Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Professional counselors and psychiatrists train for years with the express aim of objectifying subjective, personal experiences and interpreting them.

  "Objectifying" amounts to negating the subjective side of the experience, hence the subject itself. Unfortunately that may well be what most popular psychology is about. The rest (especially psychoanalysis) treads the more difficult, more questionable, and also more interesting path of intersubjectivity (as in "interpreting").

  Intersubjectivity, aka human relationship, pretty much begins where it leaves the hiding place of objectivity ("Nice day, isn't it?") and ends when it flees back to it ("That's not true, you lie, you're wrong, you're imagining things"). In between it has its own truth (the kind of truth that "begins with two," as Karl Jaspers put it). It is short-lived because most of the times we lack either the courage, or the love. Objectivity is also a subject's cowardice.
• 

  Panda

  Hmmm... so we aren't debating god/no god, but we're throwing all sorts of mayhem-ish facts/ not facts around. Ok ... debate is good. Without debate we historically wouldn't have science and democracy.(Of course that had to be wrestled from the firm grip of religion)

  For the sake of adding to this I need to say that science does not claim that order has come from chaos. In fact the exact opposite is true. Our universe is chaos. Nothing, not even the speed of light is constant over the millions of years. Chaos is why humans evolved and dinosaurs no longer rule. Chaos is why we live on this planet. Out of chaos come new circumstances, new bases for new phylla and species to (YES I'm going to say it) evolve. The facts are there.

  Just because someone denies the facts doesn't mean those facts don't exist. That would be denial and sometimes denial's all a person can do when attempting to rationalise their belief system with science. The two don't even belong in the same sentence. Religious belief is in no danger from science as long as it stays away from the science proves something- something about religion. If you have a belief system, realise it's just that, belief. If you care to learn about the universe and dabble in science --- no problem --- only, leave your book of mythology at home.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Nicolaou,

  Atheism is not a faith position because it believes nothing beyond what there is evidence for.

  I am not aware of ever having said otherwise. I agree with you, here. However, ignoring subjective experience that happen to you because you have no proof they occurred is a ridiculous notion as well. "I'm not cold. I have no proof that I am cold. I'm not in love. I have no proof." You get the idea.

  I do not believe there is anyone who actually believes nothing except that for which there is evidence.

  Offered in friendship,

  Received as such. Of course, from an objective point of view you must agree there is no such thing as "friendship." It is a purely subjective construct. The world is full of beliefs for which we have no evidence. You believe in many of them.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  heathen

  Atheism is not a faith position because it believes nothing beyond what there is evidence for.

  Next you're going to say you have a time machine and can witness all the events that are professed by evolutionists? This is exactly why I avoid the debate . You just can't convince an evolutionist that what they believe is based on faith . Even Darwin said that there was no conclusive evidence for evolution but was putting faith in future research to prove it.
• 

  kid-A

  My question is, would you actually -- or seriously -- make such a statement? Would you be able to believe what you say? Can you really feel the presence of purple unicorns in your life? I doubt you can -- precisely because purple unicorns, so far, are not a socially admitted construct like "God" -- they are not quite as much subjectively believable, even though they may be objectively equivalent. Subjective belief has its rules too: you cannot just believe anything.

  I would have to completely disagree. Example, the belief in "psychic" phenomena is a billion dollar industry. People take subjective experiences as reality regardless of the absurdity of these experiences to an outside observer. I doubt "purple unicorns" would require any greater stretch then floating heads of demons above the bedpost. In this sense, I doubt that subjective experiences or beliefs follow any rule structure because the combination of any possible element of the imagination or human memory can easily be transformed into a particular "experience" or belief. Regardless, the point is in the comparison for a "criteria" of belief, which transcends culture. The god-believer or the purple-unicorn believer have equivalent standards in the context of subjective proof or lack thereof.
• 

  Narkissos

  LOL, I address the subject Kid-A with a personal question -- can you believe, now, in purple unicorns -- and he responds with an objective, general possibility. QED.

  I have no doubt that pink unicorns may eventually become a real belief to some -- I'd even bet it'll start your side of the pond . I just suggested it is not really a subjectively available belief to you, so far.

  Wo Es war, soll Ich werden (S. Freud).
• 

  AuldSoul

  I believe those who would attempt to sort this particular mess out would be well served by a brief introduction to anthropology. Beliefs may arise independently, but they rarely stray far from that which is considered possible or plausible reality. Implausible beliefs become plausible over time through lore. Belief systems are a bit sturdier and arise anthropologically around these beliefs from lore. I think this is the essence of Narkissos' point. Beliefs don't arise from a vaccuum.

  kid-A: The god-believer or the purple-unicorn believer have equivalent standards in the context of subjective proof or lack thereof.

  That is just it, it is what neither you nor nicolaou seem to be willing to admit...there is no such thing as "subjective proof". It doesn't exist. Pretending it does is what clouds your respective perceptions of believers. It is a goggle of demonstrable untruth you put on presumably to make you feel better about denouncing believers.

  Of course, if you want to confess belief in something that hasn't been proven to exist (namely, "subjective proof") I will be the last to call you down about it. But then...there would be the whole hypocrisy beast to tackle, when it comes to claims that you don't believe what hasn't been proven. I really think some of the atheists believe that there is some sort of subjective proof. According to the Scientific Method, as long as it is subjective, it is not proof.

  I assumed that the subjective is not falsifiable in asserting that there is no such thing as subjective proof. Do I have that understanding mixed up? If so, please give examples where the subjective has been falsified.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  LittleToe

  Actually even the descriptor "believer" is subjective - LOL
• 

  Narkissos

  Beliefs may arise independently, but they rarely stray far from that which is considered possible or plausible reality. Implausible beliefs become plausible over time through lore. Belief systems are a bit sturdier and arise anthropologically around these beliefs from lore.

  Albeit, to be fair, a joke, a fiction or a parody can pretty quickly become a plausible belief to some in the Internet age. Still, to grow into a lasting belief it will have to conform to age-old religious structures and functions -- offering self-understanding and world-understanding, an acceptable representation of death, rituals, community, etc. Religion changes slower than beliefs. The time of the leaves is not the time of the forest.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  The main reason that I believe in God is simple. ; I have not read every book, volume or article in the Library of Congress' collection of nearly 800 million pieces. ; If I do not posses that sort of knowledge on a finite level, how can I possibly say that God does not exist or that "harder" evidence of His existence does not exist somewhere.

  I was hoping that someone could point out the flaws, if any, in this arguement. I didn't post it to be ignored