Very cool, if true

As Robert Wilson put it the only viable method is to be sceptical of everything including scepticism. Or as a certain A. Crowley put it:
"We place no trust
In Virgin or Pigeon
Our method is Science
Our aim is Religion!"

From:

pseudomonas.livejournal.com

I spent a few years moving from theism to deism to agnosticism to where I am currently, which is weak atheism (though with your reservations on not wanting to rule anything out for sure). I can't see myself going for strong atheism, it requires too much faith. I found the changes of identity and self-definition quite a bit deal as well, especially the agonisticism - atheism one, even though there wasn't much of a philosophical shift - I was an agnostic who used as a working model that there was no god or gods; there are many agnostics who conversely use a theist (usually religious) working model whilst conceding that the existence of the deity in question is not provable either way.

From:

My only problem with this whole matter is that spiritualism isn't really about evidence, or even scientific inquiry. It's about spiritualism and belief and faith and more stuff I can attach without using a comma.

Or, to put it another way, if you need the evidence then I think that proves you're an atheist.

Now, I'm not saying I think you're wrong for thinking the way you do, or that being an atheist is bad or what not, I'm just illustrating what I believe to be a fundamental disconnect in how people perceive spirituality when they aren't spiritual, or vice versa.

For the flip side of this point, take a look at the ID movement, and how people think some semantic hand waving makes it a scientific hypothesis, even when easily contradicted by basic logic.

Also, IIRC, part of being a dutiful scientist is acknowledging that if you can't prove if something exists or doesn't exist, it could be a possibility. As this is inherent in the whole attitude behind scientific skepticism, I don't see it as being a 'fence sitting' attitude.

Also also (is that like Post Postscript?), there's the fact that there's usually no particular need for you to choose one way or the other in many arguments, and fence sitting is perfectly reasonable in light of that. I mean, it isn't like you're taking a fence sitting position on the nature of slavery.

From:

Science is like that. There's a religious faith in Big Bang even though the theory is so stretched out of shape Occam would have shredded it for hamster bedding by now and of course there *has* to be a Higgs-Boson or else the Standard Model falls apart so there is one so there. Want to upset a "real" scientist? Tell 'em Einstein said ether was essential to Relativity and watch their dogmatic streak snarl at you. Fundamentalist bating is one of my favourite hobbies.

From:

Can you explain why "spiritual" things are different to "non-spiritual" things - why does one require a burden of proof before believing what you're told and one doesn't? Should I believe anything I'm told so long as the person adds that what they're saying is spiritual in nature?

From:

There's plenty of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory - the information from COBE about cosmic background radiation seems to confirm it fairly well. It's not certain by any means, but it does seem rather likely, from what I understand.

And Einsten was occasionally known to be wrong - not that that should be a surprise to anyone :->

From:

cx650.livejournal.com

An often overlooked item in Christian teaching tells us to "test everything to see if it is of God". If you are not convinced, all it means to me is that you have yet to experience something which satisfies you. If you are happy as you are, it is not for me to say that you are wrong. I was an atheist myself for many years, 'people in glass houses' etc. Being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person any more than being a committed Christian makes you a good person.

Greetings of your preference at this celebratory time of year.

From:

cx650.livejournal.com

P.S.

I think I might be one of the nuts your journal contains.....

From:

His point about the Standard Model has made sense to me for a while now. I'm no physicist, but I can totally appreciate the whole 'truth is beauty' thing, and the Standard Model isn't beautiful. That's why I'm hoping some form of field theory is actually the right explanation.

From:

That's pretty simple. Nothing requires a burden of proof to believe. Belief doesn't work that way. The concept of attaching burden of proof to believe is purely a construct we've created to handle the world. It happens to be particularly useful in categorizing it.

I'm going to try to answer your question with another question.

Why am I here?

People are spiritual, and in being spiritual they're asking simple questions (why am I here?) and also deeper ones (can I define myself and therefore be happy without anyone else's intervention)

At their root, these questions are usually highly personal, relating more to the person and their interaction with the world than any actual architecture setup to control a religion. As a result, spiritualism isn't something easily defined, and as it is ultimately subjective, I'd say it can't be analyzed.

My point is just that you've decided that because you have no proof, there's no point to you not stating that you're an atheist. Thing is, the inverse is just as true. Since spirituality is such a personal thing, the concept of proof doesn't really define it. Rather, you're defining it with your concept of proof.

From:

Additionally, I'm speaking of the process of belief rather than the validity of religion, which is the controlling factor here. It doesn't matter if you can't prove a religion, so why people believe is more important to this topic, in my opinion.

From:

surliminal.livejournal.com

Actually this is one of your more intersting posts about religion, but as usual, you're wrong :-P

What you're talking about is presumption, or onus of proof. Very familiar idea in law as in science. In any situation where we can't ever gather evidnece to know something 100% sure, we have a choice of presuming x is true until proven false (by 50% = standard of probabilities; or perhaps "beyond reasonable doubt"); or x is false until proven true .

The default set reflects the state of society, usually at the time it was first set. In law eg the presumption in England (though not France) is innocent until proven guilty because that was seen as protection against arbitrary royal power (then - now "state" power.)

Religious attitudes are still moderating from when religious belief was the norm, so the discursive assumption you identify (interestingly and accurately- I never thought about it before) is that we assume God exists until proven false. Hence those not sure, usually claim to be agnostic not atheist.

But the default setting is arbitrary. So by reversing it, you are not really making any startling change in your own beliefs nor any great point about society beyond that majority belief in God is on the wane.

The stadard of proof is equally arbitrary (just like pass marks in exams). You could say you're an agnostic if you're only 60 % sure there's no god but atheist if you're 90% sure. that could be a fun game:-)

From:

surliminal.livejournal.com

I think I've said the same kind of thing below (just read this)from a rather practical perspective.

From:

darkoshi

My basic position is that these things do not exist, and in fact I spent 99.99% of my life treating these ideas with all the contempt they deserve (except in fiction, where I think they're great)

I'm rather similar... although I'm not exactly contemptuous of the idea of them.
But life - this existence - seems so weird to me, that I wouldn't believe it either, if I wasn't living it. And so, if this weird thing can be happening... perhaps other weird things could be true too. And it might be nice in fact, if there was something else weird that will make it all seem better someday, when I find out about that weird thing. So I still feel more comfortable calling myself agnostic, than atheistic.

From:

Back Ground Radiation seen from one point of observation. I'm not saying it's not right but I'm not saying it's *true* either. To say it's fact because we have data from Sol Space is suspect. I personally couldn't care less for *truth* as that's all down to personal bias. Bur *proof*? Just because Aristotle wouldn't like it it doesn't mean it's wrong. If it were wrong because Aristotle didn't like it we wouldn't have a lot of things. But Occidental Logic is Aristotelean and I didn't get raised with "To Accept A Is To Reject B" as valid science. If everyone looks down there is no sky to be seen. If one looks up on the other hand... N.B. Aristotle said ice sank, he decided this using logic. As to ether it's never been disproven as a fact but it does explain some theories. As does String Theory. They're both equal, only the politics and pet theories change. My pleasure comes from being always unsure. That's why I bombed Instrumentaion 7 Applied Physics in Year II. Can't stand dogma. Ooh! Looky! The Moon really is green cheese because someone says so! *giggle* Anyway even the COBE folk did say "local cloud" as a *possible* source for a very dodgy map. There was a BIG hole in their diagram. Local Events, Local Observers, Universal Conclusions? You know better than that. Just saying is all. I don't grind axes, just toasting forks for coffee and cakes...
Besides I'm Discordian (whoreship a Crazy Woman) raised by Buddhists (all deities are irrelevant even if they do exist, rather like Socrates). No, waitr you're probably right. But so am I. And the cat next door. Nothing is ever certain or untainted by our egos.

From:

There in is Aristotle. Why define *body* and *non-Body* as an argument? I get drunk I change my mind. Is that the mind changing? Or the brain? Unity is the way I see it as a functional construct. "I" get out of the way when "the body" steps in to get me home, safe, heal, etc. "I" get out the way when "I" feel the urge to write tales. Will "I" survive physical death? Not al that bothered as "I" is a verb and to be honest "I" have met a lot of other "I"s changing shifts going to sleep/waking up over the years, and they babble and even argue. But "I" still get the coffee and baccy out of Safeway and by Hell wish I cul delegate that to another "I" as it's tedious. As to death- I hope oblivion or enlightenment. Anything else is Hell in the Classical sense (to be abandoned and bereft).

From:

I'm not talking about things that have 50% proof in one direction or the other though. I'm talking about things wherein there is no proof at all, and we are asked to assume their existence for no reason.

It doesn't make any sense to _assume_ anything. If I asked you to assume Odin, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Atlantis or Flying Pigs, telling you that as you'd no proof they didn't exist you might as well assume they did, you'd tell me that this made no sense. And you'd be right.

From:

Why am I here?

"You're here because you walked across to the computer." is the immediate answer. More details explanations rest in psychology, sociology, history and various other sciences, depending on how much detail you want, of what type.

I'm now not at all sure what you mean by spiritualism, and it seems you aren't either. It therefore seems to me that you're using it as a way to avoid thinking or discussing a topic. "I've assumed X because it makes me happy. If I had to think about it I might have to stop assuming it, and then I'd be unhappy. I shall therefore dub it a spiritual matter and define those as outside of the set of things I'm 'allowed' to think about."

From:

Nope - two different arguments.

You argued that lacking any proof that something exists we would be just as justified assuming it did as that it didn't.

He's arguing that we can arbitrarily label something as "You can't think about this." in order to prevent logical attacks upon it.

Both arguments seem equally silly to me, but they aren't the same...

From:

I can't actually see how this reply relates to my comment at all. I can't see where I assert mind-body duality, or that people are separate from their universe...

From:

Hmm...if you're appealing to definition, then I think our communication is breaking down somewhere here.

Given what you said previously, it sounds like you might be taking my tone for a more argumentative one that I'm presenting. Additionally, it does feel a like you're trying to make a small insult with your previous post. If that's the case, please let me know so we can stop.

Spiritualism is a bad word, so in its place, I'll just call it Belief, using the capital b to differentiate it from just believing in something. Belief is the idea that there is something that explains several 'big questions' (which will vary depending on who you ask), which could be why we're here, how we came to be here, what our purpose for existing is, and what happens when we die. That's a big one. Ultimately, these questions can't be answered completely (again, another big point) but you can choose to Believe in a particular answer.

Now, beyond that, I'd like you to use common sense when considering what Belief is. We're talking a pretty universal concept here. If you need a different definition, then consider this:

We're talking about that which atheists make fun of people for believing in.

As a species, human beings have many questions about Belief. They possess Belief in varying amounts, but one almost universal trait is that they do possess Belief. Additionally, as Belief answers specific questions that are directly relevant to the person that's asking them, it is highly subjective and isn't something that requires proof.

Much as with philosophy, we have nothing but theory to discuss when it comes to Belief. I'm assuming that we can't prove that any religion's form of Belief can be proven, by the way. Just as with philosophy, people will have all manner of different reasons as to why they Believe. Some do it because they fear. Others do it because it makes them happy. Others believe that it'll answer some interesting questions that can't be answered in any other way.

Can you discuss these things? Yes. Can you analyze them from a scientific basis? Probably not. Can you brush off matters of a spiritual nature by saying that people who Believe are in fact brushing off scientific questions by saying "Nyah! This is my spiritual belief!"? Most definitely, and I'd say that's what most obnoxious atheists (and we are talking from a pop culture perspective) do.

So, here's my point, in a nutshell. If you brush aside the questions I have about Belief by accusing me of using them to side step analysis and thought, then really you're only doing that which you're accusing others of.

There's nothing cop-out about choosing to be an agnostic. The question of whether or not you Believe is a personal one that no one else can really define for you. Again, as I said before, if you have to ask for proof before you're willing to say that you're an agnostic or religious, then you're probably an atheist. Not because religion doesn't ask you to disregard such things, but because proof isn't a part of the equation that you're trying to solve.

From:

I forgot to add one thing in there. The reason you can't really analyze these things using rational scientific discourse is because of their highly subjective and personal nature. Every person has one answer that fits them, and no one else's. There's nothing about that answer that avoids discussing a topic, or thinking about it, that's just how the nature of Belief works.

I think I said that before, but I wanted to make sure.

Or, to put it another way, if someone wants to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why can't they? As long as you're firm about not letting them interfere with scientific process, there's nothing wrong with it.

From:

Actually, no, I haven't said that at all.

From: