The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Aldebaran]

"Spiritual truth" appears to be whatever one wishes it to be. To you, it is Jesus, along with a host of other doctrines relating to his divinity. To someone of a different religion it is something else. Why don't you see this as problematic? Different doctrines all make the same claim to "spiritual truth," yet none is able to demonstrate its "spiritual truth" in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure all religions even rely on what you refer to as spiritual truth. Some are cult-like, where the masses are reliant on what a leader tells them is the truth, and the masses are not encouraged to discover the truth for themselves. I could name certain Christian denominations that are actually like that but that might be against the rules here.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This from a guy who plagiarized his very screen name from a group of guys who formed a band in their basement:

Eight Foot Manchild practice - YouTube

Even if this wasn't one of my own bands, which I named myself (and it is - that's me on guitar and my wife on trombone), that still would not meet the definition of plagiarism.

And even if it did, that doesn't magically make your own act of plagiarism acceptable.

Once again, thank you for continuing to make an example of yourself. By all means, keep it up.

There's a good reason other people aren't responding to you. Can you figure out what it is?

Probably because I started asking it a few hours ago, and this forum does not have particularly good traffic, and it's a subject most people have never seriously considered, and perhaps lookers-on have been discouraged by your own hilariously inept attempts at addressing the issue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not sure all religions even rely on what you refer to as spiritual truth. Some are cult-like, where the masses are reliant on what a leader tells them is the truth, and the masses are not encouraged to discover the truth for themselves. I could name certain Christian denominations that are actually like that but that might be against the rules here.

To stir the pot a bit, aren't most religions like this to some degree? How many religions allow their adherents to openly question dogma in the congregation? One often hears stories of former Christians who felt that their questions were shut down by their pastors or other church members. Doubt was given the status of sin and strongly discouraged. Members expressing doubt were looked down upon as "weak" and were shunned. I'm not sure that this sort of environment is conducive to inquiry.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

To stir the pot a bit, aren't most religions like this to some degree? How many religions allow their adherents to openly question dogma in the congregation? One often hears stories of former Christians who felt that their questions were shut down by their pastors or other church members. Doubt was given the status of sin and strongly discouraged. Members expressing doubt were looked down upon as "weak" and were shunned. I'm not sure that this sort of environment is conducive to inquiry.

Indeed. There is only one unforgivable sin in Christianity - disbelief.

 

[JGG]

To stir the pot a bit, aren't most religions like this to some degree? How many religions allow their adherents to openly question dogma in the congregation? One often hears stories of former Christians who felt that their questions were shut down by their pastors or other church members. Doubt was given the status of sin and strongly discouraged. Members expressing doubt were looked down upon as "weak" and were shunned. I'm not sure that this sort of environment is conducive to inquiry.

I was excommunicated by my church, family and friends because I was "posessed by the demon of doubt".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, the same God as I worship. There's no reason for you to assume otherwise since you don't claim to even know the God I worship.

What I mean is that people of all sorts of religions, that pander to different deities, all claim to have personal experiences with the deity or deities they worship. Given that no religion has the majority of humanity in its membership, this means that no matter what religion you are a part of, the majority of humanity will disagree with you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I was excommunicated by my church, family and friends because I was "posessed by the demon of doubt".

I'm sorry to hear that. This is an example of what I was talking about: doubt is viewed as demonic and all demonic influences must be removed from the church body, lest the corruption spread. This often means the severing of social ties between family and friends, ultimately allowing the church to insulate itself from outside or "worldly" influences. This seems cult-like to me. I don't think cults are characterised primarily by the bizarreness of their beliefs, but by their social organisation and how they deal with outside influences and mildly discrepant views in their own members.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[JGG]

I'm sorry to hear that.

Don't be. Now I have new friends, new family, and nobody defining my beliefs for me. Worked out for the best.

 

[Colter]

......"The philosophy of the universe cannot be predicated on the observations of so-called science. If such a metamorphosis could not be seen, a scientist would be inclined to deny the possibility of developing a butterfly out of a caterpillar.

Physical stability associated with biologic elasticity is present in nature only because of the well-nigh infinite wisdom possessed by the Master Architects of creation. Nothing less than transcendental wisdom could ever design units of matter which are at the same time so stable and so efficiently flexible." UB 1955​

 

[Colter]

What else would I be referring to?

I was just checking to make sure. The Bible is of coarse a collection of 66 books that were agreed upon by the RCC and it's early councils. Then the books themselves suffered the same kind of sorting and sifting before that. There were other books that were important to first century Christians that were un-inspired by the councils.

The books of the bible were written by holy men, some more holy than others. They represent the extent of enlightenment and religious views of the age of their development.

The books of the bible do NOT claim to be the word of God.

“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see."UB 1955​

 

[Colter]

Oh yes we can. We can take a look at your brain and watch it happening from a physical, real-world series of neuron firings.

HowStuffWorks "The Brain During Religious Experiences"
Religious Experiences Shrink Part of the Brain - Scientific American

But that's not proving God, that is a technique for observing the brains electrical activity.

 

[BL2KTN]

But that's not proving God, that is a technique for observing the brains electrical activity.

The brain's electrical activity is an accurate marker for thoughts. In fact, we take readings of the brain's electrical activities to read people's minds now:

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind

And that article is three years old (ancient in the rapidly progression field of neurology). We're actually much better now.

So when we see the electrical patterns during a religious experience, we know that the religious experience is occurring inside the brain. We can see that those "speaking in tongues" actually have no real language areas of the brain firing... it's just babble. Likewise we can initiate religious experience through manipulation of the brain, or if there is damage to the brain (specifically the left temporal lobe). http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=114836

In summary, everything you experience happens through the physical actions of your very complex brain. Colors are interpretations of wavelengths, sounds the creations made in response to vibrations... and your religious experiences are no different.

 

[Chany]

But that's not proving God, that is a technique for observing the brains electrical activity.

It's not supposed to prove God. It's supposed to show that some religious experiences and feelings are brain activity, no external agents required.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The brain's electrical activity is an accurate marker for thoughts. In fact, we take readings of the brain's electrical activities to read people's minds now:

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind

And that article is three years old (ancient in the rapidly progression field of neurology). We're actually much better now.

So when we see the electrical patterns during a religious experience, we know that the religious experience is occurring inside the brain. We can see that those "speaking in tongues" actually have no real language areas of the brain firing... it's just babble. Likewise we can initiate religious experience through manipulation of the brain, or if there is damage to the brain (specifically the left temporal lobe). http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=114836

In summary, everything you experience happens through the physical actions of your very complex brain. Colors are interpretations of wavelengths, sounds the creations made in response to vibrations... and your religious experiences are no different.

Sorry to nitpick a bit, but some of the interpretations of the study in that article ("Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind") are considered highly overblown by the neuroscience community. Basically, the technology currently available is far from being able to reveal "movies in the mind," although that is a tantalizing prospect. We are nowhere near an Aurora Chair yet (skip to 0:55):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPrZuHd89VE

 

[BL2KTN]

Sorry to nitpick a bit, but some of the interpretations of the study in that article ("Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind") are considered highly overblown by the neuroscience community. Basically, the technology currently available is far from being able to reveal "movies in the mind," although that is a tantalizing prospect. We are nowhere near an Aurora Chair yet (skip to 0:55):

The point isn't that the the technology is flawless or precise... the point is that the proof of concept exists and is improving.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point isn't that the the technology is flawless or precise... the point is that the proof of concept exists and is improving.

Yes, various proofs of concept, and no single unified methodology, with some individuals very eager to bring their own protocols to market. One needs to be critical when examining extraordinary claims about neuroimaging being able to reveal what some claim it can reveal. All I'm saying it to beware sensationalistic headlines.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yes, various proofs of concept, and no single unified methodology, with some individuals very eager to bring their own protocols to market. One needs to be critical when examining extraordinary claims about neuroimaging being able to reveal what some claim it can reveal. All I'm saying it to beware sensationalistic headlines.

I'm aware of it. Most are using a automated computer learning pattern recognition system like Microsoft used for Kinect. The problem is that recognizing the human body's position in a video stream is much easier than recognizing the image being viewed based on electrical patterns at cellular levels.

 

[Colter]

It's not supposed to prove God. It's supposed to show that some religious experiences and feelings are brain activity, no external agents required.

When it comes to the God fragment, the spirit is internal within the mind. I was just pointing out that the detection of these mind activities isn't proof that it comes from God.

 

[bhsmte]

I was just checking to make sure. The Bible is of coarse a collection of 66 books that were agreed upon by the RCC and it's early councils. Then the books themselves suffered the same kind of sorting and sifting before that. There were other books that were important to first century Christians that were un-inspired by the councils.

The books of the bible were written by holy men, some more holy than others. They represent the extent of enlightenment and religious views of the age of their development.

The books of the bible do NOT claim to be the word of God.

“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see."UB 1955​

Some of the biblical authors are anonymous and no one has a clue who wrote their works.