Searcher

If anyone asks me this one, I will direct them to this answer here, or my own version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Dawkins puts it pretty well, and it's easy for any of us to see his point. No religion can really give a proper answer to this one.

This way you don't even have to bother trying to explain that belief isn't necessarily a choice etc etc. That's a grey area which those 'with faith' often don't understand. They assume we can suddenly decide to believe and it is as simple as that.

WilliamBlue

I think you do hold our opinions in disdain as you would not of made this statement; Even though your grammar and spelling are atrocious, I think you basically called everyone that does not agree with you less smart! What kinda of welcome do you expect when you say things like that!

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?

Mortalsfool

That's the big question isn't it?

Mortalsfool

[quote=WilliamBlue;18443]I can only conclude that some of you are too sensitive to words that are not even personalized toward you.

Perhaps it is not as easy for you to be 'good', I wouldn't know. I would personally consider myself stupid if I violated my own guides. I would have to go against my own conscience, which to me, would in fact be stupid [for me].

Og

What exactly does it mean to "give subjective experience credibility?"

I am a scientist. I'm atheistic in the sense that I think its idiotic to take the metaphorical stories of modern religions as literal facts. I'm theistic when I say that the divine is in all of us and that there is no ultimate meaningful distinction amongst anything in the universe.

That being said, how does trying to understand subjective experiences in an objective framework cause problems? You seem to be implying that it is of value to continue in ignorance of your prejudices and perspective based errors. Why is this of value? Subjective, by definition, means biased.

Is this another aspect of that "faith is a virtue" nonsense?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

And furthermore, in order to address your question:

It most certainly is. In this world where boundaries are falling and we realize more and more that no culture or person is an island and that sovereignty is a myth and that we all share the same fate, the agnostic/atheist perspective IS necessary.

Where you see value to your subjective experience, I see you stuck in your own biased perspective. An objective only approach is very much necessary in a world of people with a variety of subjective experiences.

It's that classic metaphor of all the blind people feeling on different parts of an elephant and giving their own details about what this "thing" is that they're touching. One describes the tail, another the belly, a third, the tusks. All deliver their subjective perspectives and tell each other that they can not be describing the same thing!

The atheist/agnostic objective approach reveals the connectedness of all of their claims and gives a universal perspective. The "believers" subjective approach is, in fact, at best, useless. I believe that it is actually harmful to society due to the value placed upon persisting in ignorance of one's biases.

Science is the truly universal perspective on the world. Every day I goto work at a research institute with minds from all over the globe. Nothing bonds humans through a common language like the process of scientific inquiry. There has never been such a unifying factor in the history of humanity.

It's of immense value and is here to stay. I vote no to your question. It is not "as important," it is much MORE important.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Searcher

I think he meant since none of us appear to have had any experience we could not imagine a scientific explanation to (i.e. one we could only logically imagine to be supernatural) we find it easy to utterly dismiss them. Which I think is interesting.

Of course it's always possible that given the same experience we would try harder to come up with a scientifically explainable reason, even a very unlikely one, in favor of the supernatural. Maybe that's why we have the agnostic/atheist viewpoint in the first place. Possibly we possess more knowledge or reasoning power in order to do so, possibly we just aren't as open-minded. We naturally reject the supernatural even in favour of an apparently very unlikely but scientifically possible explanation.

I use a Royal We of course. The above may not apply to everyone but it seems a trend among a lot of people on these forums.

Mortalsfool

[quote=Searcher;18506] I merely state that in light of a couple of 'experiences' I had, I find it very hard to eliminate the influence they caused. I already questioned everything that happened using what science and every stretch of logic I could muster.
I'm not one that is fertile ground for the supernatural.

It does no good to try and negate the experience purely on the grounds that I can find no other explanation. That's like trying to 'believe' something by choice, it doesn't work that way. Since the experiences had their own 'spiritual' trappings at the exact time of their occurrences, it is hard to separate the event into two different parts, throwing out the spiritual implications while keeping the events that happened in the actual world.
Probabilities is a science too; and sometimes the probability of an event happening at the exact moment there was a spiritual stimulus ,creates odds that are harder to accept than a 'higher power'.

The events I'm referring to happened objectively, meaning it did in fact happen; and was also witnessed subjectively, including the, I hate to use the word, invoking, that had at least the appearance of causing it to happen.

A very difficult happening to summarily dismiss; hence, my agnostic position.

The experiences I’m referring to, each having impossible odds of occurrence ---- I refer to the exact timing, fail the application of synchronicity, as it would take more belief than a god to offhandedly just accept the odds of occurrence.

I would be happy to PM them to you if you wished, but again I say, I don’t want to either bore nor convert anyone. I just question, in fact, I question far more that the person that has not experienced.

Og

Supernatural is a psychotic term that ONLY implies ignorance, subjectivity, bias, and fascism. If something occurs, it has a source and can be comprehended and is natural. WTF is supernatural?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

The An-Jel

The physical universe throwing a curve ball through human limited perception. Get a grip man!

Everything is knowable it takes more time than most people have so people take short cuts.

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment