the former is a specific case of the latter

11/13/2010 12:40:49 PM

Quote :

"I think he was saying that the ability (or inability) to believe in the supernatural is hard-wired. Kind of like being gay or straight."

I don't agree with that either. Anyone can be indoctrinated. I was. I believed in God, the bible, and I prayed every day. When you're raised in church, and all of your friends either go to your church or some other church, you will not question your faith. If you are removed from that environment, and begin socializing with more secular people, you're liable to see your beliefs change. I'm just not at all convinced that religion is anything more than conditioning.

11/13/2010 1:07:29 PM

Quite true. You began hanging with less secular people and were indoctrinated into non-belief. There is no proof either way, so you cannot claim the former was indoctrination and the latter was learning the truth.

11/14/2010 10:56:50 AM

Quote :

"indoctrinated into non-belief"

11/14/2010 11:00:24 AM

Well, he did make it sound as if his beliefs were entirely a result of the people he was around.

Quote :

"There is no proof either way, so you cannot claim the former was indoctrination and the latter was learning the truth."

Perhaps not. But he could say that, in learning to reject fantastic claims that are unsupported by evidence, he has found a vastly superior method for seeking truth.

[Edited on November 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

11/14/2010 11:13:39 AM

Quote :

"A single religion is not a necessary institution but human brains are hard-wired, for the most part, to accept supernatural things (luck, karma, etc.) which means there will always be some kind of religion."

A single skeptic in the system proves that we don't have to accept that religion will always be there. If everyone was a skeptic regarding things which have no real evidence, religion would go bye-bye. You just don't see it now because an overwhelming majority of people are not skeptical, but given enough time and education, religion can easily go bye-bye.

We might be hard-coded to fuck everything in sight too, but we can generally adjust to our evolutionarily provided traits. We have shitty sensory systems prone to pattern seeking and hallucination, but we're adjusting.

11/14/2010 4:27:35 PM

Quote :

"Quite true. You began hanging with less secular people and were indoctrinated into non-belief. There is no proof either way, so you cannot claim the former was indoctrination and the latter was learning the truth."

I used the term secular, not atheist or anti-theist. In other words, people that just don't talk about faith; it's not part of their life. When you take away the constant reinforcement of belief, you're more likely to question that belief, and it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. "There is no proof" is a reason to lack belief in God, if anything.

11/14/2010 11:34:01 PM

Quote :

"There is no proof either way, so you cannot claim the former was indoctrination and the latter was learning the truth.""

This is garbage that's simply continued by the side that's making unfounded claims to undermine non-belief. Non-belief requires no proof.

11/15/2010 8:46:05 AM

This discussion again?

^^Atheism is not anti-theism. The former is a lack of belief. The latter is active opposition to belief, which requires contrary evidence.

Indoctrination is incidental to spirituality and atheism.

11/15/2010 9:19:58 AM

Except that there actually are mountain-loads of contrary evidence against almost every definition of god.

The only definition of god which cannot actually be disproven is the one that is indistinguishable from nothing. One whose being and effects cannot be observed.

11/15/2010 9:34:56 AM

Not true. There are a mountain of witnesses claiming to have seen God or his minions. It is just that no one has collected physical proof of the encounter.

11/15/2010 10:02:54 AM

What's not true? That there are mountains of contrary evidence? Provide a definition of god and I will provide the contradictory evidence.

Quote :

"There are a mountain of witnesses claiming to have seen God or his minions. It is just that no one has collected physical proof of the encounter."

This is not evidence. The existence of these claims without physical proof is itself actually evidence to the contrary of the claims they present.

11/15/2010 10:08:00 AM

Quote :

"The latter is active opposition to belief, which requires contrary evidence."

Anti-theism, as defined by people like Christopher Hitchens, is the active opposition to the implications of God. It's not a position on whether God exists or not.

11/15/2010 10:41:26 AM

Quote :

""The planet won't be destroyed by global warming because God promised Noah" "

I don't see the problem. Makes just as much sense as all the other inconclusive statements that have been made on the subject.

11/15/2010 11:09:53 AM

Quote :

"Provide a definition of god and I will provide the contradictory evidence."

An invisible flying spaghetti monster that chooses only to be seen by the believing. It is quite sensible to not act on anything without physical proof you can accept, but only a religious nut would proclaim there is no chance at all the FSM exists. It is sometimes impossible to prove a negative, this is one of those times.

11/15/2010 11:40:24 AM

Quote :

"but only a religious nut would proclaim there is no chance at all the FSM exists."

I see

11/15/2010 11:46:33 AM

Quote :

"I don't see the problem. Makes just as much sense as all the other inconclusive statements that have been made on the subject."

I'm sorry but I have to object here. The myth that scientific uncertainty and religious cluelessness are on the same footing is preposterous.

Quote :

"It is quite sensible to not act on anything without physical proof you can accept, but only a religious nut would proclaim there is no chance at all the FSM exists."

Reasonable people grant the FSM's existence an arbitrarily small positive weight. Just like God or Jesus or any of the other hallucinations. This is functionally equivalent to zero.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 11:47:26 AM

Quote :

"An invisible flying spaghetti monster that chooses only to be seen by the believing."

I think that would comfortably into this category:

Quote :

"The only definition of god which cannot actually be disproven is the one that is indistinguishable from nothing."

I think we know enough about the physical universe to rule out the possibility of a sentient creature existing in the form you've described.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

11/15/2010 11:54:27 AM

LoneSnark, are any of these FSM's effects visible to non-believers? Does he affect the Universe in any way other than letting those who believe in him know that he's there? Can his followers show any evidence for his existence beyond personal revelation? Does he use a method to communicate to them in any falsifiable way?

All "personal gods" fall into the category of "indistinguishable from nothing". There is absolutely no proof of them, no reason for anyone other than the person to believe in them. Even the person is not justified in their belief, because without some sort of effect in reality beyond their mind they can't actually ever be certain they aren't deluding themselves. See: every crazy person that ever made up a story that had no external validation. Again, the subject of their story's "existence" is indistinguishable from nothing. It has the same effect that the actual Santa Claus (not the story of Santa Claus mind you, we're talking about the actual character) has on the world. None.

11/15/2010 12:14:07 PM

Quote :

"Reasonable people grant the FSM's existence an arbitrarily small positive weight. This is functionally equivalent to zero."

Not at all. If all God wants is for us to let his followers hang the ten commandments on a wall, I say we let them. It costs us nothing, so "functionally equivalent to zero" is still greater than "nothing", so we should do it. Same with catastrophic global warming (CGW), if it costs us nothing to satisfy the believers, then that they have no use-able proof is irrelevant in the face of non-costs.

Quote :

"The myth that scientific uncertainty and religious cluelessness are on the same footing is preposterous."

That is the topic of this thread. The two are sometimes indistinguishable. Such as existing CGW evidence. It is technically worse, as at least with God we have witnesses that hallucinated seeing evidence. With CGW we have about the same evidence. We have scientific proof that humans sometimes hallucinate things that they expect to be there. Similarly, we have scientific proof that people writing simulators for poorly understood phenomenon almost always get the results they expected. As such, lacking the scientific procedures of double-blind studies, simulators by themselves are about the same as eye-witness testimony by itself.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ,.,]

11/15/2010 12:15:11 PM

Quote :

"Not at all. If all God wants is for us to let his followers hang the ten commandments on a wall, I say we let them. It costs us nothing, so "functionally equivalent to zero" is still greater than "nothing", so we should do it. Same with catastrophic global warming (CGW), if it costs us nothing to satisfy the believers, then that they have no use-able proof is irrelevant in the face of non-costs. "

Except for the fact that allowing religious organizations to intervene directly on public policy in the absence of sound reasoning or evidence is inviting simple disaster, either through charlatans gaming the system or through a clueless electorate damning itself and others.

It doesn't "cost us nothing" when we examine the costs of religious intervention on public policy, which has taken this country steeply downhill since the rise of Jerry Falwell's goons.

There are a continuum of possible Gods. The probability of selecting the correct one vanishes to zero in the limit, and the lack of evidence keeps this probability distribution uniform.

Quote :

"That is the topic of this thread. The two are sometimes indistinguishable. Such as existing CGW evidence. It is technically worse, as at least with God we have witnesses that hallucinated seeing evidence. With CGW we have about the same evidence. We have scientific proof that humans sometimes hallucinate things that they expect to be there. Similarly, we have scientific proof that people writing simulators for poorly understood phenomenon almost always get the results they expected. As such, lacking the scientific procedures of double-blind studies, simulators by themselves are about the same as eye-witness testimony by itself."

Something tells me you don't understand the methodology of simulation studies at all.

11/15/2010 12:21:13 PM

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

seems slightly more plausible than someone raving about a god that no one else can see.

Also:

Quote :

"Except for the fact that allowing religious organizations to intervene directly on public policy in the absence of sound reasoning or evidence is inviting simple disaster, either through charlatans gaming the system or through a clueless electorate damning itself and others. It doesn't "cost us nothing" when we examine the costs of religious intervention on public policy, which has taken this country steeply downhill since the rise of Jerry Falwell's goons. "

THIS!
Not to mention the insanity in the rest of the world.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/11/christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan/?hpt=T2


[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 12:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Except that there actually are mountain-loads of contrary evidence against almost every definition of god."

I wasn't making a claim for or against "God", which, by the way, isn't the same thing as "spirituality". I merely pointed out the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

Quote :

"The only definition of god which cannot actually be disproven is the one that is indistinguishable from nothing. One whose being and effects cannot be observed."

If consciousness, human or otherwise, has neither physical essence nor locality then the scientific method may never be able to quantify it. The same is true of the phenomenon of "light".

11/15/2010 12:46:05 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't making a claim for or against "God", which, by the way, isn't the same thing as "spirituality". I merely pointed out the difference between atheism and anti-theism."

Define "spirituality" then and we will see whether it is indistinguishable from nothing and whether it can be disproven.

Quote :

"If consciousness, human or otherwise, has neither physical essence nor locality then the scientific method may never be able to quantify it. The same is true of the phenomenon of "light"."

Light has effects which can be observed. Photons are observed and experimented upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Our understanding of light has fueled thousands of experiments and experimentally verifiable theories.

Consciousness has physical essence and locality. It is entirely within the mass of our brains. We can manually trigger unconsciousness and consciousness. We have documented nearly fully the effects that physical trauma have on consciousness. We can study the activity of the brain in various stages of consciousness. Entire fields of study deal with quantifying consciousness. Do we have a perfect model yet? Not sure. Does that mean it's as nebulous as 'spirituality'? Nope.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 12:56:35 PM

If consciousness' locality is limited to our brains, how is it that we can view events outside our body's environment during near-death? If consciousness' physical essence is limited to electrical stimuli in the brain, how is it that our brains can receive signals and create memories when they are devoid of all electrical activity, ie clinically dead? There are far too many documented cases and far too much correlation among completely distinct people to simply dismiss them as coincidence or fraud.

Here, I am presenting "spirituality" as the "belief" that the human consciousness can exist outside the brain, to the point where it can observe, remember, and even create stimuli in the "real" world. This is a phenomenon that currently has no scientific explanation.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 1:59:00 PM

Oh man, where to begin...

Quote :

"If consciousness' locality is limited to our brains, how is it that we can view events outside our body's environment during near-death?"

Only roughly 10% of people actually appear to have NDEs in near-death situations. Absolutely none of them have experimentally verified that they could actually see something that would prove that they were ever actually out of their body. Failed experiments and out-right fraud abounds. Always there is close relative confirming the story, but no one else. Also, NDEs are highly culture-specific. Instead of angels, East Indians have reported the River Ganges or a particular guru. "Morse reports that a 10-year-old boy had an NDE where he encountered a video-gaming wizard who loved Nintendo and said to him: "Struggle and you shall live."

Additionally every single visual and emotional occurrances (out of body, tunnel vision, lights, seeing people, etc) during a "NDE" is experimentally reproduced in high gravity centrifuges and air craft. This suggests that "NDEs" are entirely hallucinatory.

Quote :

"If consciousness' physical essence is limited to electrical stimuli in the brain, how is it that our brains can receive signals and create memories when they are devoid of all electrical activity, ie clinically dead?"

Can they? No one who's brain has been devoid of all electrical activity has ever been brought back. Brain death is irreversible. Your definition of clinical death is inaccurate.

Quote :

"There are far too many documented cases and far too much correlation among completely distinct people to simply dismiss them as coincidence or fraud."

Actually, there are no documented cases with actual proof of anything more than hallucination induced by physical or emotional trauma. It's easy to dismiss them as coincidence or fraud. It's hallucination that is often reinforced by a 3rd party.

Quote :

"Here, I am presenting "spirituality" as the "belief" that the human consciousness can exist outside the brain, to the point where it can observe, remember, and even create stimuli in the "real" world. This is a phenomenon that currently has no scientific explanation."

The scientific explanation is that it doesn't actually exist outside of the mind. No one has ever demonstrated that they have been able to observe, remember, or create stimuli in the "real" world outside of their mind. It is not a phenomenon.

Let me set this straight. When you're referring to spirituality, you're referring to the soul. Duality. The idea that there is some part of you that is not part of your physical form.

There is absolutely no proof of this, no observed effects of it on reality.

For further reading about NDES and the experimentally refuted reality of them:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

Quote :

"A second experiment was conducted by Madelaine Lawrence at Hartford Hospital, Connecticut until early November 1994, when Lawrence was Director of Nursing Education and Research. A scrolling LED display placed in the cardiac electrophysiology lab—though occasionally turned off—was up and running for a total of about 6 months (M. Lawrence, personal communication, August 7, 2006). Lawrence reports: I placed an electronic sign high on a cabinet in the room [of the electrophysiology lab], not visible to anyone standing on the floor. In order to read the sign a person needed to use a ladder or be out of his body. It contained a nonsense statement like, "The popsicles are in bloom," and I changed it randomly. It was nonsense so that no one could say he overheard a conversation about the words on the sign. All subjects who became unconscious during the EP [electrophysiology] studies were interviewed and asked to describe their experiences. We were hoping they had had an NDE and had read the sign (Lawrence 158-159). Unfortunately, although "three patients reported the early stages of an out-of-body experience," no one had an OBE extensive enough to see the sign (159). So the results of this study, too, can only be considered negative."

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 2:19:39 PM

As an additional point, are dreams "proof" of a magical world?

11/15/2010 2:52:38 PM

Quote :

"If consciousness, human or otherwise, has neither physical essence nor locality then the scientific method may never be able to quantify it."

It's located between your ears

11/15/2010 4:49:54 PM

Quote :

"how is it that we can view events outside our body's environment during near-death?"

we can't.

Quote :

"There are far too many documented cases and far too much correlation among completely distinct people to simply dismiss them as coincidence or fraud."

that's not true either. There isn't ANY solid evidence of the phenomena of consciousness being outside the body that you're describing. You can't simultaneously say that we don't know enough about the brain to say where consciousness is, but that we do know enough about how the brain works to say definitively that consciousness isn't solely there.

If consciousness existed biology as you suggest, then having concussions, strokes, brain tumors, and the myriad of brain related issues that affect peoples' cognition wouldn't be a big deal. This is just one of a million reasons why consciousness, based on everything we know, is definitely physical/biological.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ]

11/15/2010 4:57:08 PM

Quote :

"Only roughly 10% of people actually appear to have NDEs in near-death situations"

Statistically significant.

Quote :

"Absolutely none of them have experimentally verified that they could actually see something that would prove that they were ever actually out of their body."

Define "experimentally verified". All NDEs are circumstantial. There will never be a study where people are purposely made dead and revived to study their NDEs.

Quote :

"Failed experiments and out-right fraud abounds."

Supportive experiments with as-strict-as-legally-possible methods abound. Fraud is merely your own opinion.

Quote :

"Always there is close relative confirming the story, but no one else."

Wrong. How did you arrive at this?

Quote :

"Additionally every single visual and emotional occurrances (out of body, tunnel vision, lights, seeing people, etc) during a "NDE" is experimentally reproduced in high gravity centrifuges and air craft. This suggests that "NDEs" are entirely hallucinator"

NDEs are produced when the body is near death. You got me there.

Quote :

"Can they? No one who's brain has been devoid of all electrical activity has ever been brought back. Brain death is irreversible. Your definition of clinical death is inaccurate. "

Clinical death is the lack of respiration, heart-function, and dilated, fixed pupils. EEG studies have shown that these three conditions indicate clinical brain death. People have returned from it.

Quote :

"Actually, there are no documented cases with actual proof of anything more than hallucination induced by physical or emotional trauma."

Wrong. We've had this discussion before and you could only dismiss the cases I cited as fraud.

I will grant that there is certainly no fully-sorted-out scientific evidence for "souls". All the evidence is circumstantial and depends greatly on mere statistical correlation.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2010 5:18:10 PM

^ I'm just jumping in here, but have you posted any links that back up these claims? I'm genuinely curious to read them.

11/15/2010 6:08:28 PM

-I wasn't suggesting that 10% was not statistically significant, only if there actually was an afterlife you'd see more consistent results. You wouldn't see Nintendo Wizards or white Jesus.

Quote :

"Define "experimentally verified". All NDEs are circumstantial. There will never be a study where people are purposely made dead and revived to study their NDEs."

No but if you'd actually read my posts and links you'd see that attempts to verify NDEs experimentally (by a test that only an actual NDE would pass) have been numerous and all unsuccessful.

Quote :

"Supportive experiments with as-strict-as-legally-possible methods abound. Fraud is merely your own opinion. "

Link? I've given you the actual studies. Show me something that isn't anecdotal.

Quote :

"NDEs are produced when the body is near death. You got me there."

Spinning pilots around makes them almost die? Well fuck, guess it's time to abandon the entire aviation industry. You're not reading my post or links. You can recreate the exact same symptoms of an NDE using technology and not in a way that almost kills anyone. Or is the afterlife fooled by spinning people around a bit?

Quote :

"Clinical death is the lack of respiration, heart-function, and dilated, fixed pupils. EEG studies have shown that these three conditions indicate clinical brain death. People have returned from it."

Right definition of clinical death, wrong association with brain death. Show me an example of someone who actually was diagnosed brain dead and was brought back.

Quote :

"I will grant that there is certainly no fully-sorted-out scientific evidence for "souls". All the evidence is circumstantial and depends greatly on mere statistical correlation."

I prefer that claims be proven by evidence and not hearsay. Call me picky.

11/15/2010 6:47:34 PM

11/15/2010 7:01:04 PM

NDEs? Are you fucking serious?

11/15/2010 7:27:41 PM

I guess I could have taken that approach too.

One more thing for Lumex. Brain death is not "cessation of brain function". It's the full necrosis of cerebral neurons.

No one is declared brain dead when purposefully arrested during surgery because their core temperature is dropped sufficiently to temporarily suspend the necrotic process. The patient should have a normal temperature and be free of drugs that can suppress brain activity if the diagnosis is to be made on EEG criteria.

11/15/2010 7:47:50 PM

Quote :

"If consciousness existed biology as you suggest, then having concussions, strokes, brain tumors, and the myriad of brain related issues that affect peoples' cognition wouldn't be a big deal."

not exactly. One could argue that such cases affect the ability of consciousness to control the body, as the mechanism for controlling the body is damaged. Meanwhile, the consciousness was entirely unharmed. of course, this would require some evidence of severability of consciousness from the body, something for which we don't have convincing evidence at this point.

11/18/2010 8:05:04 PM

It's not that there's no convincing evidence; there's just no evidence at all.

Not only that, but there's no suggested mechanism for how it should occur. Religious folks should keep their assumptions to theology and stop trying to hijack science. Either way, it's funny that these people see that mechanistic explanation is, at least, valuable for convincing people of a viewpoint. That's why they try to package their shit as an actual empirical hypothesis, which it isn't. If it were, it would have been abandoned long ago. It's a point of dogma, plain and simple. It's also incorrect.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2010 1:13:08 PM

Bingo.

Religious person = I have a conclusion and now must find evidence to support.
Sane person = I draw conclusions from the evidence that we find and can modify these conclusions given new or contradictory evidence.

I cannot fathom how any intelligent person would prefer the first method for determining what is true over the latter.

11/19/2010 1:49:51 PM