Atheism or God? - our perception of reality.

[Skip]

thedoc - I suppose we should add "coincidence theorist" to the list? I wonder if they are as irrational as the conspiracy theorists?

Do you mean neither coincidence nor conspiracies exist?

[thedoc]

thedoc - I suppose we should add "coincidence theorist" to the list? I wonder if they are as irrational as the conspiracy theorists?

Do you mean neither coincidence nor conspiracies exist?

Yes, coincidences exist, but they are not some nefarious plan by others or some higher power. And conspiracies exist, but the theories are usually made up of fictional imaginings more than fact.

[Skip]

"Yes, coincidences exist, but they are not some nefarious plan by others or some higher power."

Ah. That does support my initial understanding:

1. a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
synonyms: accident, chance, serendipity, fortuity, providence, happenstance, fate; a fluke
"too close to be mere coincidence"
2. correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence.

However:
" And conspiracies exist, but the theories are usually made up of fictional imaginings more than fact."
is an unsupported generalization. An opinion.

[ReliStuPhD]

""And conspiracies exist, but the theories are usually made up of fictional imaginings more than fact" is an unsupported generalization. An opinion.

Not necessarily. Conspiracy theories, almost by nature, set a bar for proof/disproof so high that it is rarely something that can satisfied. They often operate like products of an overactive imagination (which, like the doc, I'm inclined to think they are).

So far as I know, not a single one of these conspiracy theories has been proven. The presence of such a long list undermines your contention that thedoc's comment is an unsupported generalization. Certainly there have been conspiracy theories that were shown to be true, but there is quite a bit of evidence to support thedoc's generalization, even if it isn't always true.

PS The social theorists listed in the main Wiki on conspiracy theories are worth a read, especially where conspiracy theories are likened to modern-day superstition.

[Dalek Prime]

Not necessarily. Conspiracy theories, almost by nature, set a bar for proof/disproof so high that it is rarely something that can satisfied. They often operate like products of an overactive imagination (which, like the doc, I'm inclined to think they are).

Hmmm, this sounds familiar, and if I replaced "conspiracy theories" with "religion", that's exactly the response an atheist would give. Just saying.

[Dalek Prime]

All this talk of atheism vs theism reminds me of the dress colour controversy from a few months ago that raged over the Internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/busin ... .html?_r=0

If we can't come to conclusions on something that should be as simple as this (which Russell talks about in the beginning chapters of "The Problems of Philosophy" regarding his own desk), what hope is there in coming to conclusions on God?

[thedoc]

Not necessarily. Conspiracy theories, almost by nature, set a bar for proof/disproof so high that it is rarely something that can satisfied. They often operate like products of an overactive imagination (which, like the doc, I'm inclined to think they are).

Hmmm, this sounds familiar, and if I replaced "conspiracy theories" with "religion", that's exactly the response an atheist would give. Just saying.

In that way "conspiracy theories" and "Religion" are much alike, they are both accepted on little or no evidence, and a lot of conjecture. The real difference is that Religions are expected to be accepted on faith. I've seen too many "proofs" of some theories that could easily be explained as something else, primarily UFO's and Moon Landings. This is because I am more interested in things astronomical than terrestrial. On these issues I have to disagree with Dalek, in that the bar for proof is so low for those that believe the theory, that almost anything will do as proof.

[thedoc]

All this talk of atheism vs theism reminds me of the dress colour controversy from a few months ago that raged over the Internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/busin ... .html?_r=0

If we can't come to conclusions on something that should be as simple as this (which Russell talks about in the beginning chapters of "The Problems of Philosophy" regarding his own desk), what hope is there in coming to conclusions on God?

The first thing I would want is to see the actual dress in the daylight, not a photo or artificial light.

It also reminded me of a story told by a person who had been in the military. Several officers were examining at a color photo, looking for bombing targets, when this person asked "What about that ammo dump?" They all said "What ammo dump?" So he pointed to the map at a spot they couldn't see because it was camouflaged, but this person had a particular form of color blindness that allowed him to see it. There were 50 secondary explosions after the air strike.

A bombing run is probably what should happen to the dress.

[Dalek Prime]

That's what Russell talked about, Doc. There are various colours and such that, given differing perspectives and lighting, the colours would change from reds and browns to, in reflection, bright white or yellow. And he asks, aside from our sense-datum, the true nature of the desk. And in daylight, you would get one aspect of it, perhaps more from varying angles, but are they the true nature of the dress? And then, that would be one opinion in a million, if you've read the article.

Do you not see what I'm getting at? With all those eyes and scrutiny, there still was no clear agreement on something that should have been so simple. So I ask again, how can anyone hope to attain this here, regarding God?

[Dalek Prime]

Not necessarily. Conspiracy theories, almost by nature, set a bar for proof/disproof so high that it is rarely something that can satisfied. They often operate like products of an overactive imagination (which, like the doc, I'm inclined to think they are).

Hmmm, this sounds familiar, and if I replaced "conspiracy theories" with "religion", that's exactly the response an atheist would give. Just saying.

In that way "conspiracy theories" and "Religion" are much alike, they are both accepted on little or no evidence, and a lot of conjecture. The real difference is that Religions are expected to be accepted on faith. I've seen too many "proofs" of some theories that could easily be explained as something else, primarily UFO's and Moon Landings. This is because I am more interested in things astronomical than terrestrial. On these issues I have to disagree with Dalek, in that the bar for proof is so low for those that believe the theory, that almost anything will do as proof.

So only religion and God can be accepted on faith, merely because it's expected to be accepted that way, whilst everything else, including our sense data, must be questioned? That seems a little exceptional to me. You expect proof for all other things save faith.

And in the case of religion, it's fair to say that, for many, the bar is so low that simple repetition and indoctrination, or a subjective revelation, will do as proof, if it can be called that.

Anyways try not to get carried away by this post. The one just above it is, to me, more important and relevant.

[thedoc]

That's what Russell talked about, Doc. There are various colours and such that, given differing perspectives and lighting, the colours would change from reds and browns to, in reflection, bright white or yellow. And he asks, aside from our sense-datum, the true nature of the desk. And in daylight, you would get one aspect of it, perhaps more from varying angles, but are they the true nature of the dress? And then, that would be one opinion in a million, if you've read the article.

Do you not see what I'm getting at? With all those eyes and scrutiny, there still was no clear agreement on something that should have been so simple. So I ask again, how can anyone hope to attain this here, regarding God?

It is a bit ironic that in a court room and eye witness account is given very high priority, yet it has been demonstrated just how faulty that can be.

It reminds me of an old TV courtroom drama where a mans wife had been accused of a hit and run. The case went to trial with the wife in absentia, and after the trial with a not guilty verdict, he revealed that his wife was not driving the car, because she was in the hospital having a baby. But the witnesses all claimed to clearly see her in the car driving it.

[Dalek Prime]

That's what Russell talked about, Doc. There are various colours and such that, given differing perspectives and lighting, the colours would change from reds and browns to, in reflection, bright white or yellow. And he asks, aside from our sense-datum, the true nature of the desk. And in daylight, you would get one aspect of it, perhaps more from varying angles, but are they the true nature of the dress? And then, that would be one opinion in a million, if you've read the article.

Do you not see what I'm getting at? With all those eyes and scrutiny, there still was no clear agreement on something that should have been so simple. So I ask again, how can anyone hope to attain this here, regarding God?

It is a bit ironic that in a court room and eye witness account is given very high priority, yet it has been demonstrated just how faulty that can be.

It reminds me of an old TV courtroom drama where a mans wife had been accused of a hit and run. The case went to trial with the wife in absentia, and after the trial with a not guilty verdict, he revealed that his wife was not driving the car, because she was in the hospital having a baby. But the witnesses all claimed to clearly see her in the car driving it.

Yes, and yet, in this day and age, there is zero eyewitness accounting to biblical happenings. You sit there, nitpicking, yet you offer less. That's the real irony. And, if you say that the apostles were the eyewitnesses, why do you value their testimony over someone's in a courtroom. Isn't your disparaging of testimonial witnessing universal? Or is it selective?

[thedoc]

That's what Russell talked about, Doc. There are various colours and such that, given differing perspectives and lighting, the colours would change from reds and browns to, in reflection, bright white or yellow. And he asks, aside from our sense-datum, the true nature of the desk. And in daylight, you would get one aspect of it, perhaps more from varying angles, but are they the true nature of the dress? And then, that would be one opinion in a million, if you've read the article.

Do you not see what I'm getting at? With all those eyes and scrutiny, there still was no clear agreement on something that should have been so simple. So I ask again, how can anyone hope to attain this here, regarding God?

It is a bit ironic that in a court room and eye witness account is given very high priority, yet it has been demonstrated just how faulty that can be.

It reminds me of an old TV courtroom drama where a mans wife had been accused of a hit and run. The case went to trial with the wife in absentia, and after the trial with a not guilty verdict, he revealed that his wife was not driving the car, because she was in the hospital having a baby. But the witnesses all claimed to clearly see her in the car driving it.

Yes, and yet, in this day and age, there is zero eyewitness accounting to biblical happenings. You sit there, nitpicking, yet you offer less. That's the real irony. And, if you say that the apostles were the eyewitnesses, why do you value their testimony over someone's in a courtroom. Isn't your disparaging of testimonial witnessing universal? Or is it selective?

And it appears that you are painting all "Christians" with the same brush. I have repeatedly posted that I do not accept the Bible or Biblical accounts as history. I see the OT as mythology and I question the events of the NT but not the lessons taught. So where have I posted that I value the testimony of the apostles over more recent testimony?

[thedoc]

I consider myself a Christian, by my definition, and not by anyone else's. My belief is very simple, I believe there is a God and Jesus was the Christ. I would stress that this is what I believe, I don't claim to know.

[Dalek Prime]

Why are you getting defensive, Doc? Show me where I'm painting all Christians with the same brush, and I'll retract.

Getting on, I didn't say you accepted the testimony of the apostles, or the history. I simply said that "if you say...". Note the if, please... So, if you disparage witnessing in general, you must put in doubt any other people who witness anything of the miraculous. Unless, you think they are better witnesses than those in a courtroom.

Stop feeling you're being attacked, please Doc. Leave it out of our discussions.