Scared of theism

MrJoeSoap · 11-11-2006 05:24PM

John Wine wrote:

Going with your instincts also feels excellant

There is nothing "instinctive" about organised religion.

Zillah · 11-11-2006 07:46PM

MrJoeSoap wrote:

There is nothing "instinctive" about organised religion.

Thats not true. People have a very strong instinct to arrange themselves into religious heirarchies. Thats why it happens constantly in every culture ever.

Modern communications have made it so those organisational structures have swollen to unheard of proportions, but the principle is the same.

John Wine · 11-11-2006 09:49PM

The Atheist wrote:

Do your own thinking.

What do you think it is?

There is no such thing as common sense. There is such a thing as intrinsic sense but it clearly varies from person to person.
A faith is instinctive, atheism is not instinctive. It is a philosophy based more not beliefing something because of your instincts but only believing something based on evidence that exists outside your instincts.
So what use are the instincts?

MrJoeSoap · 11-11-2006 10:06PM

John Wine wrote:

A faith is instinctive, atheism is not instinctive.

A quest for the knowledge of where one came from is instinctive, but a belief in a specific religion isn't. If someone was born into a society devoid of any religious notions would they find belief in Allah or God, etc...? No. Atheism is the result many people find to the question of where we came from.

John Wine wrote:

It is a philosophy based more not beliefing something because of your instincts but only believing something based on evidence that exists outside your instincts.

Exactly, "evidence".

John Wine wrote:

So what use are the instincts?

In this case, our instinct helps us find a rational conclusion in which we can believe.

Zillah · 12-11-2006 02:13AM

John Wine wrote:

There is no such thing as common sense. There is such a thing as intrinsic sense but it clearly varies from person to person.
A faith is instinctive, atheism is not instinctive. It is a philosophy based more not beliefing something because of your instincts but only believing something based on evidence that exists outside your instincts.
So what use are the instincts?

You seem to be arguing that the fact that religious belief is instictive makes it more valid some how. Is this the case? (I'll at least confirm it before I slam you for it...)

Dades · 12-11-2006 05:27AM

Beruthiel wrote:

We are glitches in the Matrix of religion

I like that.

The red pill - every time.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 10:42AM

MrJoeSoap wrote:

A quest for the knowledge of where one came from is instinctive, but a belief in a specific religion isn't. If someone was born into a society devoid of any religious notions would they find belief in Allah or God, etc...? No. Atheism is the result many people find to the question of where we came from.

You misunderstand me. I am not arguing religion but more spirituality, theism and the existence of God. I see religion as just cultural and political spin.
People have always been born into societies where spiritual notions have existed. It is part of the human species to experience these feelings but more than likely not part of any other species. Not that I know off.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Exactly, "evidence".

My evidence is intrinsic.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

In this case, our instinct helps us find a rational conclusion in which we can believe.

Yes, but there is no difference between your instincts and your external evidence. In my case there is a massive difference.

Zillah wrote:

You seem to be arguing that the fact that religious belief is instictive makes it more valid some how. Is this the case? (I'll at least confirm it before I slam you for it...)

No, I am arguing that it is sometimes right to follow your instinctive feelings as long as they are legal and do no harm to others.
Loving someone for example. It is an intrinsic notion that I love my family. I will live my life this way as I am happier and more comfortable doing this.
I cannot produce a mathematical equation to proof this, I am relying on my instincts and my intrinsic evidence.

I am saying I experience these feelings so I will follow them, even if they are irrational i.e. cannot be verified by scientific evidence.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 11:20AM

so you believe what you want, despite what science or any other discipline tells us about the universe?

good man, if only we had 6 billion more people like you
]

John Wine · 12-11-2006 11:24AM

Mordeth wrote:

so you believe what you want, despite what science or any other discipline tells us about the universe?

good man, if only we had 6 billion more people like you
]

I pretty much tentatively accept everything Science tells us about the universe.
I don't see your point.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 11:34AM

I am saying I experience these feelings so I will follow them, even if they are irrational i.e. cannot be verified by scientific evidence.

i'm saying the fact that you 'experience' these feelings means absolutely nothing... except that you experience them. it doesn't validate them in any way, shape or form. We lock people up in institutions and rubber rooms for behaving in a manner not too unlike what you suggest there.

No, I am arguing that it is sometimes right to follow your instinctive feelings as long as they are legal and do no harm to others.

but if instincts are to be trusted and accepted as a means for learning about the universe, what does that say about any law that tries to regulate or subvert them? ... kind of puts our legal system into question.

Loving someone for example. It is an intrinsic notion that I love my family. I will live my life this way as I am happier and more comfortable doing this.
I cannot produce a mathematical equation to proof this, I am relying on my instincts and my intrinsic evidence.

you love your family because they raised you and cared for you as a child, and as a child you bonded with members of your family, primarily your mother (more than likely) and these good experiences accumulated over time to provide you with this feeling of 'love'

That's not instinct. Google a bit on feral children to find out about human instinct. You're lucky you can even think about loving your family, or anyone. It's not guaranteed for any ape, hairless or not.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 11:57AM

Mordeth wrote:

i'm saying the fact that you 'experience' these feelings means absolutely nothing... except that you experience them. it doesn't validate them in any way, shape or form. We lock people up in institutions and rubber rooms for behaving in a manner not too unlike what you suggest there.

It means absolutely nothing to you, but it means something to me.
There is no scientific evidence to support me loving my family I hope you don't lock me up for that too.

Mordeth wrote:

but if instincts are to be trusted and accepted as a means for learning about the universe, what does that say about any law that tries to regulate or subvert them? ... kind of puts our legal system into question.

No, this is a personnel thing. It should be kept out of the legal system.
These feelings mean nothing to understanding the universe in a scientific manner, they are purely a reflection of what I feel there is outside the remit of science.

Mordeth wrote:

you love your family because they raised you and cared for you as a child, and as a child you bonded with members of your family, primarily your mother (more than likely) and these good experiences accumulated over time to provide you with this feeling of 'love'

That's not instinct. Google a bit on feral children to find out about human instinct. You're lucky you can even think about loving your family, or anyone. It's not guaranteed for any ape, hairless or not.

My point is not that it is guarenteed, my point is that it is intrinsic and instinctive. I don't need equations for it.
I love all my family members equally even though some may be more caring than others.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 12:00PM

that last post took me ten minutes to write, I'm so hungover so I'm just gona say this

there is nothing outside the remit of science.
nothing!

science H. Logic!

never even heard the word remit before so I hope we're both using it correctly.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 01:13PM

Mordeth wrote:

that last post took me ten minutes to write, I'm so hungover so I'm just gona say this

there is nothing outside the remit of science.
nothing!

science H. Logic!

never even heard the word remit before so I hope we're both using it correctly.

Well science can have a go at most things, and I am find it very interesting.
But it doesn't negate my need or interest in a meta physical god.
Can Science get rid of your hangover

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 01:20PM

yes it can

there is a scientific method for getting rid of a hangover, drinking water and eating a little bit until I feel better

Someone noticed they felt better after drinking a bit of water and eating, they theorized as to why that was then performed experiments to see exactly if and how it worked, then they told all their drunkard friends (peer review) who repeated the experiments.

and science can have a go at god, theists just refuse to accept the 'no evidence, no reason'

John Wine · 12-11-2006 01:35PM

Mordeth wrote:

yes it can there is a scientific method for getting rid of a hangover, drinking water and eating a little bit until I feel better

Someone noticed they felt better after drinking a bit of water and eating, they theorized as to why that was then performed experiments to see exactly if and how it worked, then they told all their drunkard friends (peer review) who repeated the experiments.

and science can have a go at god, theists just refuse to accept the 'no evidence, no reason'

No, theists accept intrinsic evidence. BTW Try put a bit of salt in that water and get some lucozade sport drinks.

Crucifix · 12-11-2006 01:39PM

John Wine wrote:

No, theists accept intrinsic evidence. BTW Try put a bit of salt in that water and get some lucozade sport drinks.

Doesn't salt water make people throw up?

12-11-2006 01:39PM

Apparently it's good to help retain the water...

but it tastes like you should throw up

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 02:15PM

No, theists accept intrinsic evidence

I've been googling, trying to find out what you meant by that I just can't get my head around it... could you explain it ?

John Wine · 12-11-2006 02:30PM

Mordeth wrote:

I've been googling, trying to find out what you meant by that I just can't get my head around it... could you explain it ?

What I mean by intrinsic evidence, is evidence that only exists within someone.
It is a feeling that is deep within me.
I cannot show it to you, in fact it's very difficult to even explain it.
It cannot be measured by a compass, a rador, or any scientific aparatus.

MrJoeSoap · 12-11-2006 02:30PM

John Wine wrote:

What I mean by intrinsic evidence, is evidence that only exists within someone.
It is a feeling that is deep within me.
I cannot show it to you, in fact it's very difficult to even explain it.
It cannot be measured by a compass, a rador, or any scientific aparatus.

So you can't google it...

Dades · 12-11-2006 02:38PM

John Wine wrote:

BTW Try put a bit of salt in that water and get some lucozade sport drinks.

Funny you should say that - I was out till 4am and am reading this thread with a bottle of lucozade.

Am about to around a soccer pitch for an hour - that's how to get rid of a hangover.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 02:45PM

What I mean by intrinsic evidence, is evidence that only exists within someone.
It is a feeling that is deep within me.
I cannot show it to you, in fact it's very difficult to even explain it.
It cannot be measured by a compass, a rador, or any scientific aparatus.

....

right

can it be measured in midi-chlorians perhaps?

intrinsic evidence is worthless. completely useless and sometimes dangerous. It's the same kind of intrinsic evidence that drives serial killers, rapists and racists. The fact that you 'feel something' 'deep within you' means nothing, apart from being slightly homoerotic

I 'feel' that there is no god, I 'feel' I do not have a soul and that all that I think about when I think about my, myself and I is the goings-on of my brain doing what it does. I don't know of the scientific evidence for this, I haven't done the required work myself and I have only read a couple of books and watched a couple of debates on the subject, but I've based this opinion (sorry, 'feeling') on information learned through my meagre education and I leave the question open at all times to debate. That is more than most theists can admit to, especially ones with 'feelings'.

The scientific evidence for my belief is difficult to explain, and sometimes to understand but it CAN be shown to you (Not by me, I've already said I'm dumb). Theists either refuse to accept it, or try try try to ignore it.

believing in something just because it 'feels right' is childish, and it's something every adult should have out grown out of well after their teens.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 02:46PM

The Atheist wrote:

Funny you should say that - I was out till 4am and am reading this thread with a bottle of lucozade.

Am about to around a soccer pitch for an hour - that's how to get rid of a hangover.

Well I'd go for the rugby pitch myself. I grew out of Soccer long time ago.
As for not being able to google it, well that's an interesting comment.
I would say that all theist literature, Christian, Islam, Buddist etc. is an effort to try to explain these intrinsic feelings. The very fact that they can't reach agreement is evidence to me that it's very difficult to explain. As for looking for evidence of these intrinsic feelings, I would say look at the various theist literature around the world, or various other theist traditions.
I would argue that the majority of humans are programmed with these feelings.
Atheists don't seem to get them or else they deny them because they are irrational.

Mordeth, if you could point out a danger that my irrational belief in God has created then you might have a point. But you are picking extreme cases where irrationalist are dangerous. It's the kind of thing Dawkins does, goes to extremes to make a point. Very few theists are a danger to society.
In fact what statistical evidence is there to show that theists are more dangerous to society than atheists?

I disagree with you intrinsic evidence is worthless. How do we measure worth anyway? It is entirely subjective.
There is no Scientific evidence there is no God, there is no Scientific evidence there is a God.
Science tells us nothing on this issue.
Believing in something is generally because it feel rights or because of some emotionally related experience.
I believe in a welfare state because helping poor people feels right. Poverty makes me feel sad.
I believe in God, because I experience spiritual feelings which help me. I accept these feelings and I feel I benefit emotionally by accepting them.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 12-11-2006 02:49PM

Atheists don't seem to get them.

buuuuurn.

We get them, we just know better than to trust them. We're human, not stupid.

12-11-2006 03:28PM

John Wine wrote:

I would say that all theist literature, Christian, Islam, Buddist etc. is an effort to try to explain these intrinsic feelings.

Buddhism is by default non-theistic (which is why we have a buddhist mod in this forum)

and it strongly encourages rational thought, not touchyfeely stuff

The very fact that they can't reach agreement is evidence to me that it's very difficult to explain.

Yes but so what? That still doesn't mean anyone's "intrinsic feelings" are correct

5uspect · 12-11-2006 04:03PM

John Wine wrote:

I would say that all theist literature, Christian, Islam, Buddist etc. is an effort to try to explain these intrinsic feelings. The very fact that they can't reach agreement is evidence to me that it's very difficult to explain. As for looking for evidence of these intrinsic feelings, I would say look at the various theist literature around the world, or various other theist traditions.

But how are any of these ideas any more true than anything anyone can think of? All it shows is the limits of human imagination and in the case of the more popular religions a failure to think for oneself.

John Wine wrote:

I would argue that the majority of humans are programmed with these feelings.
Atheists don't seem to get them or else they deny them because they are irrational.

It's been suggested in the scientific literature and elsewhere that the human brain evolved a tendency to believe as it may have been a useful survival mechanism for individuals, especially children, where the mythical stories of village elders scared children into not wandering too far from the immediate safety of the village. Those that believed survived to reproduce those that didn't believe - helped another species so to speak.

Atheists acknowledge that there are a million possibilities for the questions that we don't yet have evidence to answer so any proposed solution is worthless in the meantime. Our personal psychologies are not evidence.

John Wine wrote:

Mordeth, if you could point out a danger that my irrational belief in God has created then you might have a point. But you are picking extreme cases where irrationalist are dangerous. It's the kind of thing Dawkins does, goes to extremes to make a point. Very few theists are a danger to society.
In fact what statistical evidence is there to show that theists are more dangerous to society than atheists?

Wasn't there a survey posted here or on the creationism thread recently that showed that voluntarily secular countries faired better and were happier than voluntarily religious countries? Dawkins may show the extremes but the statistics tend to show that religious belief does not make a better society. I'll see if I can find that survey...

John Wine wrote:

I disagree with you intrinsic evidence is worthless. How do we measure worth anyway? It is entirely subjective.

Do you think intrinsic belief is all that is needed in anything other than evidence of the existence of a theistic god? If you were on a jury would you go with a gut feeling about someones guilt? What qualifies the truth of a good feeling triggered by the endorphins released by your brain when you think about an idea?

John Wine wrote:

There is no Scientific evidence there is no God, there is no Scientific evidence there is a God
Science tells us nothing on this issue.

Which leaves us with what then? Gut feelings? Theistic religion proposes a god that interacts with the physical world, surely there is a lot science can say about it. Many people seem to think that since science says that miracle X in impossible then god did it. Maybe miracle X didn't happen, maybe something else occurred that made it appear that miracle X happened. If there is one thing science tells us is that we must consider every possibility, so far the possibility that a god did it has never ever been needed.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 04:05PM

Mordeth wrote:

buuuuurn.

We get them, we just know better than to trust them. We're human, not stupid.

You think it is "better" not to trust them that's the subjective part.
Anyway back to the OP, is this what freaks atheists out, that they get the same feelings that theists get then?
Bluewolf, I am not saying that I am correct just because I get these feelings,I am just saying I opt to accept and follow them, I see no good reason why I should not.

John Wine · 12-11-2006 04:09PM

5uspect wrote:

so far the possibility that a god did it has never ever been needed.

I'll put it to you this way no Science has ever been explain to me where I get my spirtual feelings from or that I am better off disregarding them.

12-11-2006 04:10PM

John Wine wrote:

You think it is "better" not to trust them that's the subjective part.
Anyway back to the OP, is this what freaks atheists out, that they get the same feelings that theists get then?
Bluewolf, I am not saying that I am correct just because I get these feelings,I am just saying I opt to accept and follow them, I see no good reason why I should not.

If we all acted on all our feelings I'm sure the world would be a worse place to live in

5uspect · 12-11-2006 04:15PM

John Wine wrote:

I'll put it to you this way no Science has ever been explain to me where I get my spirtual feelings from or that I am better off disregarding them.

Have you looked?

Scared of theism

Comments