The Athiest-MPS Link's Destruction of Spirituality

If you have not interacted with me on ATS and know nothing about my post history, you might find what I say above to be a provocative title. In reality, it is another highly reasonable change in opinion I have had recently on topics I know far more about than you would think after reading the title alone. Check my post history, or have a moment to consider all your interactions with me you can remember.

As of today (29/04/2017 where I live), I no longer identify as an atheist as I have been over the last few weeks. The key reason for this shift in views is that I have become aware of a great deception involving people who are both Atheist and Militantly Pro-Science (MPS). I don't claim to know who is behind this great deception, but that does not mean my suspicions are wrong. I am close to as certain as I can be that they are true.

To avoid confusion, read these definitions:

Atheist: refers to a lack of belief in a deity or deities.

Science: the kind involving a systematic process that seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way using the scientific method to then classify it as factual.

Militantly Pro-Science (MPS): using your support in the above definition to such a high degree that you would be willing to support any claim backed by science itself, before even researching or testing it yourself first. Even when others encourage you to do so.

In other words: MPS's believe: Science says its true, I know science has a stringent demand for strong evidence to establish a claim as factual, therefore I don't need to question whether the issue I am discussing on here fits within the realm of scientific inquiry, I can just claim the issue being discussed is stupid because science does not consider the opposing argument worthy of being considered.

* * * * * * *

So, am I suggesting that Atheists should be associated with MPSs automatically? NO, I am not. I am suggesting that because 99% of the atheists I have met, researched about or had online discussions with are always either actual MPSs themselves, or take on the role of an MPSs when they are pressed when discussing the unknowable, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.

I personally classify MPS as having an irrational mindset that should not be taken seriously in the realm of discussing anything to do with knowledge that we at this present time cannot confirm. These people lack the ability to understand the need for examining an issue that is not fully knowable (presently) in the objective sense. They have a VERY similar mindset to people that are extremely reliant on religious belief to justify anything they believe.

But let me make this clear: the great deception I described above ONLY refers to the combination of the two, NOT atheists themselves and NOT pro-science people themselves.

So, why did I make this thread? Because I think MOST people that do choose to identify as being atheist (when push comes to shove) have done so because of pressure to avoid being seen as entertaining anything to do with religious beliefs themselves.

If you are like me who believes the existence of "God" (read below for my definition) and any other non-physical entities is possible to be true, then you are actually an agnostic — as I have in the past claimed to be for a long time, but now which I have just chosen to self-identify as once again.

The ONLY thing left to clarify is my mention before of the word God. My own view is NOT the same as the broadly defined monotheistic version we in the West tend to argue about: a single creator who is at minimum omniscient and omnipotent in regard to the creation of our planet alone, or the universe as a whole.

My view, which we will call Dark Ghost's View (DGV) in this thread: the original creator of the sum of all existence. That might or might not be separate from us, who either had absolute power/knowledge and dominion over everything when existence began, or who did and still does.

So yes, even when I am pressed to explain why, I feel very confident I can defend that above definition without appearing to be delusional for those who are willing to give me the chance. Go ahead, ask me and see what you discover.

Is “God” or the non-physical within our means to speculate on even though we cannot know whether we are right? Yes, I believe it is, regardless of what MPSs believe is the case. We all agree there must have been something (that was originally separate to ourselves now) that started everything, we just disagree on what that something was.

If you agree to the above, then the MOST important question would become: Who/What is behind this great deception between the Athiest-MPS link mentioned before. Any ideas?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The MPS people you talk about sound like they just traded spiritual faith for a materialistic faith. Believing something to be correct only because a scientist told you it's correct is the opposite of what science is about.

What's the deception you're talking about? Do you mean the Atheist-MPS are deceiving themselves or is it some kind of orchestrated conspiracy to make other people believe a certain way?

a reply to: underwerks

I'm guessing that Bill Bye saving the world might have a connection here.

Or fund the scientists whose results fit your agenda and not the honest ones.

originally posted by: underwerks
The MPS people you talk about sound like they just traded spiritual faith for a materialistic faith. Believing something to be correct only because a scientist told you it's correct is the opposite of what science is about.

I agree. Which is why I made a clear distinction between being pro-science (as I am personally) and being militantly pro-science.

What's the deception you're talking about? Do you mean the Atheist-MPS are deceiving themselves or is it some kind of orchestrated conspiracy to make other people believe a certain way?

The deception I am talking about is this: an unknown force/group which does not share the same beliefs/views as pro-Science types or MPSs, has found a way to "encourage" Atheists to choose the MPS viewpoint (99% of the time) when they are pressed to clarify why they dismiss any belief not backed by science (E.g. The belief in God, spirituality etc.).

It is not very easy to put into words what I see, but I can assure you I am not the only one seeing something is wrong, and the interests of the individuals being forced to do so is not being done in those individual's best interest.

You don't need to be pro-science to be an atheist, and you don't need to be pro-religion to believe in God or spirituality, but most people do believe this.

originally posted by: Tulpa
I'm guessing that Bill Bye saving the world might have a connection here.

Or fund the scientists whose results fit your agenda and not the honest ones.

To be honest, I had not heard about this person until you mentioned him, although I am not from the US, maybe that is why. I just briefly checked his Wikipedia page. It seems he indeed might be one of those relating to your last sentence.

Interesting idea for a thread Dark Ghost.Others have had similar suspicions about this dynamic...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

The deception I am talking about is this: an unknown force/group which does not share the same beliefs/views as pro-Science types or MPSs, has found a way to "encourage" Atheists to choose the MPS viewpoint (99% of the time) when they are pressed to clarify why they dismiss any belief not backed by science (E.g. The belief in God, spirituality etc.).

It is not very easy to put into words what I see, but I can assure you I am not the only one seeing something is wrong, and the interests of the individuals being forced to do so is not being done in those individual's best interest.

I imagine that some who get wrapped up in the service to self way of living, actively supress spirituality as a method of control.The more ignorant they think everyone is around them, the easier it is for them to feed their desires.Service to others is a harder sell when individuals fear a dog eat dog world.

Idk, if you have had a chance to check out any of Mark Passio's work.He explores this idea at length in his messages.Listening his insights about the way dark ones go about attempting to keep society blind can be an eye opener...

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
Interesting idea for a thread Dark Ghost.Others have had similar suspicions about this dynamic...

Great to hear. I have not seen a thread, or remember seeing one since first viewing ATS back in since 2006 (I became a member in 2009).

I imagine that some who get wrapped up in the service to self way of living, actively supress spirituality as a method of control.The more ignorant they think everyone is around them, the easier it is for them to feed their desires.Service to others is a harder sell when individuals fear a dog eat dog world.

Very true. Well expressed.

Idk, if you have had a chance to check out any of Mark Passio's work.He explores this idea at length in his messages.Listening his insights about the way dark ones go about attempting to keep society blind can be an eye opener...

Just did. Very interesting, will bookmark his page in my efforts to discover what the hell on earth is happening! (Bad pun, but still.)

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Just did. Very interesting, will bookmark his page in my efforts to discover what the hell on earth is happening! (Bad pun, but still.)

Mr. Passio has put out tons of material, trying to make a difference.It's time consuming going through it all.He comes at this, from the perspective of a former Satanist.

I feel the attitude of suppressing spirituality goes beyond any particular religion, hence describing it as those focused on service to self. This video of his covers what the deception you alluded to before reminded me of the 1:10-1:12 mark.

And again, another try at "anti-scientism".


Why is this useless? Because this try depends on the definition of "Militantly Pro-Science (MPS)", which is stupid in itself: I can't repeat the experiments from the LHC at home, obviously. I CAN follow their explanations and logical deductions - and then, I have to confide in their findings, verfied by the thousands of scienctists doing those experiments.

But, and that is the very, very CORE of science: it all depends and interloops with other science.

Which is the exact difference to anything non-scientific. All those cross-references, every result is dependent on other results, which goes up to a point where anybody could repeat simple, basic howevery necessary experiments on their dining table.

Non-science is defined by the lack of a web of details leading to new results.

Look at the bible: nothing new has been found since the writing of that book. I know that most flak against this posting will results from this sentence, and I want to explain that you may believe in anything you like, but that does not make it SCIENCE.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
And again, another try at "anti-scientism"

Edit: I have re-edited this reply to make it much more clearer for our "scientifically minded" (notice I placed BOTH words in quotation marks?) guests to digest the point I am making.

I myself am pro-science. I love and appreciate all the things in my life that science has provided me the opportunity of possessing. All the technology and improvements and conveniences I personally enjoy are thanks to other people relying on their scientific knowledge. I do not have a plausible reason to even want to stop, prevent or discredit science. Science has even been important to most historical figures I personally consider to be the most influential and beneficial in our recorded history. What reason could I have to be anti-science?

If you mean I am critical of the methods used by scientists (the scientific method) when making factual statements after finishing their research and experiments? No, I am not. I don't care because I am not a scientist and I don't need to use a scientific approach in my life.

My criticism is of people with an irrational mindset. An irrational mindset that creeps into non-scientific topics with the intention of implying that those having the discussion are delusional.

Here is a PERFECT example:

The Ouija Board

Daniel: I think I spoke to my uncle last night through the ouija board! He said I'm going to find a bag of money near my house later tonight!
Josh: I wouldn't count on that. You do know the ouija board myth was debunked long ago, right?
Daniel: I know, but it's still fun to think I might fnd that money.
Josh: Well it's not going to happen, Daniel. The ouija board phenomenon can easily be explained by the ideomotor response. You could use any object and achieve the same results. But that same result would be because of the ideomotor response I mentioned before.
Josh: Have you done research into the ideomotor response to make sure it is reasonable?
Daniel: I don't need to, Josh, it is science. Science does not need to ensure whether something is reasonable or not. All the work has been done and it is now scientific fact.
Josh: How do you know science is right on this topic?
Daniel: It doesn't need to be right. It is scientific fact, that means it is right.
Josh: Ok, thanks for the information. I'll call you later.

*3 hours later*

Daniel: Guess what, I found a guitar lying next to my house earlier. It's awesome!
Josh: Sweet! What brand? Does it have all the strings? Is it electric or acoustic?
Daniel: Do you still have Barry's number? I want to ask if he can fix it up for me.
Josh: His number is not in my phone. I really can't be bothered searching for it...
Daniel: Don't worry, I'll find someone else. I got to run, see you tomorrow!
Josh: Hold up, just before you go, I think I remember where it is, can you wait a minute so I can go look?
Daniel: No problem.
Josh: Ok, I found it. It was near where I thought, but I still had to dig through some papers to find it. But I do have it, ready?
Daniel: Don't worry, I don't need it anymore.
Josh: Didn't you say you wanted Barry's number? I found it, here it is.
Daniel: CHILL MAN! I didn't even find a guitar at all. You believed me?
Josh: WTF is wrong with you? Why would you lie like that? That's stupid.
Daniel: I wanted to know if you would believe me if I told you something you had no way of knowing yourself.
Josh: You didn't have to lie to me! We are friends, why would a friend lie to another when there was no good reason to!
Daniel: So why didn't you believe me earlier today when I told you about my Uncle and the money?
Josh: OMG! That is why you lied. You could have just asked me why I believe in the ideomotor response. You didn't need to lie like you did.
Daniel: Would you believe me if I had told you I found a bag of money like my Uncle told me I would?
Josh: No. Just because your "Uncle" sent you a message through "some board" and then you found what he said, does not mean you can trust the ouija board to tell you about your future!
Daniel: Then why did you believe me when I told you about the guitar?
Josh: THAT'S different, seriously, how can you even compare the two!
Daniel: Why is it different?
Josh: Is my believing you found a guitar near your house and then calling me up and telling me the same thing as the ideomotor response?
Josh: No, but you believing me as a credible source of information about something you could not even know was true means you chose to believe the source based on faith.
Josh: How is that faith?
Daniel: believing the source of the information instead of verifying the claim through empirical means.
Josh: You are wrong.
Daniel: I am?

*10 seconds pass with silence*

Josh: I'll see you tomorrow. I'm off!

* * * * * *

You tell me: Who is right in the above situation? I challenge ANYONE to prove that Daniel is wrong and Josh is correct.

Spirituality-is there really a definition for that? Religion yes-and religion claims all spirituality. Science doesn't even touch it because our current scientific knowledge has no ability to do so.

Actually, no one can prove spirituality, yet-still waiting.

You say alot of "stuff" but we're still in the "I don't know" phase. Spirituality could be many things-many of which we cannot grasp at this time.

Why the deep concern about the scientific method versus religion? It's obvious religion is taking deep hits because we are able to disprove the Bible etc and all the charlatan ministers bunk.

I think you give too much credit that people believe science outright these days-don't believe they do-just your opinion-many more would disagree-too many of us now know that "We don't know." Please, give us a little credit.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

So how does science support your belief in a deity?
it seems to me you only do these threads to gain brownie points and PMs that support your bias.

Hell the department of the treasury, federal reserve, cash, puts the hamster on the wheel just suck spirituality, like a black hole out of all they touch and replaces the void with its pure bullslick. The measure of value and worth in fake fiat money, world and philosophy.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
So how does science support your belief in a deity?it seems to me you only do these threads to gain brownie points and PMs that support your bias.

Sweet! No attack on my opening post...but a misrepresentation of my argument and an ad-homniem. I guess I must have hit some nerve, huh?

What brownie points? Do you mean stars/flags? I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel good seeing people agree with me or thinking my post is funny or important for others to also see...but no, I have enough stars/flags (in ratio) for any new member to know I am not a complete moron, spreader of disinformation or a troll. So if that's why you think I keep making these threads you would be wrong. But why take my word for it? Why not just ignore me and not participate in my threads?

When did I make the claim or implementation that science does support my belief (I assume you are referring to MY definition of "god" in the opening post - DGV) in a deity? Maybe I am missing something but can you please explain what you mean?

1) If you think my thread is an attempt to prove that science supports MY definition of a deity, you'd be wrong.
2) If you think it ought to be about proving my definition, why are you on this thread?
3) If you think threads like this shouldn't be permitted because they are dangerous or stupid (spreading information that is non-scientific i.e. unknowable (your connection), then you would have proved my entire point of the opening post.

So, which is it? I'll give you a chance to look over the opening post and reconsider. But please do answer so I know whether relying to you is worth my time or anybody else reading this thread.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You said you support good science, and you also said that you believe in a God. So what good science supports your belief in God? Why do you believe in god all of a sudden, was it some scientific breakthrough?

originally posted by: Justso
Spirituality-is there really a definition for that? Religion yes-and religion claims all spirituality. Science doesn't even touch it because our current scientific knowledge has no ability to do so.

Actually, no one can prove spirituality, yet-still waiting.

Would you agree then spirituality is another name for what we do not know? Or, the unknowable?

You say alot of "stuff" but we're still in the "I don't know" phase. Spirituality could be many things-many of which we cannot grasp at this time.

Hmm, it seems you are implying that I said or implied that belief in the existence of a god is knowable. If you did, can you explain why?

Why the deep concern about the scientific method versus religion? It's obvious religion is taking deep hits because we are able to disprove the Bible etc and all the charlatan ministers bunk.

I revised my earlier reply because it was going over the same things I mentioned in another thread and none of it was absorbed. So I decided I should use a different approach (the ouija board example). Did you manage to read that yet?

I think you give too much credit that people believe science outright these days-don't believe they do-just your opinion-many more would disagree-too many of us now know that "We don't know." Please, give us a little credit.

In the West, people certainly give FAR more credit to scientific authorities when scientific discoveries are announced than they do "credit" to religious authorities when they announce new discoveries about previously already held religious beliefs. This REALLY is not meant to be a Science vs. Religion thread.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You said you support good science, and you also said that you believe in a God. So what good science supports your belief in God? Why do you believe in god all of a sudden, was it some scientific breakthrough?

I said I enjoy and appreciate all the wonderful things science has provided for me. I do not want scientific research to stop or people who work in the scientific community to lose their jobs, or have funding cut (hmm, maybe towards climate change, but that's for another thread...hope that doesn't make me anti-climate change JUST for saying that).

Edit: If you or others are confused by my use of the term "pro-science", I will try to clarify that here. When I use that term, I am saying I have no issue with science, its methodology or application in areas to do with our need to discover, confirm or reasonably predict information about the physical world. I don't agree that it should be used to explain things that are unknowable (how the world began, e.g. Big Bang, and I am aware that is a THEORY), but yes I would consider it more credible than say the Bible or Quran. You have to be so careful when dealing with the unknowable. It is so easy to make assumptions about things that are not within your or any other person's capability of properly understanding.

If people choose to believe topics not explainable by science can safely be ignored or ought not even be taken seriously, I have no beef with those people and do not discourage them from participating in my threads if they are curious about where I am coming from. But people who know (they KNOW in their mind) any belief (YES belief based on faith in science) they have that is backed by science in regard to the unknowable should be assumed to be truthful because that scientific-backing has given them the confirmation to do so (in their minds that is all that is required).

OP, as someone who doesn't believe in any manmade gods and who is/ was a scientist, I can't get my head around your post.

First of all, being an Atheist is not a label I even give to myself because Atheism is the base standard when you are born. We are all born as Atheists and then some adults come along and teach us whatever they deem acceptable.

I am not to keen on that label. If you call yourself a christian or a muslim, yeah because you chose that belief but Atheist is a term given to us 'natural' people by believers. I am nothing but a human.

Anyway. My biggest gripe about the post is that Atheism and spirituality can't go together.

What a load of crock. I would go as far as to say that it is impossible to become properly spiritual as long as you are caught within religious boundaries as you are stopped from thinking further.

I am one of the most spiritual people you could meet, I am spiritual, what you call an Atheist and a scientist! [Shock]

All fits in really snug in my life and I have reached a point of a great understanding about life, the universe and a lot of other things.

As to militant scientists. If they refuse to open their minds to spirituality, then they are no scientists as they have no understanding of what science means. Spirituality is still somewhere explainable by science. Everything is if it exists.

How you can use THOSE people to change your entire belief system shows me that you have a long way to go to find YOUR true self.

You must base your inner journey not on outside groups of people but where your inner self takes you.
Don't care about idiots, they have their own life journey. You have yours.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
1. No-spirituality has no definition unless you are a religious sort.
2. Never said existence of a God is knowable-it isn't-as far as I know.
3. Nope-didn't read it-or understand what you are saying.
4. Disagree-your opinion-no way you can prove that-the times they are a-changin.

Your op, while interesting-reads like a parable-going round and round-I may have missed some of your concepts but did the best I could.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Science: the kind involving a systematic process that seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way

Let me help...

You are looking too deeply into this..... Ego backed terminology is the problem here.

Try this for starters: clearly define what you call 'nature' (above), and you will then see where the problem lies. That 'aetheism' doesn't really exist etc.