Any skeptics/brights/atheist/agnostic types out there?

[Angel of Ioren]

I was just thinking about you. Hadn't seen you around in a little while. Hope things are well.

Oh, wait I was just thinking...then you posted....

Welcome back.

Yup, everything is great apart from having had a sinus infection, and then either a stomach flu or a bad reaction to my antibiotics. That sucked, but all in all I had a wonderful holiday season.

So tyder, maybe you're psychic? You thought of me, I heard, and then I posted

 

[tyder001]

Well, I wuz just gonna reply with a grin but the board says my message is to short so I'll add one more little tidbit from my weekend and then I won't do it anymore...for now.

Bama 49
M.S.U. 7

Packers 10
Bears 3



Oh and just in case some of those pesky Cubs fans are still here (you know who you are) Go Braves!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, I wuz just gonna reply with a grin but the board says my message is to short so I'll add one more little tidbit from my weekend and then I won't do it anymore...for now.

Bama 49
M.S.U. 7

Packers 10
Bears 3



Oh and just in case some of those pesky Cubs fans are still here (you know who you are) Go Braves!

I don't speak sports unless you're talking about real football.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Personally, I've never had the need to join a particular group, like the Brights...

I find myself overusing the Groucho quote, "I wouldn't be a member of a group that would have me as one," especially when it comes to the paranormal and the belief systems that spring up around things "unknown." I suppose if I spent a number of years in a backwater, superstitious African village I'd be down on all things "magical," but we shouldn't throw the starving, dehydrated African baby out with the bathwater, we should utilize technology to recycle the water. I think it makes sense to remain open to all possibilities, utilizing the scientific method to learn more and not close ourselves off from potential knowledge.

 

[TClaeys]

It seems to me that the brights have gone one step past atheism. Athiesm is (correct me if I'm wrong) basically a stance of non-belief. It doesn't mean they are saying they do not believe in god, but rather they leave belief out of it entirely. They don't believe or disbelieve. As far as the brights are concerned they seem to be saying the real world does not have any supernatural or mystical component to it at all. This seems to be a very different stance.

How could they know?? How could they put themselves in a position to disbelieve?? Because this seems to be a proclamation of belief, ... ie there is no supernatural. I couldn't tell you if there is or isn't a supernatural component to the whole bucket of bolts, but I'm sure not willing to say there definitely is not.

There are so many lingering profound questions that are lacking in answers that it would be impossible to justify an answer with a great degree of confidence. How exactly did all this come from nothing?? What was before this event that created our universe?? How can we be sure that some kind of intelligent agent wasn't responsible for putting everything in motion??

Quantum physics leaves us with the insurmountable task of having to balance both relativity and sub-atomic in the real world. Yet so far, they are not compatible. Doesn't this leave a person at least with some genuine questions about the nature of what we are percieving?? As far as the Brights are concerned it doesn't matter because they have literally subscribed to the worldview that despite all the complex questions (and zero answers) we have there isn't any supernatural aspect, ... period. That seems to me to be more of a combative stance toward religion than a truthful endeavor to really be honest and truthful.

I don't believe in any religion and I think that a lot of people can see past the curtain although they might still participate in their respective religions. I know some people believe the Bible word for word which is in itself a mystery. But to say with 100% confidence that no supernatural aspect exists is a bit hasty IMO. I glanced at the website and noted Dawkins among others. And as far as I can tell he has a real axe to grind when it comes to organized religion. No problem there, but taking the opposite view (which is what he seems to often times do) is a leap of faith in it's own regard.

I think that naturalistic views shed a lot of knowledge on what, in the past, has been chalked up to mysticism. Very understandable and educational. But everything?? The creation of all the energy in the universe? .... the evolution of a human brain that ends up in lengthy discussions about the very creation of the human brain and the rest of everything as we know it. I know that biologically I am biased towards belief, but I'm not willing paint myself into the corner of naturalistic materialism because I still have a lot of unanswered questions. Apparently the Brights don't, or they are certain that the answers to all these questions will just strengthen their own conclusions.

BTW I'm not trying to go on a tirade against atheism or even brights for that matter. Just offering my opinion, which I know isn't worth much. I do find the it rather insulting when I hear things like "Only God can save us", and " what we need in this country is more God", etc.. Really?? Come on people!! It is also ridiculous that in the US you have to be Christian to be President,. .... or at least pretend to be. So as far as advancing our culture and having representatives that are of all worldviews we have a long way to go. Can you imagine the day an atheist becomes a prominent US leader?? But you have to play that game right now, appeasing all the apparently deluded voters.

 

[anthromom]

suppose if I spent a number of years in a backwater, superstitious African village I'd be down on all things "magical," but we shouldn't throw the starving, dehydrated African baby out with the bathwater, we should utilize technology to recycle the water. I think it makes sense to remain open to all possibilities, utilizing the scientific method to learn more and not close ourselves off from potential knowledge.

Chris, be very careful what generalizations you make. I was NEVER in what I would consider a "backwater, superstitious African village," only using the word superstitious to illustrate how the missionary down the road might have thought -- not what I thought. I would never, ever criticize these people, not verbally, not internally. These are people I care about, people I know. This is also part of "remaining open." Furthermore, not all of Africa looks like Ethiopia during a civil war/drought. "Starving, dehydrated"? Do you really think about other people this way?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris, be very careful what generalizations you make. I was NEVER in what I would consider a "backwater, superstitious African village," only using the word superstitious to illustrate how the missionary down the road might have thought -- not what I thought. I would never, ever criticize these people, not verbally, not internally. These are people I care about, people I know. This is also part of "remaining open." Furthermore, not all of Africa looks like Ethiopia during a civil war/drought. "Starving, dehydrated"? Do you really think about other people this way?

No, I was making a pointed, un-politically correct twist on an over-used axiom to make a point. The point being: we owe it to ourselves to be as open-minded to new ideas, out-of-the-box hypotheses and creative thinking in general. We should also be open to what archaic belief systems have to teach us snooty, know-it-all first-worlders. There is much wisdom contained in ancient societal knowledge, whether we want to believe this or not is another matter entirely.

 

[anthromom]

I was making a pointed, un-politically correct twist on an over-used axiom to make a point.

It's not about political correctness, it's about real folks, and nowadays a lot of the kids of those real folks live in cities with internet access and iPods.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Go Man U and its up to the individual

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Philip, to answer your question about my experiences in the village and how they might fit into my essentially scientific world view --

I saw what I saw. It is a fact, correct? Do I know what it means? No. Would the villagers' possible interpretation of evil spirits or a bad omen have been correct? I am agnostic on that. Again, I don't know the answer. My Christian missionary friends in the nearby town, however, felt that there was a battle for souls going on over Western Kenya. I don't know how they would have interpreted the situation with the "dogs" in my yard, but it might have either been 1) they were indeed evil spirits, or 2) they were merely dogs and the locals were superstitious, which was itself evidence of inherent evil. They would have been unsurprised by the strangeness of my experience because they'd had odd experiences too.

It would seem that as far as "the brights" credo goes, your experience would have to be explained away as mere superstition. The dogs being just that, two local multi breed dogs who happened to wander into your yard. Or would they accept that you experienced something that could not be explained?

 

[anthromom]

It would seem that as far as "the brights" credo goes, your experience would have to be explained away as mere superstition. The dogs being just that, two local multi breed dogs who happened to wander into your yard. Or would they accept that you experienced something that could not be explained?

Well, I don't know what other "brights" would think, but to me the word "superstition" is a mere gloss for beliefs that don't conform with our own. Michael Shermer, the expert on knowing everything about events he did not witness, would certainly say they were dogs.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks anthromom. I find it hard to believe that someone with seemingly a broad range of experiences would become a member of an organization with an exceedingly "narrow" range of beliefs.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

It's not about political correctness, it's about real folks, and nowadays a lot of the kids of those real folks live in cities with internet access and iPods.

My point exactly! What has/is going on in Africa is beyond tragic. As you point out, there is hope for the future. What is truly happening there? I have no idea. But I would guess that the traditional elders ain't happy. I don't know that much about Credo Mutwa, or what weight his insight carries w/ the Zulu, but I was moved by his recent video titled:

." Let us hope his pleas do not fall on deaf ears.

 

[CapnG]

Not to paint the man unjustly but I recognize the name Credo Mutwa mostly from his associations with David Icke... make of that what you will.

As for the broader topic of skepticism/agnosticism I think you'll find most of us on this board are broad-minded enough to at least listen to claims of the bizarre and paranormal without dismissing them outright as nonsense. Believability will then begin to wax and wane with the personal judgements and beliefs of each board memeber.

 

[NTS]

Agree, CapnG. Unless every paranormal experience report is a hoax, strange things happen to people that have no obvious explanation. And very often these people get little help in making sense of them, either from the medical/scientific establishment or anyone else. It's certainly possible that all paranormal experiences have some sort of mundane, known cause. But nobody's really made that case.

 

[CapnG]

Agree, CapnG. Unless every paranormal experience report is a hoax, strange things happen to people that have no obvious explanation. And very often these people get little help in making sense of them, either from the medical/scientific establishment or anyone else. It's certainly possible that all paranormal experiences have some sort of mundane, known cause. But nobody's really made that case.

And of course there's nothing quite like having one of those experiences yourself to mess with your worldview! Not that my own experiences have made me a doe-eyed believer of course (far from it) but they definately have a way of shifting you out of the "it's all bunk" catagory and over into the "What the hell WAS that?" column.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

And of course there's nothing quite like having one of those experiences yourself to mess with your worldview! Not that my own experiences have made me a doe-eyed believer of course (far from it) but they definately have a way of shifting you out of the "it's all bunk" catagory and over into the "What the hell WAS that?" column.

I guess that's why I have such a hard time believing anything paranormal since I've never seen anything that I could not explain one way or another. Maybe I'm lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at it.

FYI for those that don't know: I'm a big fan of people like Shermer and Randi.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

I guess that's why I have such a hard time believing anything paranormal since I've never seen anything that I could not explain one way or another. Maybe I'm lucky, or unlucky depending on how you look at it.

I've had a few experiences that I wasn't able to explain and that's perfectly usual. Where you go from there is the important thing. I have the firm conviction that strange things can and do happen to people around the world. What often occurs is that, after having such experiences, they automatically become firm believers in a vast range of paranormal phenomena. My question is: if I see, for instance, something I can only identify as being a ghost, does it immediately mean that I have to believe in life after death or, by extension, in UFOs or telepathy? That intellectual jump from the personal experience to the collective belief creates fertile ground for irrational suppositions (and impositions) and traps the percipient's minds in a swamp of unsubstatiated claims and credences.
The vast and virtually undefined world of paranormal phenomena should generate a sincere, coordinated and structured interest in those things that, for now, excede the limitations of our science, knowledge and, possibly, our capacity to understand them. Many UFO, supernatural and new age groups have proposed that we should advance towards a new framework of conscience. To me that would be great (we should strive to evolve in every way) but, in the end, what have they brought forward that actually contributed to a clear understanding of the unknown? Nothing.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I've had a few experiences that I wasn't able to explain and that's perfectly usual. Where you go from there is the important thing. I have the firm conviction that strange things can and do happen to people around the world. What often occurs is that, after having such experiences, they automatically become firm believers in a vast range of paranormal phenomena. My question is: if I see, for instance, something I can only identify as being a ghost, does it immediately mean that I have to believe in life after death or, by extension, in UFOs or telepathy? That intellectual jump from the personal experience to the collective belief creates fertile ground for irrational suppositions (and impositions) and traps the percipient's minds in a swamp of unsubstatiated claims and credences.
The vast and virtually undefined world of paranormal phenomena should generate a sincere, coordinated and structured interest in those things that, for now, excede the limitations of our science, knowledge and, possibly, our capacity to understand them. Many UFO, supernatural and new age groups have proposed that we should advance towards a new framework of conscience. To me that would be great (we should strive to evolve in every way) but, in the end, what have they brought forward that actually contributed to a clear understanding of the unknown? Nothing.

Well said.

 

[anthromom]

Hey Angelo. Glad to meet another skeptic.