Atheist philosophies and premises

[Filanthropod]

A person's philosophy is entirely subjective, and to a large extent it determines their deeply held premises about the universe. Most if not all atheists believe that the material universe which they subjectively observe with their material senses is all there is. This is of course almost the definition of subjective. To me it seems quite narrow minded to assume that that which you are limited to being able to observe is all that exists. The reason why throughout history people have believed that there is more, and the reason why that will always be the case, is because it is part of human nature (and we know that humans are advanced beings, but I don't think we grasp yet just how advanced we are but we will within the next decade) to instinctively have a knowing which goes beyond what is immediately apparent. It's my view that atheists have chosen to limit themselves to the immediately apparent, which is why they are not on the same wavelength as non atheists. You've created a box which you inhabit, in which, as they say, "what you see is what you get". However what you see and think you see is a symptom of what you get.

[pinkocommie]

The reason why throughout history people have believed that there is more, and the reason why that will always be the case, is because it is part of human nature

I agree with this, but I don't think this facet of human nature in any way adds weight to argument that there actually IS more.  I don't personally know of any atheists who would reject evidence of there being something more, the problem is the evidence seems to be almost entirely unverifiable (therefore incapable of standing as evidence since it can't be verified), by definition unverifiable (Sagan's dragon) or largely anecdotal (which only stands as evidence to people who have personal experiences - I know God exists because I feel God inside me, etc.) so unless you want to believe it, you have no logical reason to do so.  Believing in things without evidence makes little sense to almost everyone in most cases, so saying that it's closed minded not to believe in one specific thing without evidence seems suspect to me.  If someone told you you would float if you jumped off a cliff, you wouldn't jump (I hope) but you also wouldn't be closed minded for not jumping.  You would consider the source of information, think about everything you know about gravity and death and cliffs, and then based on what you know you would choose not to jump.  Someone tells me there's a god, I consider all of the information I know, I look into additional information they present, and I decide that for me, there is not enough evidence to believe in god.  How is that any more close minded than choosing not to jump off a cliff?  The comparison might seem strange to you, but to me it isn't.  Throwing my life away on unfounded belief would be the same to me as willingly jumping off a cliff just because someone told me it would be OK.

Saying that X amount of people have believed it for X amount of time doesn't add weight to the argument either.  People believed in fairies for a time, that didn't make fairies real.  I would say that believing in things simply because it's human nature to do so or because lots of people also believe in it is gullible behavior.

[Davin]

A person's philosophy is entirely subjective, and to a large extent it determines their deeply held premises about the universe. Most if not all atheists believe that the material universe which they subjectively observe with their material senses is all there is. This is of course almost the definition of subjective.

I don't rely merely on my own senses. If you're going to get into Solipsism, I'll end my side of the discussion after this post.

To me it seems quite narrow minded to assume that that which you are limited to being able to observe is all that exists.

Me too. I also think it's narrow minded to think something exists just because another person says it does.

The reason why throughout history people have believed that there is more, and the reason why that will always be the case, is because it is part of human nature (and we know that humans are advanced beings, but I don't think we grasp yet just how advanced we are but we will within the next decade) to instinctively have a knowing which goes beyond what is immediately apparent.

Yes, that is why we've developed science and grasped onto that science instead of religion. Religion is what seems to be apparent, science is what goes beyond common sense and into places that require reasonable evidence and not just speculation.

It's my view that atheists have chosen to limit themselves to the immediately apparent, which is why they are not on the same wavelength as non atheists.

I'm sorry that your view is so far off from reality.

You've created a box which you inhabit, in which, as they say, "what you see is what you get".

If you refrain from the baseless assumptions like this, then I will as well.

However what you see and think you see is a symptom of what you get.

What does this mean?

[SSY]

Very weak I am afraid. This instinctive knowing you refer to is nothing more the brains predilection for spotting patterns, ascribing these patterns any degree of validity, based on your belief in "human advancement" is nonsensical. Vague feelings, instincts and hunches are not enough to convince me of things which I cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste.

It is my view, that the religious have decided to believe in the irrational to comfort themselves, and construct fallacious arguments to convince themselves of their correctness.

[Filanthropod]

Very weak I am afraid. This instinctive knowing you refer to is nothing more the brains predilection for spotting patterns, ascribing these patterns any degree of validity, based on your belief in "human advancement" is nonsensical. Vague feelings, instincts and hunches are not enough to convince me of things which I cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste.

It is my view, that the religious have decided to believe in the irrational to comfort themselves, and construct fallacious arguments to convince themselves of their correctness.

You don't know that at all, you're just assuming that. You don't know everything about the human brain and the mind, and neither do I. But your assumption is based more on observing than experiencing. Ultimately everything we know, think we know, believe, disbelieve, all of that, is a subjective experience. As such, your view is just as subjective as mine. The difference is of course that you pay very little attention to the actual experience of being alive and conscious, and you think that everything can be looked at as though it were ina petri dish in a lab. You can't always succesfully break things down in that way. It can only take you so far. Sometimes you have to step away from the microscope and actually take a look at what is goin on, experience wise. This is why so many atheists simply don't understand theists. We take into account the experience. You disregard it as insignificant. But it is as real as everything else. Everything is an experience. Without experience, you wouldn't even be able to look at things the way you do. You're already working within the framework of the experience and perhaps you don't even realise it. If a theory of everything is ever fully worked out, it will take into account the subjective experience of conscious beings. Whereas atheists work in a way which I like to call "painting by numbers" (do you understand what I'm implying?), theists see the full picture, and atheists miss the point time and time again.

[SSY]

I understand you deal almost entirely in assertions, generalisations, assumptions and platitudes.

You have supplied no evidence that supports your belief in the supernatural, nothing to separate between the cases of something being materialist or not, nothing to prove your feelings about there being something are anything other than that, just feelings. Just because you feel something there is something supernatural, does not make it so.

[sammylama]

A person's philosophy is entirely subjective, and to a large extent it determines their deeply held premises about the universe.

Since you opened with this, I'm wondering what you're using to support this assertion...

[Cecilie]

I don't really understand what this thread is about, so I tried translating it (using Translate), but that didn't make any sense either. What it is thread about?

[Sophus]

A person's philosophy is entirely subjective...

It's not "what you see is what you get". I believe in atoms but cannot view them. It's "what you can prove is what you get". Everything else is up in the air.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is why so many atheists simply don't understand theists. We take into account the experience. You disregard it as insignificant. But it is as real as everything else. Everything is an experience. Without experience, you wouldn't even be able to look at things the way you do. You're already working within the framework of the experience and perhaps you don't even realise it.

This is silly.

Firstly, you're assuming that scientists don't have personal feelings about their work, an assumption you'd be find quickly disabused if you bothered to study their work; their evident awe resonates through much of their writing.

Secondly, and in a larger sense, the discipline of science is based on experience.  The reproducible experiment is a standard for non-historical sciences.  The common root of the two words is not a coincidence.

[karadan]

Why hypothesise about something which cannot be verified by our senses, the scientific method and reality? Which hypothesis will anyone be able to decide on as the most correct and accurate if there's no standard model or previous evidence to go by? What you seem to be suggesting is that we must accept that something beyond our abilities to test is there, even though we can't test it. I don't understand why we should do that. I'm not happy to fill that gap in our collective knowledge with superstition. I'm just going to say, 'we don't yet know'..

[Filanthropod]

This is why so many atheists simply don't understand theists. We take into account the experience. You disregard it as insignificant. But it is as real as everything else. Everything is an experience. Without experience, you wouldn't even be able to look at things the way you do. You're already working within the framework of the experience and perhaps you don't even realise it.

This is silly.

Firstly, you're assuming that scientists don't have personal feelings about their work, an assumption you'd be find quickly disabused if you bothered to study their work; their evident awe resonates through much of their writing.

Secondly, and in a larger sense, the discipline of science is based on experience.  The reproducible experiment is a standard for non-historical sciences.  The common root of the two words is not a coincidence.

Again, missing the point in spectacular fashion. I wan't talking about that kind of experience, the kind that you simulate in a lab. You're being facetious. Please don't twist my words, you know exactly what I was talking about. Or maybe you don't have the first clue.

[karadan]

Again, missing the point in spectacular fashion. I wan't talking about that kind of experience, the kind that you simulate in a lab. You're being facetious. Please don't twist my words, you know exactly what I was talking about. Or maybe you don't have the first clue.

Or maybe you could stop with the massive generalisations to support your 'evidence' that our position is incorrect.

You are also sidestepping all of the excellently astute rebuttals to your original post.

[Filanthropod]

Come on, please, they're hardly rebuttals.

[karadan]

Come on, please, they're hardly rebuttals.

Then you haven't actually read anything anyone has posted. Everything you've said thus far has been thoroughly owned, for want of a better word. You've simply resorted to performing the literary equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears whilst singing lalalalalalala. A usual creationist 'tactic'.