Some say that belief in God is a Childlike one. But that would depend on your opinion of God. I see most people as biased, everyone in every group of groups that exist everywhere. I have just as much criticism for modern religious views (equally on strict naturalistic views), but I still find problems with 90% of the atheists on Totse who's angst is apparently due to biased opinion and personal experience with religious dogma in youth or the inability to individualize religious people, and in grouping them all together, forms an incorrect assumption (the best analogy with this would be like saying all Germans are Nazis).

I don't think that anyone can bring something to the table without bias, myself included. Who could literally leave their persona to step outside of a situation and observe? 100% observe without arrogant supposition or pretentious thought?

I basically am burnt out with (no offense intended) ironic hypocrisy. I have watched an atheist bitch out Christians for being in a tightly held group, not trying to understand natural selection or look at things in another perspective, and then go on about how the only right people are atheists because they don't waste time reading "fairy tales" from the bible. The irony I see in this is the fact whether you think the bible is factual or not doesn't remove its poems, parables, or events, literature wise or historically aside, which should mean that someone wanting to be skeptical and gain multiple perspectives shouldn't decide not to read through it. Now I am sure many atheists have read The testaments, Quran, Buddhist doctrines, ect., but I see this bias pop up with a new generation that lacks what the definition free thought is supposed to mean.

I have seen probably double that from modern Religious peoples. Mostly through Hippocratic political and human welfare ideas. But My point is that I think everyone is wrong, because we all have bias.

I just see that over time everything we know gets proven wrong (large scale). We knew the Earth was the center of the universe. We knew an atom was just one round ball. And what I see now is that apparently we know that every single organism came from one organism, from inorganic matter, and that means God doesn't exist. Will we still think this 100, 200 years from now? I don't know but I still think its absurd to think it won't change.

In essence, I'm pissed at everyone, now I need to hear the viable criticism towards this.

Wayne: "You know, it's not like I have to impress everyone. I mean, Zeppelin didn't write tunes everyone liked, they left that to the Bee Gees."

Would you like the unbiased view? That which is purely observation, with no motives, no agenda, no attempt to share some divine knowledge, no attempt to erase faith, no attempt to bolster ego, or win after-life reward points?

Here it is: Some people have experiences in their lives that completely change their personality. This experience is often the point at which people are freed from addictions and vices that have so enslaved them for decades; for others, this experience occurs after being lost desperately for days and finally being found; for others, it occurs when the body dies and is revived in a hospital. The point is, this experience happens, and nobody knows exactly how. The voices, the images, the authentic feeling of the experience is so entrancing that divinity is the typical explanation coming from the person who experiences the event.

More over, these experiences always carry two common threads, no matter who has the experience and what their beliefs are/were: 1. It completely reorganizes your personality. 2. It is accompanied by an absolute sense of being loved.

Also, aside from these two essential threads, the experience is occasionally accompanied by visions, a voice, the appearance of multi-colored 'auras' around individuals, and so on.

Atheist, agnostic, and theist alike are all capable of having this experience.

There is much argument, speculation, disbelief, fear, and wonderment as to what this experience really is. Some say it is God, others say we can't know for sure, others say it is purely natural.

Here's where the bias comes back: I, personally, call it Conversion. It's the end of ego-drive and the beginning of spirituality. I believe it's derived from a God that wants us to live in utmost freedom.

Would you like the unbiased view? That which is purely observation, with no motives, no agenda, no attempt to share some divine knowledge, no attempt to erase faith, no attempt to bolster ego, or win after-life reward points?

Here it is: Some people have experiences in their lives that completely change their personality. This experience is often the point at which people are freed from addictions and vices that have so enslaved them for decades; for others, this experience occurs after being lost desperately for days and finally being found; for others, it occurs when the body dies and is revived in a hospital. The point is, this experience happens, and nobody knows exactly how. The voices, the images, the authentic feeling of the experience is so entrancing that divinity is the typical explanation coming from the person who experiences the event.

More over, these experiences always carry two common threads, no matter who has the experience and what their beliefs are/were: 1. It completely reorganizes your personality. 2. It is accompanied by an absolute sense of being loved.

Also, aside from these two essential threads, the experience is occasionally accompanied by visions, a voice, the appearance of multi-colored 'auras' around individuals, and so on.

Atheist, agnostic, and theist alike are all capable of having this experience.

There is much argument, speculation, disbelief, fear, and wonderment as to what this experience really is. Some say it is God, others say we can't know for sure, others say it is purely natural.

Here's where the bias comes back: I, personally, call it Conversion. It's the end of ego-drive and the beginning of spirituality. I believe it's derived from a God that wants us to live in utmost freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

copy pasta i know, but i wanted to show that the very fact that everyone feels the same feelings owes itself to a biological occurence.

We shouldn't start jumping on to the god band wagon yet, lets use the evidence we have and in absence of that, use logic. Sure quantum physics isn't logical, but is there a double slit experiment for god? nope.

We knew the Earth was the center of the universe. We knew an atom was just one round ball. And what I see now is that apparently we know that every single organism came from one organism, from inorganic matter, and that means God doesn't exist. Will we still think this 100, 200 years from now?

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." -K (MIB)

Sorry... your post reminded me of that awesome movie.


But to answer your question, no. I think that we're advanced enough to know the basics, e.g. the earth is not the center of the universe. That won't ever change.

But the thing is, the supernatural stuff (e.g. magic, vampires/witches, miracles, god) is falling back in the scheme of what we know. Knowledge comes from science... and stuff.

I'm an atheist. Go ahead and flame me for denying the existence of God.

Because I think it's childlike and all that good stuff. :)

But to answer your question, no. I think that we're advanced enough to know the basics, e.g. the earth is not the center of the universe. That won't ever change.


Considering that whether the universe is finite or infinite is still unknown, we really couldn't say. But if the universe is infinite then every 'particle' would be the center of it's own universe, making the Earth as a whole the center of it's own universe.


Even scientists have their own philosophic and religious biases. I mean if you look back 100+ years ago, people would go through surgery under hypnosis and not feel any pain, yet still people would dismiss the possible benefits and knowledge that could be gained and applied. People would Dismiss hypnosis and just assume they were faking the whole thing.


Things like ESP, imposable right?
Well I think there is some interesting stuff out there that I believe is dismissed to easily. Also we're finding very interesting things in biophysics that do not fit into our current understanding. Just imagine what we could learn if we had a Manhattan project dealing with this stuff.

Considering that whether the universe is finite or infinite is still unknown, we really couldn't say. But if the universe is infinite then every 'particle' would be the center of it's own universe, making the Earth as a whole the center of it's own universe.

See, right there, you're changing the definition of 'center of the universe.' Way back when, what they meant by 'center of the universe' was that the celestial sphere revovled around us, the stars, the sun, the planets, the moon, all that crud. You're twisting what they thought to your new definition, which is similar only in name.

I've noticed a lot of folks in My God do this. Some take their 'spirituality' and say that 'all of the matter in the universe is really energy, so God is really everything... this energy that surrounds us.' It's just taking a really old idea, updating it -- twisting it -- to fit in to today's world of knowledge that comes from science and not metaphysics and superstitions.

(Yes, I know I'm paraphrasing quite a bit, but you'll see what I'm talking about. There are other examples of folks here doing this... just keep your eyes open in this forum for a couple of weeks.)

Even scientists have their own philosophic and religious biases. I mean if you look back 100+ years ago, people would go through surgery under hypnosis and not feel any pain, yet still people would dismiss the possible benefits and knowledge that could be gained and applied. People would Dismiss hypnosis and just assume they were faking the whole thing.

Yeah, I agree, the human mind is a weird, kooky thing. I doubt we'll understand it for a while... very probably not within our lifetimes.


Things like ESP, imposable right?
Well I think there is some interesting stuff out there that I believe is dismissed to easily. Also we're finding very interesting things in biophysics that do not fit into our current understanding. Just imagine what we could learn if we had a Manhattan project dealing with this stuff.


But there doesn't need to be anything supernatural about the human mind just because we don't understand it.
Yes, things like ESP, impossible. Right.

Would you like the unbiased view? ...

Here it is: Some people have experiences in their lives that completely change their personality. This experience is often the point at which people are freed from addictions and vices that have so enslaved them for decades; for others, this experience occurs after being lost desperately for days and finally being found; for others, it occurs when the body dies and is revived in a hospital.

This is supposed to be unbiased, right? This bit here about how some people experience change do to freedom from addiction, finally being found, etc.?

You are a recovered addict you fucking moron! HOW IN THE FUCK is this shit unbiased, by your own personal experience and reflections?

Jesus zombie Christ...

Who could literally leave their persona to step outside of a situation and observe? 100% observe without arrogant supposition or pretentious thought?

Scientists.

Science actually strives for this. Science has met with a large amount of success in doing this.

----

Of course people have bias, but your belief that 90% of the atheists here on totse are angsty little atheists b/c of a bad experience with religion, has no basis in fact. It is arrogant supposition.

I bet you cannot name five atheists on toste who are atheists for the reasons you CLAIM 90% of us are, on totse.

Might listen more to your rant about bias, but I dont listen to a pot calling a kettle black.

Scientists.

Science actually strives for this. Science has met with a large amount of success in doing this.

----


Might listen more to your rant about bias, but I don't listen to a pot calling a kettle black.

The kettle called itself black before you even posted this. We are all black when the lights are out.

And I (this is my opinion mind you) don't think that every person who calls them self a scientist is unbiased. I cannot believe you would even type this.

Let me put it this way, if national geographic gives you hundreds of thousands of dollars in a grant to go out there and find the missing link between monkeys and men, what the hell are you going to do? Find that Motherfucking monkey man.
Now, if you find a human bone about 50 feet under a monkey bone, there is all of a sudden no problem in saying it came from the same organism, johnny on the spot, and there you go, the missing link. No time to be objective and try to look at it from another angle, nope they are both from the same organism Why? The grant. What did the grant create?

Bias.

Of coarse I'm done trying to be 100%. That's what this thread is about anyway.

The kettle called itself black before you even posted this. We are all black when the lights are out.

And I (this is my opinion mind you) don't think that every person who calls them self a scientist is unbiased. I cannot believe you would even type this.

Let me put it this way, if national geographic gives you hundreds of thousands of dollars in a grant to go out there and find the missing link between monkeys and men, what the hell are you going to do? Find that Motherfucking monkey man.
Now, if you find a human bone about 50 feet under a monkey bone, there is all of a sudden no problem in saying it came from the same organism, johnny on the spot, and there you go, the missing link. No time to be objective and try to look at it from another angle, nope they are both from the same organism Why? The grant. What did the grant create?

Bias.

Of coarse I'm done trying to be 100%. That's what this thread is about anyway.

The fallacy in your argument is as follows. The scientific community won't instantly accept the claim that it is the missing link. There has to be more than one case. That is why multiple experiments are carried out and why multiple examples must be found. There is bias among the individual scientists(people tend to support their own theories), but the scientific community as a whole tends to shed the bias by the hoops that must be jumped through to get a theory accepted. Theories also tend to be test again and again. They recently tested Einstein's theory of General Relativity again, about 3-5 years ago. There are also some counter theories to Einstein's, though they aren't very widely known.

Not a very good example on Anchorage's part but I think the point still stands. It's not always possible to divorce your personal convictions from your work. Science and other systems of thought may strive for total objectivity, but that doesn't mean that goal is always reached successfully.

Consider the area of healthcare, for example, where physicians obtain most of their information on emerging medicines from the pharmaceutical industry - a competitive industry motivated by profit. There is also often a strong association between an author's published opinions on a drug's safety and their financial relationship with drug companies.

It may be right to praise the fields of science for a willingness to embrace new ideas and concepts in general, but I think it is naive to assume science is unaffected on any level by varying degrees of subjectivity.

Science has plenty of bias, and it has it's flaws just ask any philosopher of science.

What it is, is the the absolute BEST system for acertaining truth, aquiring knowledge and eliminating bias that mankind has ever known.

Most atheists simply quote scientific fact to clearly biased and deluded theists.

What it is, is the the absolute BEST system for acertaining truth, aquiring knowledge and eliminating bias that mankind has ever known.



Biased answer. :)
But in all actuality, it is human nature to have an opinion, which everyone has, and it's just human nature to be biased as a result. Is there something wrong with that?

The fallacy in your argument is as follows. The scientific community won't instantly accept the claim that it is the missing link. There has to be more than one case. That is why multiple experiments are carried out and why multiple examples must be found. There is bias among the individual scientists(people tend to support their own theories), but the scientific community as a whole tends to shed the bias by the hoops that must be jumped through to get a theory accepted. Theories also tend to be test again and again. They recently tested Einstein's theory of General Relativity again, about 3-5 years ago. There are also some counter theories to Einstein's, though they aren't very widely known.

True that was a bad example, but Karma_sleeper made a good explanation.

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." -K (MIB)


I think that this is actually a really good quote for this topic. Think about it, Five Hundred years ago, people would think that you were... I'll have to double post because my psp is gay, sorry :(

Anyway, where was I... so yeah, 500 years ago, people would think that you were mad for believing that Humans were just the latest advancement in evolution, for lack of better wording. This is not because they were "simple", but because it just wouldn't mesh with their view of the world. Religion was a much more important part of peoples lives, and it made them think in terms of God, the same way a mathemitician thinks in numbers etc. The only reason that people nowadays... triple post :(

The only reason so many people believe in evolution is the high value of science in todays world.

Most likely, in a few hundred years, there will be a new theory emerging, and once that is widely accepted, they will look back on advocates of the theory of evolution in the same way people nowadays look back on pre-darwin beliefs, thinking. "Fuckin Retards, how could they not see that we are soulless genomes created by the last Martians as new 'vessels'?"

Sorry bout trip post, psp is retarded

Biased answer. :)
But in all actuality, it is human nature to have an opinion, which everyone has, and it's just human nature to be biased as a result. Is there something wrong with that?

Well please tell me a better objective method we as humans have of ascertaining truth...

Anything?

Then you agree that science is the best we have at the moment?

Are you as biased as me?

Well please tell me a better objective method we as humans have of ascertaining truth...

Anything?

Then you agree that science is the best we have at the moment?

Are you as biased as me?

Horoscope.

Nah...