The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread

Welcome to the Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread!

(Peter, if you are reading this, please note that it is only fair that there is an atheist/ anti-pseudoscience thread if there is a paranormal section. I am following PK Jacker's advice.)

Are you tired of agnostics, theists, and pseudoscientists (dream sharing and OBE believers), in my opinion, spreading misinformation?

Then this thread is for you!

Please feel free to share quotes, or stories about theists, agnostics and pseudoscientists.

Remember to be respectful, because in my opinion, they can get their feelings hurt easily.

Possible discussions:

Why dream interpretation is a pseudo science.

Why it is impossible to leave your physical body.

Why dream sharing is impossible,

Sometimes I share dreams with strangers.

Sorry, but this thread is specifically for non-pseudo scientists.

If you want to talk about dream sharing, go to the paranormal section.

I'm sorry if I make spelling mistakes here, guys. I'm a little hungover. It was my wife's birthday yesterday!

Okay. Let's get to the topic. Atheism! Yes, after much research I have landed in that position. In history, men like Epicurus, Omar Kayyam, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Mark Twain, Darwin, Voltaire, Spinoza...they all took significant steps towards atheism (even if some were agnostic, deist, pantheist - it was venial for their time).

I think of them as anachronisms of reason. Today, I recommend that people read critiques on religion by Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, AC Grayling, Victor Stenger and last, but certainly not least, the great anti-theist Christopher Hitchens.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Atheism means not believing in God. This is more than that. It is just plain materialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t atheism [ey-thee-iz-uh m] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?s=t

materialism [muh-teer-ee-uh-liz-uh m] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin noun 1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. 2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Naturally, I do mean more the second definition.

It is interesting that so frequently people who believe in something beyond, above, higher than, or whatever tend to forget that they still have to figure out this regular world with all its rules and functions first. A scientific approach and reason still do apply and must be learned. The rational powers of the mind must be maintained and exercised rather than being allowed to decay in favor of entirely emotional and intuitive approaches.

LucidityMaster wrote: Sorry, but this thread is specifically for non-pseudo scientists.

If you want to talk about dream sharing, go to the paranormal section.

But I was just last week when I was scientifically dreaming with other scientists.

By the way, I just want to point out that one can believe in an afterlife, like a New Ager, or Spiritualist, and still be an atheist.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Amen to that! :mrgreen: (I like to ruffle a few feathers with my word choice at the atheist party. Atheists shouldn't be theophobic though, and should be above it)

When you sneeze and someone says God Bless You, it doesn't mean you're going to be damned to Heaven for all eternity! That's my attempt at an atheist joke. ;)

Thanks Summerlander, for the insightful post.

To exclude everyone who is wrong, I renamed the thread: The Atheist and Anti-Pseudoscience Thread.

Yes, worship Me! For I am above all thee petty mortals--dogs are the path to true enlightenment! Dogism is the one true way to gain passage to that glowing Beach in the sky, where the treats and walks floweth plenty. Those who fall out of the faith shall be sent to the Veterinarian in the afterlife. Now, go forth in My name and slaughter all those who would worship some other god (particularly those who would worship those cat sons-of-bitches) and take their virgin daughters as your property! Baths shall be illegal, and all mailmen shall be either executed or excommunicated from my Holy State.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Some nice thoughts in there. I like the living in the now and best to put most of you mind there or allow it to be there

HAGART wrote: I caught up and read it all. Most people don't know how hard it is to be atheist and think about not-thinking anymore. We don't have a magic book to give us answers so it's actually a very hard life for us. But it doesn't mean we can't be 'spiritual' and think about thought and be metacoginitive, question thought, question emotion and dig deep. But you don't need a 'guru' wearing an orange jump suit, sitting in a lotus position meditating to find that.

DeschainXIX wrote:The only thing we can know for certain is the present moment. And that is where we must live. We must learn to be content with mere existence and sensation. We can enjoy no aspect of our lives if we are constantly cluttering our minds with thoughts that it will all one day end. When eating a delicious, perfect meal, you probably aren’t thinking to yourself that it will be over soon, and that perfect taste nothing more than a memory. Probably you only sit there, thinking not much at all, simply enjoying the sensations and pleasures of that meal. That’s the sort of attitude we must exercise throughout our lives with if we want happiness.

You can either hear it from DeschainXIX, a sentient dog that has a gift of the English language and somehow mashes out words on a keyboard with his paw, or you can learn from my own guru! MY OWN PET DOG! Read that quote above and realize that dogs are the most connected with themselves and icons of spirituality and meditation that we humans lack and struggle to achieve. They live in the present and do all that, WITHOUT BELIEF (they are atheist), and don't think much about the future or dwell on the past and enjoy their meal when they get it. They are more of a spiritual leader than the Dalai Lama!

To sum it up, maybe we think TOO MUCH, and that's the problem when it comes to achieving ultimate contentedness within ourselves and all we perceive in our external world. Try and exist for one day, just be, without words. Try it! (I haven't done it and end up talking to myself, but be a dog for a day, and see what happens). Maybe I'm not an atheist anymore, I'm a dogist, or a catist, or if we want to have fun with words, I'm a pussyist!

I'm such a dog for saying that! (Always got to get deep and then end with a joke. That's my M.O.) :lol:

I'm going to play devils (cats) advocate for a second :lol: Current estimates show dogs and humans have a symbiotic relationship going back over 10,000 years. We have influenced their evolution and they ours for that long. Now look at a dog like chaser and tell me who is changing more? Maybe we should worry more about planet of the dogs and not planet of the apes. :lol:

http://youtu.be/_6479QAJuz8

What an adorable video! I love dogs. :D

Makes me wonder again about the “Elixir of Sentience” hypothetical I’ve pondered on before. Suppose that some government developed an easy, cheap means of altering the sentience of species that inhabited a certain minimum intellect (IE a convenient serum that could be injected into a canine subject and make it's neurological complexity on par with humanity). What do you all think people would do with it? What effect would it have on our society, our common mainstream philosophy and mindset? Would there arise two schools of thought, pro-sentientists and (the far more selfish, in my opinion) anti-sentientists? Would artificially-sentient, artificially-intelligent animals gain some level of substandard citizenship upon achieving their boostered state of intellect? Or would (and I think this the far more likely eventuality) the Elixir be simply and starkly made conclusively illegal? Such a thing would be extremely problematic. Interesting nonetheless to think about. It’s a fun little science fiction nodule by which one can question one’s preconceived notions about human privilege and responsibility to the natural--and harsh--universe that birthed them.

deschainXIX wrote: Yes, worship Me! For I am above all thee petty mortals--dogs are the path to true enlightenment! Dogism is the one true way to gain passage to that glowing Beach in the sky, where the treats and walks floweth plenty. Those who fall out of the faith shall be sent to the Veterinarian in the afterlife. Now, go forth in My name and slaughter all those who would worship some other god (particularly those who would worship those cat sons-of-bitches) and take their virgin daughters as your property! Baths shall be illegal, and all mailmen shall be either executed or excommunicated from my Holy State.

I don't like your dogma!

(Such a long quote for a pathetic punchline! I'm laughing by how lame my joke is. I love satire, and must say, I feel like you and me, and we, can go back and forth just like my atheist cousin I know and feel the same way with you.)

I'm always a satirist and it gets me into trouble when others don't get it.... but I keep doing it and won't stop!

Dogism and Catism is the path to follow to find the true essence of who we are deep down, to become the feral human that we once were, not the domesticated human who is blind to chose left or right puppets in an emotion booth, ...err I mean... election booth, but one who questions the very existence of personal desire itself, and questions other's motives.

Become one who is NOT AFRAID! Not afraid to poop on the rug, or scent mark on your fine china. Not afraid to stand up and hump someone's leg when we feel the desire without question! A human who pees on the rug, sees their leader, their, 'master' try to strike him with a rolled up news paper, and snatches it in mid-swing with his teeth AND THEN.... opens it up and says... hey did you hear about this? I got some news for ya!

I'm both a dogist and a pussy catist. Is there a way to marry these two polarizing ideas? I should write a book. I'll entitle it, "The way of the pussy: Living life doggy style"

Strangely profound. I'd read that book--though I may find myself socially ostracized for the, ah, eloquent title. :lol: I was wondering if anyone would perceive my anti-religious satire, or if they thought I was just being strange lol.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Has anyone read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? If you haven't, buy it, read it, and discuss it with your friends in a pub. It will be fun if you are half pissed. :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I read about it. It sounds interesting. However, my to-read list is far too long at the moment. :)

Well, I'll say something about it. The book is fiction. It does not represent the author's views in any way but the content will spin your brain if you are not paying enough attention. The protagonist meets a mysterious old man who believes in God but not in the conventional (monotheistic/polytheistic) sense. It is something like a weird kind of pantheism but with a deistic view of the origin of the universe. You see, in the old man's view, there was a powerful god before the universe. But this god did not generate the universe in an act of creation. It was an act of destruction. Or self-destruction. That's right, god was a suicide bomber! :mrgreen:

The big bang was His divine bomb going off. As God, He does not have the following human shortcomings: no fears, no desires, no curiosity, and no hunger. Omnipotence would mean that nothing is a challenge if everything that motivates us is based on weaknesses. It would also appear that being God is boring but even this is a human feeling. So what could motivate God if not the challenge of self-destruction? It would be the only challenge and only one of the questions that He hasn't answered: What would happen?

You might be thinking: Well, if He is all-knowing wouldn't He know in advance whether or not He succeeds and thus there is no real challenge? Wouldn't God have precognition and even know in advance about His decision to attempt to commit suicide in order to answer His question? (And what about His free will one wonders.) Yes. But the old man posits that perhaps that is only applicable to His normal conditions of omnipotence. Would it not end with the end of His omnipotence at the act of destruction?

Let's look at it this way. A God who knew the answer to everything would not be motivated to do anything or create anything. He would have to have one nagging question: What happens if I cease to exist? (It is in fact a question that many of us ask: What happens when I die?) God would be motivated to answer this question in order to complete His knowledge since He has no fear and no reason to continue His existence. So the old man says: "The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way."

The old man also displays scientific savviness, besides a strange brand of philosophy, during the conversation. suddenly, the protagonist comes to the realisation and the old man confirms it for him: "We are God's debris."

Apparently God is in the process of answering His own question. "Is He conscious?" The protagonist asks. "Yes," the old man replies, "through me and you..." 8-)

Hmm, that is indeed an interesting take on God. It certainly seems to make sense and at the same time provide a convenient explanation for the Big Bang. But there are of course a lot of problems with it--the most prominent ones lying in the definition of terms. This is so important, and is often the downfall of these sorts of things.

One of the most major problems is found in defining the idea of “omniscience.” The mysterious old man’s position assumes that being omniscient does not include knowledge of information arising after the omniscient being ceases to exist. But omniscience means knowledge of literally EVERYTHING. So here we run into another problem: Define “everything.” Does everything constitute everything that exists? All information that is currently existing?--that doesn’t make sense, because time isn’t a factor in omniscience. “Everything” must mean all eventualities, all things that could happen if something were to occur in the present moment. But by the old man’s reasoning, omniscience does not include all eventualities, and things that do not presently exist but nonetheless could exist. Whatever angle you approach it from, the idea of omniscience is flawed in this position.

So yes, a God that is omniscient would perhaps never feel compelled to do anything at all. Except for making Himself ignorant. Maybe the one thing that an omniscient being could never know would be what it is like to NOT know everything. Maybe God, in His omnipotence, made Himself ignorant like a child, as it is the one thing He felt genuinely compelled to do. Lol; but from this perspective, this could explain all the illogicality of most religions.

Christianity (the Bible revised): In the beginning, there was darkness and God knew everything and was all-powerful. So God, in His omnipotence, made Himself ignorant so that He could learn all things the hard way. Eventually it occurred to Him that it might be a pretty neat idea to create a world. So He did, and in His vast foolishness the earth (the centerpiece of His creation) was made little more than a gigantic messy cesspool for hatred and harshness to breed in the primordial soup of poor design. Over the hundreds of millions of years that followed, God sat sucking His thumb somnolently, watching the horrorshow unfold with big placid eyes, until He realized that maybe all those sentient beings down there were suffering, and He should probably do something about that. So, after much internal debate, He thought up a genius plan … :lol:

Lol! You are too clever for the book. You've just hitchslapped the shit out of that silly old man. When you read the book, at first sight it may seem plausible, and many people will find it eerily compelling. But sharp minds will quickly detect those details that make the old man's brand of pantheism quite untenable. :-D

His god cannot possibly be omniscient. But if the story were true, such god would explain the rise of atheism in the world. First, the conscious bits in God's debris (us) believe and seek out the almighty Creator, like magnets consciously being attracted to the idea of a whole. Then, as they learn more and more about God's debris universe, they come to realise that the existence of a God is ridiculously improbable...but the ego is everything and they solipsistically say things like "God is in me" or "I'm God." Atheism begins to propagate and becomes more ubiquitous. Atheism is closer to the mind of God as this one begins to wake up and gradually learns the answer to His question. God, by definition, would have to be an atheist Himself for if He is the Prime Mover He certainly would not believe in a personal creator. :-D

By the way, the old man describes different levels that people may be at. He says there are five levels and he's at the fifth, which he claims qualifies him as an "avatar."

The first level of awareness is experienced at birth, when you first become aware that you exist. The second is when you understand that others exist and believe most of what you are told by authority figures. You accept the belief system in which you are raised. Third level, you recognise that humans are often wrong about the things they believe. The fourth level is scepticism. You believe in the scientific method in that it is the best measure of what is true. The fifth level, the avatar, understands that the mind is an illusion generator, not a window to reality. The avatar deems science to be a belief system, albeit a useful one. The avatar ceases to be an atheist as he recognises God's power as expressed in probability and the inevitable recombination of His consciousness...

The protagonist confesses he's at the fourth level. (I would be and wouldn't go any further as I recognised the old man's pseudoscientific assertions in the book that purportedly favour the probability of Gods existence.) ;-)

Anyway, you could ask your friends to read this little book before inviting them to the pub for a deep discourse...at the end of which you will stand drunk and victorious like Christopher Hitchens having pointed out all the fallacies and casuistry! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

It seems like the author is pointing out how all the various theological meditations out there can seem to make sense upon first consideration, when in actuality and upon closer dissection there are deep, profound problems and flaws. The book certainly sounds like a good read! I'd discuss it with my friends at a bar, but we'd be arrested, I think. I do enjoy Hitchslapping my peers, but most of them aren't exactly intellectual giants and it's laughably easy. :D

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Scott Adam's, creator of Dilbert, is very wise. It takes a smart person to step back and use humor and a little tongue in cheek to get a message across without out-right saying it. He might even have tried to express the exact opposite of what he thinks so others can figure out the flaws for themselves. Like chess, always one move ahead. (Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit because I happen to be a fan).

I never read, "God's Debris", but the wise man seems a bit like The Garbage Man character from the show, Dilbert I use to watch on TV a while ago. He always gave Dilbert wise, sage advice and yet he was just the garbage man. And of course Dogbert, much like DeschainXIX was the smartest dog in the room! (I see some similarities) ;)

It would be a fun exercise to debate the existence of Santa Clause or The Boogyman for fun. We could all use the same rhetoric and semantics about faith and science and although we would be denouncing God, free will, the existence of a soul, and the afterlife, it would all seem humorous and nobody is offended. (But smart ones would get it!) ;)

You can reveal many truths under the guise of humor!

Yes, Scott Adams also exposes the incoherence of free will through Dilbert. "God's debris" is also meant to be a thought experiment that certainly tests the reader. If we are going to do something like it here we need to devise a strangely compelling case for Santa Claus which will spin the brains of most people. Can we do it withSanta? (I'm starting to feel like L. Ron Hubbard!)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

:D We could start a thread titled "The Boogeyman Proved Real" (we could use Santa, but that would be more difficult) in which one of us endlessly and stubbornly argues for the existence of the boogeyman. It wouldn't be hard; you'd just employ all of the poetic-but-irrational mantras and dead-end statements and arguments the religious employ. (Or we could get real nutty with it and start another account pretending to be some weirdo who believes in all sorts of things like fairies, the Easter Bunny, and the boogeyman. :lol:)

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

No need for a new account. I'll start a new thread and play devil's advocate. You must refute what I say as we go along. I'll attempt to use casuistry. I think it's worth a shot for fun. :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Yes, that's the point. Play devil's advocate and prove Santa real. Or the Boogyman. Come up with the most outlandish case ever!

I was already thinking of this as a funny short story or an article and it actually has some poignant truths. Ask a child about the Boogyman and they will describe a scary being that harasses them at night who resides mostly under the bed, but chooses to live in the closet from time to time. Ask Disco Stu from the Simpsons and he'd say, "Oh yea, I know Boogyman! That man sure likes to boogy!"

I can make just as many jokes about Santa. And I will attempt to prove them real for fun!

This is going to sound very interesting coming from Summerlander. He's definitely the prime candidate among us to be our devil's advocate. Lol, maybe this will be his confessional. All his life the boogeyman has haunted his nightly sleep, and he finally has to talk to someone about it. :D Perhaps after pages of debate, I'll finally give in and cede the point with an offhand comment like, "Well, I never looked at it that way. I guess the boogeyman really is real."

LOL! Well I've come up with something as I'm falling asleep. I'm waiting for your scepticism so I can build my argument. Maybe I'll lucid dream about it. Goodnight for now guys!

God bless! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Sounds like a dream job for a conspiracy theorist. Taking the smallest possibilities and making them explode into plausible fact. Opps, did I just out myself a a conspiracy theorist? :lol:

THE BOOGY MAN IS REAL!

See, I'm not the only one! ^^^

[ Post made via Android ] Image

"...but I must know more facts. Was the soup tomato based, stock based, or was it a cream soup?"

I'm literally crying right now. :lol: :lol:

We probably should have put it under the "Paranormal Activity" thread, so people wouldn't read this and put them together. Ell well. I'm enjoying the debate so far, and I'm looking forward to whatever Summerlander and HAGART think up next. :D

Fuck! The Paranormal forum... :oops:

Let's see what I can come up with... :mrgreen:

Yep, looks like people are being drawn in. Summerlander's done a good job of orchestrating a religion-esque phantasm with enough detail to faze people's sense of logos. So... much... research. :D

You are doing an excellent job, too, you son of a gun! :-D

I will have to defend my position somehow. It's quite challenging because you're a voice for reason and the feeling that I'm really in your team just nags me constantly. Hagart has helped me to build my casuistry, too. The more clueless people we get there, and believers, the better for me. I hope you soon find yourself having to put out many fires, deschainXIX!

Damn it! Why do you have to be so right? :-P I've got work all day tomorrow so I'll probably reply Friday! I can't wait to devise my pseudo-counterargument.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Haha believe it or not I found it a bit of a challenge tackling that massive tumor of argument you posted. It was just so much and all so well thought-out lol. In the meantime, as I await your reply, I'll try to keep that fire as cold and dead as possible. ;)

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Atheism refuted by talented genius. Count me as converted back to Christianity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wc5h7XQXoA

I can't wait to watch it. I'm working all weekend so I'll probably reply by monday! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image