Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A response to a comment left by the venerable blogger GoldenMean
Golden
thank you! That means a lot to this veteran stickler.
If there's a God and a heaven, He will reward you there for your kindness!
Now, does that make me an...atheist? agnostic? 
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on October 6, 2005 at 4:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Agreed
You may want to look at my latest post in "The Agnostics Primer", partly inspired by our discussion here.
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 10:20 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean - a good point and the single biggest reason that secondary
verification and then objective assessment are so vitally important. Regardless of the man's hidden agenda, the results of his work have been independently verified.
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 10:11 PM
| link to this | reply
For some reason, the word I added didn't print
I will try again:
"I assume"...(believe)..."that the human brain, its microstructure and intricate activity are the source of all human knowledge."
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Fascinating, but disappointing
I went to look at the first website, and it is very impressive. First, because of the findings. Second, because of the honesty of the researcher, Dr. Michael Persinger. If you will look at his second sentence in his second paragraph, it tells you his bias, his belief, and his agenda:
"I assume"...
... "that the human brain, its microstructure and intricate activity are the source of all human knowledge."
Though he doesn't come out and say so, this guy is an ATHEIST. So his conclusions are pre-determined. At least he is honest about it. He is dismissing all other possible known or unknown sources of human knowledge. If we are spirits or possess spirits, then the brain would NOT be the source of all human knowledge. Even if we are not spirits, our DNA contains vast amounts of organized data, a sort of human knowledge, which is not limited to the brain. The brain does not create DNA, but DNA does create the brain.
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 9:40 PM
| link to this | reply
This is a link to a secondary verification that contains much of the report
that I referred to. http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/Other/an_electromagnetic.htm
I tripped across this stuff a few years back so you will have to forgive me for being so disorganized. The point of all this however is that we have more than an innocuous link or a path of enquiry. Results have consistently proven that what people have experienced as visions, paranormal experiences, ghost sightings etc. can be reproduced in a laboratory. Yet somehow this all meets with resistence. Not cautionary skepticism but full blown erected barriers.
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 9:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Goldenmean - this is the place to start investigating this field
http://laurentian.ca/neurosci/_people/Persinger.htm ..this is the guy that has conducted thousands of experiments using electro-magnetic stimulea of the human brain on live subjects. He constructed a simple gadget that is merely a motorcycle helmet with numerous electrodes sending a low level electro magnetic pulse into the brain. Once the ambient level of electro magnetic energy, which is present in all human brains, is disrupted, a consistent reaction occurs. The subject is overwhelmed with a sense of dread and feels a presence of varying magnitude. This has been true in all instances but even more interesting is the fact that a large number of subjects have accompanying hallucinatory experiences. They see visions invariably drawn from their own experiences, beliefs and expectations. In other words the catholics see the Virgin Mary, moslems see Allah and so on. Even more striking is that in all instances of ghost sightings etc. when someone has taken the time to do so, ambient electro magnetic energy is elevated. They even sell a little gadget online called a ghost meter that measures this. Yes I have posted on this but cannot find it quickly. I will also make a hunt for the report I referred to. It is even more telling. My conclusion on all of this is that attitudes are keeping the myth of ghosts alive and well when there is a viable and proven explanation that debunks so much of it that it cannot be ignored. I may drop a few more links here as well... soon.
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 9:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
OK, your point is well-taken. However, I would offer the idea that atheism is CLOSER to rigid belief, while agnostics are characterized mainly by a LACK of rigid belief or "certainty" in any metaphysical scenario of reality, which seems to arm us with a healthy skepticism, which you strongly exhibit. It also spurs us to a greater curiousity, which leads us to investigate the various claims or beliefs much more than a believer of any persuasion would. By the way, I would very much like to read about the scientific evidence you mentioned concerning the "electromagnetic fluctuations" discovered in paranormal events. Have you posted anywhere else on that?
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 8:47 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean -- this damn English language gets me every time
That's what happens when you are thinking "athee" and trying to write atheist. It should also tell you how much or little of my comments and postings are copied and pasted. In this case the definition of atheist from the Webster's online dictionary.
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 8:43 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean -- when I re-read the comment I wrote last night I felt it was
too acidic, having been written with not enough time to give it real thought. You keep wanting to insist that you have an all encompassing definition of athiests but when you say this "A general belief in the absence of a supreme being, spiritual entities, or any spiritual force or energy in the universe." you not only fail to encompass all athiests, you could be speaking of a large group of agnostics as well. As for all athiests adhering to some form of doctrine, you could try polling the handful of athiests right here on Blogit and I would bet that the results would be varied in this regard. I say this because within the small group that are my friends, numbering 7 in all, 2 do not outright reject the metaphysical world while none have adopted, live by, or have based their beliefs on any form of doctrine. Where I have always felt that there is some truth in your contentions I'll never buy it in absolute terms without the qualifyers of "some" or "many".
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 8:19 PM
| link to this | reply
I hate to nitpick, but.....
You might observe that you have misspelled "atheism" everywhere except where you typed the dictionary definition. You have the "e" and "i" reversed. This had been bothering me, but I didn't want to say anything until you had the correct spelling right there to observe. I am no perfect speller myself, but would appreciate someone correcting me after numerous misspellings of the main topic of a post.
OK, nitpick time is over for me. I did this partially for my friend, Dylan, who is always trying to help bloggers improve their writing. See ya over in your blog, Dylan!
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
I am impressed
I was thinking through the day about how I would respond to the comment you left last night, and here I find that it is somewhat modified. That tells me you put an unusual amount of thought and care into this latest comment, and I always appreciate sincere thought and care.
Gomedome, I don't expect a complete refutation or answer to every comment I leave in blogs, but this was a special case. You had made my previous comment into a post. In this case, I DO expect to be directly responded to. Thus my objection to being treated like a piece of furniture! That was an exaggeration on my part, but it was designed to get a response, and so it did!
In your comment last night, you informed me that you are not an atheist but an agnostic, and that I could have known that from your long postings on religion. I am sorry that I mislabeled you. I just started reading your blog and didn't go back to read previous postings, as I now know I should have. Your recent posts seemed to support an atheist position.
It is unfortunate that blogging is sometimes a comedy of errors, or tragedy of errors, when people are too quick to jump to conclusions, trying to make their points and blow off steam at the same time. I try to keep that to a minimum, but here I erred and I hope you accept my apology. But even with my false assumption, my hunch was right that your statements were beginning to sound more agnostic that atheist.
I agree that any 2 atheists may have arrived at their belief (mindset, opinion, philosophy, etc.) by 2 different paths, and will have different specific beliefs. This is also true of any 2 Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. Individual beliefs always vary, but there are official or doctrinal positions that each group of believers profess to adhere to, and the atheists have their doctrinal position as well. I have seen it in their literature and on their TV shows. I also saw it in an atheist spokeswoman on Larry King Live who was debating some preachers a few months ago. That was a fascinating show. But the official doctrinal position of atheism (I call it doctrine, they don't) is as I have stated, a complete rejection of all things metaphysical. Not just "no God," but no spiritual realm or force or energy of any kind.
Life force or energy is not observable by science, not in the known physical realm of matter and energy, and therefore must be classified as non-physical or metaphysical. Since we do not know what energies actually produce life itself, but yet we are alive, the atheist position seems to me to be bordering on the absurd, as a sort of blind denial of one's own existence. Especially since scientists must put the second law of thermodynamics "on hold" where life energy is exerting influence (see my comment in your previous post, or go to www. secondlaw.com).
Dictionary definitions are an excellent starting point of understanding, but they reflect the limited common understanding of the entire population of our culture. If anyone who is writing a dictionary ever asks me, I will offer this definition of atheism:
A general belief in the absence of a supreme being, spiritual entities, or any spiritual force or energy in the universe.
posted by
GoldenMean
on October 1, 2005 at 7:45 PM
| link to this | reply
GoldenMean -- I wish I only had you to contend with
Know the rules of engagement. You cannot expect a complete refutation every time you leave a long comment. I only blog part time and am subsequently forced to overlook dialogue material constantly. If you feel that you were used as a piece of furniture I do not see it. But if I represented you inaccurately in my comment to another blogger or even if you just do not like what I have written, I will delete it at your request. We must all abide by these courtesies when we only have the words on a screen to determine inherent sentiment of another persons comments.
Your life experiences with athiests are only marginally more numerous than the average person as admittedly mine are as well. You want an answer to a question that is hardly a real question and asked of someone (me) who makes no contention of being able to answer it adequately other than I do not believe it to be true. If you were to say that a good number of athiests do not believe in the metaphysical, I could buy that but instead you speak in all encompassing and absolute terms. From here you make an attempt to use this contention as a definitive term to describe a group that is only categorized by non belief in diety. This ignores the fact that any 2 athiests may have arrived at the non belief in God by 2 completely different paths. Not believing in God does not necessarily carry with it any other beliefs, non-beliefs and adherance or rejection of any specific underlying philosophies. That is my point and how I extrapulate my opinion on the matter. I also adhere to the commonly accepted dictionary definition of the word athiest as follows:
Atheism: is the condition of being without theistic beliefs, or the disbelief in the existence of deities.
Someone who believes that there is no God or Someone who does not believe there is a God.
Attempting to add more to this definition through observation is futile as the athiestic mindset (if there is such a thing) is individualistic by nature......
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 11:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
I answered your question and left you a carefully thought-out comment. Then I return here to find that you do not answer me directly, but that you refer to my comment in answering the comment of Xeno-x. Excuse me, but I am not a piece of furniture in your blog, to be discussed with another. You have already flitted away to a new post, like a child afflicted with attention-deficit-disorder, or a blogger who is more interested in clicks and ratings than in a real discussion.
But just as you wanted a specific answer from me, I want a specific answer to my contention that, generally, atheism = a rejection of all things metaphysical = a BELIEF in a particular scenario of reality. Atheism, in its prevalent form, is just another type of belief.
We are dealing with two topics here, the characteristics of atheism in general, and the characteristics of your particular atheist views. As to your particular views, in your comment to Xeno-x, you disagree with my contention that atheists reject the metaphysical. Then you say that you do not believe in spirits or ghosts or satan or hobgoblins. It would seem that your statement supports my contention that atheists reject the metaphysical. But then you concede that there is "a lot of evidence" of things metaphysical that "are not examined with complete objectivity."
You are probably just keeping your arguing options open, but you are sounding more and more like an agnostic to me. Could it be time to change the sign in the window?
posted by
GoldenMean
on September 30, 2005 at 9:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x -- I agree for the most part except in your second line
when you suggest that an athiest does not believe in anything beyond that which can be sensed materially. Goldenmean addresses this as well in his comment by suggesting that athiests reject the metaphysical. I cannot agree with either sentiment. I do not believe in spirits or ghosts or satan or hob goblins but must concede that there is a lot of evidence that people who do subscribe to the existence of these things, have based their belief on. I believe however that the interpretation of the evidence is in question. Where the manifestations may have been real enough, the causal factors for the manifestation are not examined with complete objectivity.
posted by
gomedome
on September 30, 2005 at 8:41 AM
| link to this | reply
odd how atheists are misread
my understnding of atheism is that
the atheist simply does see anything beyond what can be sensed materially.
my impression of many believers is that
they are taught to believe and what to believe.
then there are those who can discard what they once believed in favor of a new vision, whatever that may be. This can lead anywhere.
but it's the independent thinkers, no matter how, no matter what, no matter where, that had an edge. They are not so chackled by what h as gone before.
so my hat is off to those that buck the trends.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 30, 2005 at 7:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
wow.
sounds like Ray was a good guy.
posted by
calmcantey75
on September 29, 2005 at 10:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
I was somewhat pleased, but dismayed to see my comment elevated to the status of a post, which means I must put more care (and time) into my reply. My blogging time is limited these days, so please be patient.
I was addressing my comments to all who had commented before me, not just to you. That's why I said "atheists, in general..." and "atheism, in general". And as you imply, every generalization, like a general, commits the error of trying to force every individual under it into the same mold. But generalities are still useful, and generally everyone uses them...
You seem to regard atheists as non-believers rather than believers. Your definition of atheism as "traditionally accepted as meaning those who are certain that there is no supreme being" gave me a chuckle, because of that little word CERTAIN. There is no way to objectively prove or disprove a supreme being, and yet there is that little word CERTAIN. How is your certainty any more or less valid than the believer's? And how is your "certainty" about the lack of a supreme being any different from belief? It seems clear to me that this type of "certainty" IS belief.
It is late, I will have to return later to continue this pleasant exchange. I have always enjoyed our blogging encounters and I have a great respect for you, Gomedome. Before I leave, I will try to answer your last question of what my opinions are based on.
My opinions are based on a rich background of adventure in word and deed, including:
1) a path from born-again Christian to questioning believer to agnostic.
2) studying almost every belief system in books and people (my devout Moslem friend taught me a great deal, my Spiritualist friend faked a seance to try to make me believe, my wife is Buddhist, my Hindu friends keep their idols in their fireplace, my first girlfriend was a Satan worshipper, college courses in philosophy and religion, a class long ago in Scientology). Talking to people about their beliefs is difficult and delicate, but I do it at every opportunity, because it fascinates me.
3) World travel, including a 6-year military stint as an officer, to countries including Canada, Mexico, Thailand, and many countries in Europe. Lately my travels have declined as my expenses have increased.
As for my exposure to atheists, it is quite limited, though I have read the atheist literature offered by the national organization whose name I can't remember (American Atheists?), and I catch their TV talk show a few times a year. It offers the same old agenda every time, mostly attacking the latest crimes of Catholic priests or the latest attempt of religious people to promote their religion, which is of course what religious people do. I fail to see any great superiority in the arguments of atheists. By the way, the best atheist arguments I have seen are in the book "The Problem of The Soul" by atheist Owen Flanagan. When I get time I will analyze them in my blog "The Agnostics Primer".
To assist us in the definition of atheism, I have found that most atheists who I have read DO NOT limit their rejection of the metaphysical to a rejection of a supreme being. It is a sweeping and complete rejection. Their belief includes a rejection of ANY spiritual existence or force of any kind, including souls, ghosts, poltergeists, reincarnation, or karma. This is a belief of exclusion or denial, but it is a belief nevertheless.
Looking forward to your reply, Gomedome
posted by
GoldenMean
on September 29, 2005 at 10:14 PM
| link to this | reply
cantey_1975 -- did I ever tell you that I met Ray Charles
Probably the most famous person I ever met. He played at our college and I was helping out with the organization of the event (to get a free ticket). We went backstage after the show to shoot the breeze with him, there were 6 of us. My buddy who was a regular comedian asks Mr. Charles if he will endorse his new business. Mr. Charles says his manager handles all of that but asked him what his new business was, mostly just humouring this college kid. When he answered that it was a driving school Ray Charles was in tears from laughing so hard. Appreciate this was 30 years ago. The joke was funny back then.
posted by
gomedome
on September 29, 2005 at 10:01 PM
| link to this | reply
did a doulble take on the title
even funnier than the last one.
posted by
calmcantey75
on September 29, 2005 at 9:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison_Mann - so tell me --- did this promo work?
posted by
gomedome
on September 29, 2005 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Congratulations
You made this this very important list! So click here to see!
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on September 29, 2005 at 5:37 PM
| link to this | reply