality of psychic abilities. (Randi's "get out" in this case is that he has never actually claimed that psychic abilities DO NOT exist.) My own book "Test Your Psi-Q" was plagiarised (ie, stolen) by Hans J. Eysenck and Carl Sargent, and published as "Know Your Psi-Q". 2. Skeptical-orientated books are often marketed to two demographics - ie, in both the "popular psychology/science" and "psychic/paranormal" categories (often - as in the case of the Randi book mentioned above - with different covers). 3. The majority of "pro psychic" books are what you might call "grist to the mill" publications, and don't really have any impact. Books "debunking" psychic abilities are usually promoted more effectively and featured more prominently on book stands. "Like I wrote before, I don't have the time or interest in playing dueling experts with you over the Internet. We've done that before over the years and it's just a waste of effort. Just as you accuse my experts of making a career out of debunking, I accuse yours of making a career out of gullibility, and, in some cases, outright fraud." Well, okay; but all you're really saying here is that you are content to claim (or accept the claims of dishonest people like Randi) that any research into psychic abilities that produces positive results must be bogus, but you can't be bothered to give specific examples or substantiate your claim. Skeptics always claim that there is no scientific evidence to support ESP, when what they really mean is that they themselves do not accept the evidence.
|
|