Atheist or Religious

Atheism or Religion

  • Atheist

  • Religious

  • Plead the fifth

Results are only viewable after voting.
New Age United

New Age United

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Nope, I am saying that personal experience is as convincing as evidence in the mind of the person having the experience. I am speaking of personal experience as opposed to a controlled experience, like a scientific experiment. Personal experience is unreliable because the person having the experience is not capable of considering all of the factors, prejudices and biases they are subject to, and because our experience of the world is limited by our perception. Yet, the default position of our minds is to find personal experience very convincing, sometimes more convincing than facts.
Click to expand...
And heisenberg don't ever be afraid to bring the facts to me. I need to be aware.
 
New Age United

New Age United

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Keep in mind that patterns and coincidences are an expected feature of randomness. You've stated this very well when you say it "feels" like nothing is random. The human brain has a tendency to assign agency to the patterns it perceives. IOW, our minds aren't happy to simply notice patterns, they also want to think that something intelligent is behind them, and this notion occurs without conscious thought. That's because evolution has primed us to be this way.

There are two types of errors which can be made when it comes to pattern recognition. We can notice patterns that aren't really there, known as a type one error. Or, we can fail to notice patterns that are really there, known as a type two error. Evolutionary speaking, it's less costly to make a type one error. If we notice a rustling in the grass and assume it's a tiger, we run away. If it were just the wind, and not a tiger, so what? The mistake hasn't cost us anything. If we notice a rustling and fail to recognize that it might be a tiger, the mistake can cost us our lives. So, we have evolved to favor type one errors, meaning our brains instinctively err on the side of caution.

At the same time, our brains have not had much pressure to evolve an instinctive understanding of probability and statistics, which means we tend to over or under estimate the likelihood of events and coincidences, and misunderstand the nature of randomness.


"Not understanding just how much of your life is governed by randomness generates many a fallacious belief about the way that the world works. It should be clearly understood that randomness creates coincidence. That is to say, if there were no coincidences in life, we could speculate that some outside force is controlling the events in our lives. However, with true randomness comes the expectation that coincidences will happen: there will be cancer clusters, your friend will call you just when you were thinking about them, and last night’s dream will have somehow 'predicted' the events of the following day." - Kyle Hill
Click to expand...
Fuck Heis you're a genius aren't you lol
 
Bulletproof_Love

Bulletproof_Love

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Keep in mind that patterns and coincidences are an expected feature of randomness. You've stated this very well when you say it "feels" like nothing is random. The human brain has a tendency to assign agency to the patterns it perceives. IOW, our minds aren't happy to simply notice patterns, they also want to think that something intelligent is behind them, and this notion occurs without conscious thought. That's because evolution has primed us to be this way.

There are two types of errors which can be made when it comes to pattern recognition. We can notice patterns that aren't really there, known as a type one error. Or, we can fail to notice patterns that are really there, known as a type two error. Evolutionary speaking, it's less costly to make a type one error. If we notice a rustling in the grass and assume it's a tiger, we run away. If it were just the wind, and not a tiger, so what? The mistake hasn't cost us anything. If we notice a rustling and fail to recognize that it might be a tiger, the mistake can cost us our lives. So, we have evolved to favor type one errors, meaning our brains instinctively err on the side of caution.

At the same time, our brains have not had much pressure to evolve an instinctive understanding of probability and statistics, which means we tend to over or under estimate the likelihood of events and coincidences, and misunderstand the nature of randomness.


"Not understanding just how much of your life is governed by randomness generates many a fallacious belief about the way that the world works. It should be clearly understood that randomness creates coincidence. That is to say, if there were no coincidences in life, we could speculate that some outside force is controlling the events in our lives. However, with true randomness comes the expectation that coincidences will happen: there will be cancer clusters, your friend will call you just when you were thinking about them, and last night’s dream will have somehow 'predicted' the events of the following day." - Kyle Hill
Click to expand...
So summed up, correlation does not imply causation. Our tendencies to misconstrue or misinterpret what happens in the world can build fallacious observations. These observations then synthesize and perpetuate when others are introduced to the misconception and concur with it. or if they confirm their similar perspective. (i.e. Circle Jerking in internet forums).
 
Bulletproof_Love

Bulletproof_Love

Well-Known Member
Anybody ever hear of a play/book/movie called inherit the wind? Its aobut the scopes monkey trial, state of Tennesse tries to sue a school teacher for teaching "EVILution". I know the main conflict was creationism v darwinism. But it does dive in to atheism vs theism and how institutionalized dogmatism is a mutually shared delusion of self righteousness.
 
Michael Huntherz

Michael Huntherz

Well-Known Member
Bulletproof_Love said:
So summed up, correlation does not imply causation. Our tendencies to misconstrue or misinterpret what happens in the world can build fallacious observations. These observations then synthesize and perpetuate when others are introduced to the misconception and concur with it. or if they confirm their similar perspective. (i.e. Circle Jerking in internet forums).
Click to expand...
======================================================================
///////==== But isn't that what a bunch of atheists are doing right now, in this thread, at this very moment? ====\\\\\\\
======================================================================
 
Bulletproof_Love

Bulletproof_Love

Well-Known Member
Michael Huntherz said:
======================================================================
///////==== But isn't that what a bunch of atheists are doing right now, in this thread, at this very moment? ====\\\\\\\
======================================================================
Click to expand...
Forums were made for circle jerking. Everybody should Come get their fix. lay down all your pretentious vocab to gratify yourself with (the feeling) of being intellectual.
bongsmilie(emoji to show the intent for levity)
 
Kasuti

Kasuti

Well-Known Member
I look at life like this. If you look around you and see just how coplicated and diverse life is here on earth, and then gaze up at the stars in the night sky and just try to imagine all the countless life forms that surely inhabit our universe, it's hard to imagine all that makes up our universe to be just coincidence.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
schnooby said:
disagree......agnosticism might be the most honest position because it admits it doesnt know......which when one considers the highly debatable evidence for god or intelligent design one must admit that its pretty much impossible to prove a negative which i think trying prove theres no god is doing......
Click to expand...
That is why it is dumb. Strictly speaking, we're all agnostic. There is no need to say it.

I'm fully aware that many on the religious side and some on the atheist side speak of knowing that their beliefs are in fact real. Most Christians I know wouldn't admit to not knowing there is a God. They claim knowledge.

But a claim of knowledge isnt possession of knowledge. Knowledge is transferable from one person to another. Since no one has any special source of knowledge that is inaccessible to all of us, the Christians claim to know God exists is hollow and meaningless.

So, as I said, we're all agnostic. No one can know if there is or is not a God. The only thing that matters in this subject is our beliefs.

Here too, is where many get mixed up. As an atheist It isnt that I believe there is no god, the correct way to say it is that I lack a belief in any God.

In other words, atheism is a rejection of positive belief, not the adoption of a negative belief.
 
abalonehx

abalonehx

Well-Known Member
Bull. Agnosticism is dumb.You can be an idiot agnostic and not have an opinion on the reality of bigfoot, unicorns or honest politicians? I come to my own conclusions about reality based on evidence.
 
abalonehx

abalonehx

Well-Known Member
While Im all for the exploration of one's own subconscious ... we all know the reality we live in - is. Unless you have mental disorders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top