What will quantum physics research do to Atheism?

[Eleison]

Duality can proceed from unity in two ways, by replication or division.  The former is quantitative, the latter qualitative.  If a unity is total a duality can only be an illusion.  Hence reality remains one whilst appearing to take on diverse forms.

[Wolfgang]

The idea ancient man had insight or knowledge into truths on some grander scale is nice and sentimental, and totally nonsense.

The Ancients had some ideas which are worth exploring now, but there wasn't some mystic element they were tapped into. Stop that shit y'all.

Too much dualism. "modernity sucks...the ancients therefore knew better".

It isn't that simple.

Humans have never got it right. Not since we fucked around and developed civilization.

[Eleison]

The idea ancient man had insight or knowledge into truths on some grander scale is nice and sentiment, and totally nonsense.

The Ancients had some ideas which are worth exploring now, but there wasn't some mystic element they were tapped into. Stop that shit y'all.

Too much dualism. "modernity sucks...the ancients therefore knew better".

I missed the part where anyone said this.

[Iron]

This sounds like postmodern anti essentialism to me. "downplay the similarities and focus on how different we all are". Religion has an essential structure, which is being reveled by the research above. This is belief in supernatural agents (persons/intentionality). All other properties of religion are superstructural on belief in supernatual agents. And, low and behold, we have dedicated parts of the brain which evolved to posit agency in the evironment based on insufficient perceptual cues and to make inferences about the internal mental states of agents which we never really directly experience (i.e. I adduce your pissed off when you frown and clench your fist).

It really is not postmodern anti-essentialism. At all. I'm talking about very real, concrete differences. The sort of thing you could quantify by examining brain activity (which, in the case of the 7th Day Adventists I mentioned, has been done). Religious experience is not at all uniform. This isn't some sort of wishy-washy bullshit, it's an empirical fact. People who are swept up in an ecstatic experience of divine or demonic possession are experiencing something radically different from a medieval theologian who endeavors to use reason to uncover the existence of God. The reality is that even within a tradition there is a great deal of diversity. There are patterns, of course, that apply to multiple traditions. Realistically, you can probably reduce religious experience to a half dozen commonly reoccurring 'types'.

Also, you're incorrect about the 'essential structure of religion'. Supernatural agency is a commonly recurring feature of religious thought, but is not essential. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but if you cut to the heart of the Upanishads, or examine various forms of Buddhism, you find a perspective in which deities or supernatural phenomena have no real significance. And even in those forms of Buddhism that do involve deities, these often play a symbolic role as something like 'psychological stimulants' or meditational aids.

And then there's neoplatonism, Taoism, etc, etc, etc...

The fixation on theism is very tiresome. Maybe try debunking the 4 Noble Truths or the Vajra Sliver Reasoning to spice things up a little bit. It's really not even in the same category.

Also - the distinction between mathematics that you pointed out is basically valid, but my objective was simply to point out the fact that just because something is rooted in neural activity does not mean that it is false. Religious claims are different from mathematical claims, you are correct.

[Wolfgang]

The idea ancient man had insight or knowledge into truths on some grander scale is nice and sentiment, and totally nonsense.

The Ancients had some ideas which are worth exploring now, but there wasn't some mystic element they were tapped into. Stop that shit y'all.

Too much dualism. "modernity sucks...the ancients therefore knew better".

I missed the part where anyone said this.

That seemed to be what you were saying. Can you clarify how this is different than what you mean exactly?

But that general notion is a running theme in Morbid Angel lyrics and Black Metal philosophy, and is common around here.

[lost_wanderer]

Behind matter, there's a Will, be it love, hate, happiness, etc. But how can you tell it exists only by science, if science is based on observation of the matter? All that the eye can see is the external manifestation of it. For example, you can see someone punching another one in the face, but you got to interpret it to know he did it because he was angry.  In that perspective, a scientific materialistic atheist is someone who claim to know that "God" doesn't exist, but by using a tool (science) who have no capacities to affirm it. Maybe, I was clumsy to put it in those terms.

Maybe I'm too narrow minded in my definition of science. That is why I asked what was your definition of it.

 "If humans have the capacity to know God, then so can science, at it is run by humans.

Or do you want me to just take your word for it that your "intuition" tell you all that you need to know?"

If humans have the capacity to know God, it's not necessary the case with science, even if it's run by humans. A spoon and a saw are two tools created by humans, but I wouldn't try to cut a tree with a spoon. "Intuition" alone is often insufficient particularly if you don't know how and when to use it. Science amongst other things can help, but in the end, intuition must remain the backbone in the "understanding of God".   Intuition is not good for everything either.
"Intuition" is maybe not the right word for it but right now it is the only word I can put on it. If I think of a better word, I will give it. Maybe someone has a better word for it.
Words can be tricky, especially when it comes down to spirituality. And English is not my first language either.

I don't even know but it has become almost a slur by pseudo-theists. I ignore it. Their "intuition" allows them to "see" the "higher plane". So they take fake pitty on those who don't share the experience. It is the same as speaking in tongues and being abducted by aliens.

Worry about deforestation instead.

For my part, don't care personally if someone doesn't know or doesn't want to know about those experiences. I do this because I think it's important as human to share our knowledge if we want to progress as a species. Than again, is only my intuition. All I can say is to take what is good, and leave the rest.

And just because we talk about metaphysic doesn't mean we don't have any worries about the nature.


But I think  right now this topic is begining to  go round in circles.

[crow]

All topics are circular, as long as anyone left standing is hoping to win.
Still, what else were you doing, anyway?

[Conservationist]

Humans have never got it right. Not since we fucked around and developed civilization.

A statement of despair.

I think it's clear the ancients got it MORE right on the social/philosophical/moral front than our modern death-bound society has...

[Wolfgang]

Humans have never got it right. Not since we fucked around and developed civilization.

A statement of despair.

I think it's clear the ancients got it MORE right on the social/philosophical/moral front than our modern death-bound society has...

The ancients had some ideas we could learn from now, but the ancients didn't live in a modern society. The reason for the change from ancient to modern is because of modern technology. We could never go back. It is a fanciful idea. But we need humanity 3.0.

[Cargést]

Humans have never got it right. Not since we fucked around and developed civilization.

A statement of despair.

I think it's clear the ancients got it MORE right on the social/philosophical/moral front than our modern death-bound society has...

The ancients had some ideas we could learn from now, but the ancients didn't live in a modern society.

Lol, wat?  Of course they did.  Modernity is always.

[analrapist]

But we need humanity 3.0.

It's clear modernity has failed and so it is not the path to humanity 3.0.

But let's talk about this.

[Eleison]

The idea ancient man had insight or knowledge into truths on some grander scale is nice and sentiment, and totally nonsense.

The Ancients had some ideas which are worth exploring now, but there wasn't some mystic element they were tapped into. Stop that shit y'all.

Too much dualism. "modernity sucks...the ancients therefore knew better".

I missed the part where anyone said this.

That seemed to be what you were saying. Can you clarify how this is different than what you mean exactly?

But that general notion is a running theme in Morbid Angel lyrics and Black Metal philosophy, and is common around here.

I'm still not exactly sure what I said that led to this interpretation, but I will try to be clearer.  The dichotomy between typical modern thinking, and typical traditional thinking (and there is a dichotomy even it is not absolute), is as follows.  Modern thinkers are concerned with details and individual cases, traditional thinkers were more concerned with general patterns.  Traditional philosophy, such as the Upanishads or Plato, is concerned primarily with fundamental metaphysical questions, and secondarily with social applications.  When these social applications are considered it is primarily in a pragmatic sense ie. how do we make human social structures fit within the natural order?  Modern thinkers try to work their way up from isolated cases ie. how do we make life better for this individual or group?  This coincides with a shift in the understanding of reality as such.  For traditional thinkers the physical world was simply a transitory framework for the expression of a metaphysical order (a position which is not necessarily religious), whereas modern thinkers see the material world as absolute. 

Obviously the above dichotomy is not absolute, both perspectives have always existed, but there has undeniably been a drastic shift towards what I have described as the modern attitude in the past 500 years or so. 

[Conservationist]

I'd like to stand up here and say I'm a militant agnostic.

The question of "God" is too anthropomorphic to deal with.

I prefer to think that it's logical that what we see is not all there is, and then to try to understand the logic of what might be beyond the visual.

As opposed to projecting myself in human form as the eternal.

[analrapist]

Atheism seems to me the biggest waste of time ever. First it's totally clear it's just disguised liberalism. Second to dedicate your life to what you hate is a really stupid idea.

[Spectrum]

First it's totally clear it's just disguised liberalism.

No, it's not.
You can, quite easily, come to the conclusion that equality is a bad idea and be an atheist. All it takes is going outside and playing sports (something many of you haven't done, from the looks of things).

Second to dedicate your life to what you hate is a really stupid idea.

Dawkins may do this, but most atheists do not. Why would they? They don't believe, and they leave it at that.


I wonder how many of you have actually left the basement and met other atheists (more than one or two). I know several atheists who strongly oppose liberalism's central tenets, while I know several Christians who embrace equality and cosmopolitanism.

By the way, this "omg atheism is liberal so its bad." banter is getting ridiculous. Just because you disagree with something does not make it liberal. Furthermore, writing lengthy paragraphs until the cognitive dissonance wears away does not make you any more logical.