Atheists?

[fschmidt]

Do you equate "atheist" with "left"?

No, but there is a large overlap and many similarities between the groups.

Define "social sciences". Do you mean all of sociology? All of social psychology? All of psychology? Neurology? I have studied social cognition and neurology and I can tell you that both follow the scientific method and make falsifiable hypotheses.

Sociology, social psychology, and psychology are "social sciences". I don't know what "social cognition" is, but neurology is part of biology and is real science.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Sociology, social psychology, and psychology are "social sciences". I don't know what "social cognition" is, but neurology is part of biology and is real science.

Social Cognition is how minds and brains react to group pressures. A classic studies of social cognition are social loafing, the bystander effect, group think, and the Asch experiments (social conformity). Milgram's classic experiment is also borderline social cognition. These phenomena can be and are studied scientifically, with falsifiable hypotheses.

 

[Pygoscelis]

hey Pygo,

long time, no see!

i'd say Pygo being here is a good thing. he always has good manners despite all of our differences and is never nasty or mean.

perhaps, we can all learn a thing or two from him, eh?

i know they'll close comparative religion if I post in it, but take a pointer from Pygo. he talks facts, even if they are as he sees them (or if I disagree with them ;D). this section is full of Muslims repeating things that they aren't familiar with and end up writing fiction in place of fact. we are not supposed to do this!

Comparatively speaking, little love flows in this section, so...

May Allah comfort all of those injured and killed in Orlando and may He comfort, succor and and assist all those affected by it.

May Allah accept all the fasts of those who are fasting.

May Allah increase the knowledge of the Muslims and decrease their love and hold on ignorance.

Ma Salaama!

Good to see you! But hey, don't go ruining my cred as the bad guy here

 

[fschmidt]

Social Cognition is how minds and brains react to group pressures. A classic studies of social cognition are social loafing, the bystander effect, group think, and the Asch experiments (social conformity). Milgram's classic experiment is also borderline social cognition. These phenomena can be and are studied scientifically, with falsifiable hypotheses.

To understand what this is, I looked here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

While this is theoretically falsifiable, in practice all such experiments generally are conducted with the same flaw, namely that it is only conducted on members of one culture. To make a general statement about social cognition, the experiment must be conducted in a wide variety of cultures, and this never seems to be done. So in practice, I would consider this field to be worthless.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So you read about a few studies from one group of researchers on one small topic of social cognition, and conclude that because you remain ignorant of other studies, you dismiss not just that small topic, but the entire feild of social cognition? Despite all of the other research that fills entire decades of peer reviewed scientific journals?

And yet you expect me to believe in your God, with no tangible evidence or falsifiability whatsoever?

Sure, that makes sense.....

As for research areas like this needing more cross cultural focus, I agree, but let us not pretend it doesnt exist at all. It is actually a great area to explore right now, and people are.

 

[fschmidt]

So you read about a few studies from one group of researchers on one small topic of social cognition, and conclude that because you remain ignorant of other studies, you dismiss not just that small topic, but the entire feild of social cognition? Despite all of the other research that fills entire decades of peer reviewed scientific journals?

And yet you expect me to believe in your God, with no tangible evidence or falsifiability whatsoever?

Sure, that makes sense.....

As for research areas like this needing more cross cultural focus, I agree, but let us not pretend it doesnt exist at all. It is actually a great area to explore right now, and people are.

First of all, I told you up front that I don't know this field. Then I used the one example that you provided to judge it, which seems fair. I also know that many of these kinds of studies that I have seen in the past suffer from the problem that I described. It isn't enough to just add "more cross cultural focus", it should be a requirement before any such theory is accepted.

Regarding God, I have actually suggested a falsifiable experiment to prove the validity of God here:

http://www.mikraite.org/Programmable-Gods-tp20.html

I haven't gotten much interest in this, but if you are interested in conducting this study, I would be glad to help and I am a programmer who can do this.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I only had to read the first few paragraphs of that to reach your agreement that the existence of God is not falsifiable...

If God belief yields some advantages (and it should since it has evolved), that says nothing of the actual existence of gods. A lot if irrational and untrue beliefs can be useful.

 

[fschmidt]

I only had to read the first few paragraphs of that to reach your agreement that the existence of God is not falsifiable...

If God belief yields some advantages (and it should since it has evolved), that says nothing of the actual existence of gods. A lot if irrational and untrue beliefs can be useful.

To discuss the existence or nonexistence of something like God or gravity is meaningless. What matters is whether the concept usefully describes what we experience. Gravity is valid concept because it accurately describes the behavior of objects of mass. But arguing about the actual existence of gravity is basically philosophical nonsense. The same applies to God. As gravity describes objects of mass, God describes societies and cultures. And God is a valid concept for the same reason that gravity is a valid concept, because God does accurately describe what we know about history. And now I have suggested a way of experimentally validating this. How long will you let your blind faith in Atheism prevent you from seeing the facts?

 

[jubal]

To discuss the existence or nonexistence of something like God or gravity is meaningless. What matters is whether the concept usefully describes what we experience. Gravity is valid concept because it accurately describes the behavior of objects of mass. But arguing about the actual existence of gravity is basically philosophical nonsense. The same applies to God. As gravity describes objects of mass, God describes societies and cultures. And God is a valid concept for the same reason that gravity is a valid concept, because God does accurately describe what we know about history. And now I have suggested a way of experimentally validating this. How long will you let your blind faith in Atheism prevent you from seeing the facts?

I hope you don't mind if some random guy jumps in sir, I apologies if you do.....

However I must point out that if your point about God being a useful concept is true based upon its ability to explain is to be taken seriously then the word God must mean something.

The primary attribute (essence) of God is usually the various omi's (all powerfull all knowing etc.)

I'm sure you have seen how these potentially contradict, likewise im sure how you have seen people make the claim that God's true nature is unknowable as well.

This poses to problems that brender the word God potentially cognitively meaningless:

1: incoherence- "I was drawing a squiangle" (defined as a 3 sided square) doesn't tell me what im drawing because the idea of a squiangle is literally unthinkable.

2. Undefined essence- If God's essence is unknown then we are unable to ascribe meaning to the word God.

For example: I can see a chair in a dark room, I can't tell what color it is but i can see its a chair. I know what word corresponds to the idea of chair thus I have the means to tell you there is a chair in the dark room.

If however I cannot tell its a chair and can only see its red I cannot have knowledge of the chair and therefore cannot tell you of the chair.

If God exists outside of our cognitive ability to understand him then we may not use him as a means to explain anything at all.

For the word God would have the same level of meaning as the word Blark. (Which isn't a word in English in case your not a native speaker.)

In situation two God would be just a noise not a word.

I'm not accusing you specifically of having a bad definition, as I have yet to see you provide one for God, I however wish to challenge you to provide one that is cognitively meaningful and does not render God trivial like that of a naturalistic pantheist's God.

 

[fschmidt]

jubal, Exodus 3:13-14 specifically rejects defining God, but for your sake, I will try. Let's talk about gods generally first. The pagan gods were Man's first attempt to describe the forces of the world, done by personifying them. Science, beginning with Galileo, took a different approach to describing forces, namely describing them mathematically. But Galileo's gravity was local, just the force he saw on earth. It took Newton to recognize that this force is in fact global, that gravity is One. The difference between the pagan gods and the god of the Old Testament is similar to this difference between Galileo's gravity and Newton's gravity. The god of the Old Testament is universal and is One.

There are some forces in science that are not described mathematically, only conceptually. Evolution is an example. Evolution is a concept that is actually somewhere in between pure science and religion. It is neither personified like a god nor described mathematically, and it cannot really be subject to controlled experiments. Those who believe in evolution do so because it makes sense to them, not because of any scientific proof. (I believe in evolution for this reason.)

Now returning to God, there are 2 possible definitions that I can think of. One is to say that God is all of the forces in the world (including gravity, evolution, etc.). (Note that this is not pantheism because God is not the universe itself, but is only the forces.) Another is to say that God is just those forces that effect human societies, in effect the force of sociology. I prefer a compromise in saying that God covers all forces but should be primarily thought of as the force of sociology.

What is the significance of this concept? This concept is a direct rejection of liberalism which denies the idea of a consistent force guiding human history. The liberal view is exemplified by Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism". In effect, liberalism denies the application of inductive reasoning to society and ethics. The Old Testament clearly takes the opposite view and most of its arguments are based on inductive reasoning. Of course this rejection of inductive reasoning isn't new and was common in all decaying cultures that rejected tradition for this reason. Ecclesiastes 1 provides the clearest endorsement of inductive reasoning ever written, and describes how people tend to reject this. A belief in God is, above all, a belief in inductive reasoning because it is a recognition that history is guided by consistent forces.

 

[jubal]

The passage in exodus you cited is precisely the problem I seek to address.

Let me be clear, my position is not that the statement "God exists" is false, rather my position is that "God exists" is a meaningless sentence. (prototypically anyway)

If I cannot define God I can't know what you mean when you say "God commands X". Even if we assume the anthropomorphic language used in the Abraham's texts is a analogy I would still need to know what the analogy is analogous too.

You Have opted to define God as all forces in the universe, I can understand this.

However is this his primary attribute or a secondary one? If its his primary attribute then God is not a intelligent being capable of commanding a objective morality as he would just be gravity+inertia+conflicting human opinions etc.

One might say God thinks because we think, since we are a part of God. However this is a composition fallacy.

That would be akin to saying because I think my fingernail thinks.

Is God deserving of all the anthropomorphic language? It sounds God to you is more like Karma (based on your reference to to the Historicism) if so then your God is not "alive" its a metaphysical computer that punishes certain behavior but it doesn't feel love or hatred or anything that the ye old faith books describe.

Or are the attributes you give to God are secondary attributes (I suspect it is since you warned against defining God) then I still cannot know what your talking about. In order to understand the sentence "Ubhaodordsi is not a living creature but he is red" I must know what ubhaodordsi is.

Moreover whatever ubhaodordsi is must also be not alive and capable of having gender. When I hear ubhaodordsi I might subjectively think of a robot, but you may think of a tribal warrior.

Communication of God's essence from the prophet to his audience can only be done through words the understand and HAVE CONTEXT for. (caps for emphases not rage)

If I cannot know his primary attribute then I cannot ever think successfully "God Exists" because God is a word with no concept behind it.

 

[fschmidt]

So let me make a few points. First, it is absolutely essential that the Old Testament not define God. It is this flexibility that allowed it to be the basis of 3 different religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each religion shares the ethics of the Old Testament while defining God is a more specific way. And each religion depends on its own definition of God to give that religion coherence. So for example, Islam uses the Quran as its final statement on God and all Muslims share this Quran-based view of God. This is what makes Islam coherent.

So now I will return to my definition of God which is purely a personal definition. Note that just because my definition differs from another definition doesn't make the other definition wrong from my view. These are just definitions after all. In my definition, God is not an intelligent being and doesn't command. But this doesn't mean that God does not imply objective morality. Just as gravity objectively implies that jumping from a tall building is bad for your health, God implies that certain behaviors are good for society (moral) or bad for society (immoral). God is not a metaphysical computer, to me God is a force of nature (history).

So now I will explain why I do not want most people to use my definition of God. Humans are primates who naturally obey a dominant alpha-male. By personifying God, God can occupy the position of virtual alpha-male of a society. This makes people much more likely to respect God than if God is understand as an abstract force. And for this reason, I would much prefer that most people use a definition of God more like Islam's than like mine.

From the Old Testament perspective, the definition of God is irrelevant. The Old Testament is fundamentally a book of ethics with God being the force behind this ethics. As long as a religion supports the ethics of the Old Testament (often described as "God's will"), the religion is compatible with the Old Testament. Both traditional Islam and traditional Christianity meet this requirement, so from my perspective, both are sound religions. Atheism is fundamentally unsound because it causes (immoral) behavior that historically correlates with declining cultures.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So.... You started this thread looking for atheists and hoping to debate them. Now you tell us that to pretty much all the theists here, you yourself are an atheist. You don't believe in an intelligent sentient supernatural being that gives commands. Me neither. We are both atheists.

If you want to define Gods as sociology or gravity or other measurable forces of nature, then sure, you are not an atheist by that definition, but neither am I, and I dont think anybody else is either.

You have also revealed that you want to argue that religion is useful and not that God exists. And you have made sweeping assumptions about your fellow atheists. Why do you assume that we wouldn't find religion useful? A lot of illusions and delusions are useful.

I think you are going to have to start over at this point.... Maybe start a thread like "Is God delusion good for individuals and for society?" That seems a more suitable topic on an atheist board though.

 

[Cpt.America]

Just as gravity objectively implies that jumping from a tall building is bad for your health.

"Chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
Yeah,
come on and check yo self before you wreck yo self
Cause shotgun bullets are bad for your health"

-Ice Cube

 

[Pygoscelis]

I actually know a lot of atheists who believe as you do, fschmidt, that God doesn't exist but God belief is essential to keep the masses in line. That it is the opiate if the masses. That it is for weak minded people.

Sounds a little arrogant to me. If you can see there is no God and you are not out raping, killing, stealing, etc, why assume that others would be? Our prisons are not overflowing with atheists. Or do you mean more on a societal level?

And you should also take into account the attrocities people commit in the name of religion, that obedience to such Gods can trump morality in their minds, and the tribalism and group think that results from religion. It isnt all upside from a utilitarian point of view. I would rather be dealing with a rational enemy in nuclear Soviet Russia that values self preaervation than an irrational suicidal due to religion enemy such as nuclear armed Isis for example.

Nonetheless, it would be an interesting question to study, and if the answer is yes, then the next question is does that justify any action towards encouraging people to live in fantasy. Reminds me of the matrix. If people are happy and living in order is that paramount, or is truth important?

 

[fschmidt]

So.... You started this thread looking for atheists and hoping to debate them. Now you tell us that to pretty much all the theists here, you yourself are an atheist. You don't believe in an intelligent sentient supernatural being that gives commands. Me neither. We are both atheists.

You can classify me however you want, as an atheist, a penguin, whatever. The irony here is that you are less tolerant of definitions of God that differ from your own than most theists are. Each version of monotheism has its own definition of God, and they usually consider other definitions to be wrong but they don't thereby conclude that people who follow these other definitions are atheists. And this is why no theist that I have ever met has considered me to be an atheist. Most atheists also agree that I am not atheist.

But labels just aren't that interesting anyway. What matters to me is what a person does. From my perspective, an atheist who follows the principles of God is much better than a modern Christian who basically does nothing. In the little Mikraite group that I am a part of where we follow the Old Testament, we welcome atheists. But what actually happens is that atheists who join us quickly change their mind and no longer consider themselves atheist and usually end up with views like mine.

 

[Pygoscelis]

From my perspective, an atheist who follows the principles of God is much better than a modern Christian who basically does nothing.

You are being quite cryptic. How are there "principles of God" if God is nothing more than the natural world and forces of nature? We all follow the law of gravity, like it or not. So, are you are are you not pushing "spiritual" woo?

I don't insist what "God" is. I allow you to define that. I am just pointing out that if you define it as nothing but "forces of nature" and nothing involving spiritual woo or supernatural sentient intelligent beings, you are not talking about "God" as defined by Islam or Christianity or Judaism. You have acknowledged this. So by their definition you are an admitted atheist, whether or not you like that label.

I'm also curious if you will address the rest of what I said in the posts above.

You seem to be more concerned with having an alpha-male, dominant dictatorial figure, for all to bow down to and obey as a means of keeping order, than anything to do with spirituality. Is that a misreading of you? Is the book 1984 your end goal, only through the oppression of religion instead of through oppression of the state or king?

 

[anatolian]

Actually Allah is not serving as an alpha-male since Allah is neither a "male" nor "serving" but we serve Him. Instead, Allah sent Prophets for this purpose. This is another wisdom behind why Allah sent religions. Muhammed a.s. is the perfect example. He both taught the order and the spirituality we need to construct our world.

 

[fschmidt]

Actually Allah is not serving as an alpha-male since Allah is neither a "male" nor "serving" but we serve Him. Instead, Allah sent Prophets for this purpose. This is another wisdom behind why Allah sent religions. Muhammed a.s. is the perfect example. He both taught the order and the spirituality we need to construct our world.

Yes God is not male and I didn't mean "serving" in your sense. But my basic point is that God should be the true leader of society, not a man. Remember that in history, many male rulers called themselves a god just to have ultimate authority. By "alpha-male", I am referring to ultimate leadership, a role which should ideally be occupied by God.

 

[fschmidt]

You are being quite cryptic. How are there "principles of God" if God is nothing more than the natural world and forces of nature? We all follow the law of gravity, like it or not. So, are you are are you not pushing "spiritual" woo?

Aren't there principles of gravity? Applying the principles of gravity to one's life would imply not jumping from high places. God acts on a much longer time scale than gravity, so the effects of actions can take generations. For example, the behaviors of modern culture is similar to a culture jumping off a cliff.

I don't insist what "God" is. I allow you to define that. I am just pointing out that if you define it as nothing but "forces of nature" and nothing involving spiritual woo or supernatural sentient intelligent beings, you are not talking about "God" as defined by Islam or Christianity or Judaism. You have acknowledged this. So by their definition you are an admitted atheist, whether or not you like that label.

Are you intentionally ignoring my previous point? Each religion defines God differently, but this doesn't mean that they view other groups with other definitions as being atheists. The same applies in my case. And by the way, I am planning to join a Conservative Mennonite community. These people are very religious and they recognize my view of God.

I'm also curious if you will address the rest of what I said in the posts above.

You mean post #55? Maybe later.

You seem to be more concerned with having an alpha-male, dominant dictatorial figure, for all to bow down to and obey as a means of keeping order, than anything to do with spirituality. Is that a misreading of you? Is the book 1984 your end goal, only through the oppression of religion instead of through oppression of the state or king?

Define "spirituality".

I am concerned with morality and I support any means that works to produce it. Political oppression, as in the book 1984, doesn't produce morality. Good religion does. And good religion provides for people's emotional needs, whatever those are.