Do you believe in God?

[mistersafeway]

Well, I knew he was an angel because I have read the autobiography of the writer Jules Verne, and in his childhood he saw his guardian angel.

That's not very good evidence.

The guardian was a normal man, without wings, which has disappeared same as mine.

Nor is that, whether he really saw a guardian angel or not, it doesn't mean that that's how guardian angels all look. That also ignores the massive elephant in the room that whether these stories are true or not (I'm not questioning your honesty here, truth ≠ honesty) there is no way to reasonably assume that they were angels. It could have been a time traveller with an antigravity machine screwing with history, or an alien, or something you imagined after the fact. And why not Yahweh himself, Thor, Zephyrus, or maybe Buddha? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his human form? They all have the same level of evidence for existing, that being the assertions of human beings, which isn't really evidence at all.

 

[Dotini]

Oh, thanks for reminding me.
Well, I knew he was an angel because I have read the autobiography of the writer Jules Verne, and in his childhood he saw his guardian angel.
The guardian was a normal man, without wings, which has disappeared same as mine.
Thus, I concluded that these beings are extradimensionals, just as God.

Thank you for sharing your first person religious experience. Encountering a guardian angel is a well established theme in the literature. Brad Steiger has written extensively about this experience, among others. Perhaps you would be willing to share any other experiences that you might have had? But be warned, this forum is dominated by secularists, militant atheists, skeptics and debunkers who will make every attempt to belittle, tear you down and drive you away. I hope they don't, but if they do, at least a small minority of us appreciate your contribution.

 

[Danoff]

militant atheists

I'm trying to picture a militant atheist.

 

[mistersafeway]

But be warned, this forum is dominated by secularists, militant atheists, skeptics and debunkers

Better than one dominated by credulous people who'll say something is good evidence no matter what. Critical thinking is way more important than protecting someone's feelings by shielding them from the possibility that they're wrong.

 

[Scaff]

But be warned, this forum is dominated by secularists, militant atheists, skeptics and debunkers who will make every attempt to belittle, tear you down and drive you away.

You have an odd way of describing people who simply ask questions and look for evidence based answers!

Its almost as if you have an issue with critical reasoning

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

How are mystics/psychics treated around these parts? Can they be explained with "evidence based answers"

 

[Famine]

WTH?

WWJD?

 

[huskeR32]

But be warned, this forum is dominated by secularists, militant atheists, skeptics and debunkers who will make every attempt to belittle, tear you down and drive you away.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Ah yes, curse that pesky critical thinking!

 

[UKMikey]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

By making such a contentious statement @Dotini has clearly attempted to draw some of the critical heat away from @dimassa19 as we militants will all pile onto his post instead. Greater love hath no man ...

 

[Dotini]

The type of critical thinking employed in this forum seems to be almost entirely limited to materialism.

Per Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, and other forms of monism.

Hence, direct first person experience, mental phenomena, consciousness, academic disciplines including such as comparative religion, mythology, psychology, parapsychology, psychopharmacology, etc. are typically missing or excluded from the conversation.

 

[eran0004]

The type of critical thinking employed in this forum seems to be almost entirely limited to materialism.

Per Wikipedia:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, and other forms of monism.

Hence, direct first person experience, mental phenomena, consciousness, academic disciplines including such as comparative religion, mythology, psychology, parapsychology, psychopharmacology, etc. are typically missing or excluded from the conversation.

I'd argue that first person experience, mental pehonomena and consciousness are covered in that definition of materialism: "all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions."

 

[Famine]

How are mystics/psychics treated around these parts? Can they be explained with "evidence based answers"

The scientific method (which is to say 'the means of acquiring knowledge', as its literal translation) is the best tool we have for exploring, defining and understanding the universe. In effect the scientific method is a process of continually assuming your explanations to be wrong, creating a way to prove that you are wrong - giving being wrong the best possible chance - and dealing with the result. If you prove yourself wrong, you come up with a new explanation and create a way to prove that wrong. If you fail prove yourself wrong, you come up with a new way to prove that you are wrong until all possible ways to prove that you are wrong have failed. That explanation then becomes knowledge - until there's a new way to prove that you are wrong. You are never proven right - all knowledge is always one new piece of evidence away from being wrong.

Abandoning the scientific method for any reason is to arbitrarily abandon all accumulated knowledge.

 

[Dotini]

I'd argue that first person experience, mental pehonomena and consciousness are covered in that definition of materialism: "all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions."

Well, that's okay, and most people here also follow that philosophy. But there exist other philosophies. The question is whether they shall be discussed and considered here in the "Do You Believe in God - Only Materialist-Certified Arguments Accepted" thread. I doubt it.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

The scientific method (which is to say 'the means of acquiring knowledge', as its literal translation) is the best tool we have for exploring, defining and understanding the universe. In effect the scientific method is a process of continually assuming your explanations to be wrong, creating a way to prove that you are wrong - giving being wrong the best possible chance - and dealing with the result. If you prove yourself wrong, you come up with a new explanation and create a way to prove that wrong. If you fail prove yourself wrong, you come up with a new way to prove that you are wrong until all possible ways to prove that you are wrong have failed. That explanation then becomes knowledge - until there's a new way to prove that you are wrong. You are never proven right - all knowledge is always one new piece of evidence away from being wrong.

Abandoning the scientific method for any reason is to arbitrarily abandon all accumulated knowledge.

But is there a constraint in that?

For instance with mystics/psychics, I've had relatives have their fortunes told and these fortunes have turned out to be true. With the scientific method where would you begin (and end) your testing of hypotheses. Could you ever be satisfied with a result that it was fate/God/etc?

 

[Scaff]

How are mystics/psychics treated around these parts? Can they be explained with "evidence based answers"

I'm yet to see them provide it, and if they can James Randi has a million dollars for them.

But is there a constraint in that?

For instance with mystics/psychics, I've had relatives have their fortunes told and these fortunes have turned out to be true. With the scientific method where would you begin (and end) your testing of hypotheses. Could you ever be satisfied with a result that it was fate/God/etc?

Which is why you have controls within testing, have a guess what the success rate for psychics and mystics when they have to work under controlled circumstances and give detailed answers.

If you watch these people work you will notice that they use very leading questions, respond in general terms and then rely on the recipients conformation bias to do the rest.

Derren Brown has quite literally made a career out of showing people how this kind of thing functions.

This series in particular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Derren_Brown_special)

 

[eran0004]

Well, that's okay, and most people here also follow that philosophy. But there exist other philosophies. The question is whether they shall be discussed and considered here in the "Do You Believe in God - Only Materialist-Certified Arguments Accepted" thread. I doubt it.

What do you mean by accepted? Are non-materialist arguments removed from the conversation or are they merely challenged?

For instance with mystics/psychics, I've had relatives have their fortunes told and these fortunes have turned out to be true. With the scientific method where would you begin (and end) your testing of hypotheses. Could you ever be satisfied with a result that it was fate/God/etc?

I think that there are plenty of scientists who would be thrilled about discovering some form of deity or spiritual world. It would create a whole new field of science.

The problem is that no controlled experiment have been able to provide evidence to support that.

 

[Famine]

But is there a constraint in that

Can you elaborate? The question, as it stands, makes no sense, given that:

Abandoning the scientific method for any reason is to arbitrarily abandon all accumulated knowledge.

For instance with mystics/psychics, I've had relatives have their fortunes told and these fortunes have turned out to be true.

Define 'true' - and define 'fortunes'. Fortune-tellers are renowned for making broad-brush predictions that could, with a little wishful thinking, be applied to every single living person...

With the scientific method where would you begin (and end) your testing of hypotheses.

That depends on the hypothesis - and you don't test the hypothesis, you try to prove it's wrong.

Could you ever be satisfied with a result that it was fate/God/etc?

I'm not sure you paid attention to what I said - that's not how it works. The scientific method for the above would work as follows:

1. Your explanation for 'phenomenon X' is 'fate/God'.
2. You must assume that fate/God does not cause phenomenon X.
3. You must create a test to prove that phenomenon X is not caused by fate/God.
* If the result proves that phenomenon X is not caused by fate/God, your explanation that phenomenon X is caused by fate/God is wrong and must be reformulated. Return to step 1.
* If the result does not prove that phenomenon X is not caused by fate/God, you must create a new test. Return to step 2.
4. If you have no further ways to create a test that phenomenon X is not caused by fate/God, you may assume that it is, and it becomes knowledge.
5. Progress happens. There is a new way to test that phenomenon X is not caused by fate/God. Return to step 2.

At no point is there a result that proves fate/God causes phenomenon X, only results that don't prove that fate/God doesn't cause it.

This is how all knowledge we have (step 4) works. When you start throwing in exceptions, you arbitrarily abandon all knowledge. I'll assume you don't live in a forest capturing wild animals and picking fruit and mushrooms for sustenance as you're using the internet to communicate, so everything you own and use, and arguably even your very life, has been created via knowledge acquired through the scientific method. It seems insane to abandon it because your horoscope once came sort of true if you filled in the specifics it didn't mention well after the fact.

 

[Dotini]

What do you mean by accepted? Are non-materialist arguments removed from the conversation or are they merely challenged?

Well, I've been following this thread for many years. If anyone has ever attempted to document or sustain a "non-materialist" argument, I don't remember it. Nor am I aware that anyone has accepted its merit or validity. Face it, our community of male tech and car geeks is the wrong demography for the non-materialist type of guy. Personally, being very old, I've accumulated some experiences which challenge the materialist notion of consciousness and the strictly material basis of nature. But I don't believe in God. Neither do I believe against God. I do believe that this is not a good forum to find anything other that a one sided debate.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I've been following this thread for many years. If anyone has ever attempted to document or sustain a "non-materialist" argument, I don't remember it. Nor am I aware that anyone has accepted its merit or validity. Face it, our community of male tech and car geeks is the wrong demography for the non-materialist type of guy. Personally, being very old, I've accumulated some experiences which challenge the materialist notion of consciousness and the strictly material basis of nature. But I don't believe in God. Neither do I believe against God. I do believe that this is not a good forum to find anything other that a one sided debate.

Cognitive Dissonance. Religious indoctrination requires training your brain to apply an inconsistent set of rules to different aspects of your reality. Devices like a "spiritual realm" or simply defining something as "beyond science" are what enables this. All you need to do is convince someone that they should accept some part, any part, of reality outside of rational thought, and you have the seed planted for any amount of unsubstantiated contradictory mythology. Rationality is your only mechanism for deciding what knowledge to accept and what knowledge to throw away. Once you get someone to toss that tool aside, they have nothing with which to judge information - you reduce them to the level of someone blowing on a pair of dice and saying "I've got a good feeling about this one, let it ride!".

You can also achieve cognitive dissonance without religious indoctrination. Classifying certain knowledge as "materialism" is exactly what I'm talking about. I agree that one side of this "debate" does a much better job substantiating their position than the other side.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Which is why you have controls within testing, have a guess what the success rate for psychics and mystics when they have to work under controlled circumstances and give detailed answers.

If you watch these people work you will notice that they use very leading questions, respond in general terms and then rely on the recipients conformation bias to do the rest.

Derren Brown has quite literally made a career out of showing people how this kind of thing functions.

This series in particular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Derren_Brown_special)

I found this after looking up "Psychics controlled experiment" and found out about the guy you quoted:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal

It's very interesting and you make good points that I can't really counter so I'll bring one of my posts up to show what I'm struggling with:

This is from the "Unexplained experiences" thread:

My sister just went to see a psychic today. The lady asked if she knew a person called such and such, and she said no. Then she said she was going to try one more time then stop as there can be "interference" or whatever. With the second name she said our grandmother's name. Bear in mind this is a rare name (I don't know anyone else with it). Then she said our grandmother was holding her chest in pain - our grandmother had died of breast cancer....With that she finished and said our grandmother was helping with my sister's healing.

If we apply what Famine said in his post, we'd end up with an experiment like the one described in the Guardian article.

Chances are pretty high she would fail this test....

But then how does that explain her getting our grandmother's name in 2 attempts?

 

[Famine]

But then how does that explain her getting our grandmother's name in 2 attempts?

It's called cold-reading.

Did she specifically say "Your grandma is called [name]." or did she say "Do you know someone called [name]?" and your sister immediately infer she was talking about your grandmother and volunteer that information?

Breast cancer, lung problems and heart disease kills three quarters of women who died of natural causes in the 1980s. Did she mention breast cancer specifically, or did your sister infer that from the chest and volunteer that information?

And for that matter, why did she need two attempts at anything?

There's a terrific Penn & Teller's Bull**** episode on 'psychics' and cold-reading. I recommend it heartily.

But be warned, this forum is dominated by secularists, militant atheists, skeptics and debunkers who will make every attempt to belittle, tear you down and drive you away. I hope they don't, but if they do, at least a small minority of us appreciate your contribution.

That's a little ironic given that you once literally drove someone away - and your account only survived your stupidity by sheer fluke that the person in question returned to the site to talk about Fallout 4. I'd hoped you'd learned your lesson when it came to telling people what is and isn't acceptable to post.

 

[eran0004]

Well, I've been following this thread for many years. If anyone has ever attempted to document or sustain a "non-materialist" argument, I don't remember it. Nor am I aware that anyone has accepted its merit or validity. Face it, our community of male tech and car geeks is the wrong demography for the non-materialist type of guy. Personally, being very old, I've accumulated some experiences which challenge the materialist notion of consciousness and the strictly material basis of nature. But I don't believe in God. Neither do I believe against God. I do believe that this is not a good forum to find anything other that a one sided debate.

It's probably true that the kind of arguments that are based on belief are met with more criticism here than in other forums and because of that it would be easier to discuss spiritual matters elsewhere as people might be more willing to accept spiritual arguments in a forum for devoted believers. But strictly speaking the arguments wouldn't be any more valid there, just less challenged, or perhaps challenged in other ways.

The problem with religious arguments is that they are usually based on the reasoning:

"If X is true, then X must be true"

And because of this, the argument can only be accepted if you already believe that X is true. It also means that the argument makes perfect sense to those who are religious, and no sense at all to people who aren't and as such it's more or less hopeless to have a discussion on these matters.

From a sociological point of view, religion has (and has had) a great value in that it acts as a common cultural and traditional basis that can keep a group of people united, and in that it provides some basic rules for how people should act towards on another. So there can be great value in believing, or participating in religious activities and rituals, but that value doesn't give it any scientific validity.

If we apply what Famine said in his post, we'd end up with an experiment like the one described in the Guardian article.

Chances are pretty high she would fail this test....

But then how does that explain her getting our grandmother's name in 2 attempts?

Well, let's say that a person has one brother and one sister. Each of their parents also have a brother and a sister each. Each of these aunts /uncles are married and have a son and a daughter.

That gives you a more or less close family of:

Grandmother, grandfather
Mother, father, uncle, uncle, aunt, aunt
Brother, sister, cousin (f), cousin (m), cousin (f), cousin(m), cousin (f), cousin (m), cousin (f), cousin (m).

18 individuals, of which 9 are female and 9 are male.

Assuming that everyone have different names (and ignoring the fact that some names can be for both girls and boys), then for each guess there are nine chances that the guess is correct. With two guesses you've got 18 chances of a correct guess.

So in this case, rather than managing to guess a specific name in two chances, there are 18 chances to guess any name.

 

[huskeR32]

@Dotini "Non-materialistic" points of view become a little suspect when the only reason anybody ever evokes them is when they want their flavor of god to be accepted in spite of the lack of evidence for it.

Show me someone who abandons objectivity in all parts of their life, rather than one narrow and convenient aspect, and I'm interested in a conversation with them. But absent that, it just seems like somebody who isn't willing to ask themselves hard questions.

 

[Dotini]

Show me someone who abandons objectivity in all parts of their life, rather than one narrow and convenient aspect, and I'm interested in a conversation with them. But absent that, it just seems like somebody who isn't willing to ask themselves hard questions.

Then you might enjoy a conversation with a Cathar or Gnostic Christian, a Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist, Vedantic Hindu, Buddhist, Yogi, Sunni Sufi, Animist, Pantheist, or follower of Hylozoism or Panpsychism. These are a few examples of dualist philosophies or belief systems in which mind and body are separated. However, I doubt that any of these folks entirely abandon objectivity in all parts of life, such as crossing a busy street, obeying laws, paying bills, taxes and all the things of quotidian living in the modern world.

 

[huskeR32]

Then you might enjoy a conversation with a Cathar or Gnostic Christian, a Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist, Vedantic Hindu, Buddhist, Yogi, Sunni Sufi, Animist, Pantheist, or follower of Hylozoism or Panpsychism. These are a few examples of dualist philosophies or belief systems in which mind and body are separated.

In what way do adherents any of those beliefs systems apply "non-materialism" to anything other than their religion/spirituality?

 

[Dotini]

In what way do adherents any of those beliefs systems apply "non-materialism" to anything other than their religion/spirituality?

I expect you would have to ask them. Alternatively, you could do some reading. I do know a hylozoist. He maintains a deep relationship with the plant kingdom.

Back in the day when I was studying yoga my girlfriend and I would practice meditation and tantric sex.

 

[huskeR32]

I expect you would have to ask them.

So you offered up that list in response to my post without any particular reason to suspect those groups would actually be examples? Alright then.

 

[Dotini]

So you offered up that list in response to my post without any particular reason to suspect those groups would actually be examples? Alright then.

I know they are all dualists, and hold non-materialistic views. Like mind and body (consciousness and matter) being separate.

 

[BobK]

Well, let's say that a person has one brother and one sister. Each of their parents also have a brother and a sister each. Each of these aunts /uncles are married and have a son and a daughter.

That gives you a more or less close family of:

Grandmother, grandfather
Mother, father, uncle, uncle, aunt, aunt
Brother, sister, cousin (f), cousin (m), cousin (f), cousin(m), cousin (f), cousin (m), cousin (f), cousin (m).

18 individuals, of which 9 are female and 9 are male.

Assuming that everyone have different names (and ignoring the fact that some names can be for both girls and boys), then for each guess there are nine chances that the guess is correct. With two guesses you've got 18 chances of a correct guess.

So in this case, rather than managing to guess a specific name in two chances, there are 18 chances to guess any name.

...and that's just the close relatives. The name could just as well been their best friend in school, the person who sat next to them in cllass, an associate from a group or activity, a co-worker, etc, etc. Frankly I'd be surprised if neither name rang a bell somewhere.