Atheism is an absurd idea that produces mental illness

reply to post by bwinwright


I haven't asked this question in quite awhile. But find it appropriate
here, once again. Where are they even going ?

BlueMule
How many of you that call yourselves atheists accept the reality of psychic functioning? Y'know, ESP/remote viewing/mind-over-matter, etc. PSI.

Not many, I would wager. As a pattern of thought, atheism is not exactly open to parapsychology. Even though one does not need to reject parapsychological findings in order to be an atheist, in my experience most atheists do reject them.

That makes atheism a pattern of thought that is not conducive to psychic awareness.

Without psychic awareness, one is living in an illusion - a narrow reality tunnel. Living in a narrow illusion is not good for mental health.

As an Atheist, I have yet to see any reliable, credible, replicable, verifiable evidence that would suggest any of these things you mention are actually 'things' other than as they might apply to internally subjective personally experienced experiences within the province of Psychology sans any 'para' prefixing.

As to the statements of illusion, I would tend to disagree.
If something can't be tested, replicated, verified and measured, then, those things are typically the 'things' associated with illusion, and delusion.

As for attempting to generalize Atheists, no two Atheists are really ever alike.
Most Atheists find and come into Atheism on their own, by themselves.
There are no welcoming arms, how-to flyers, or missionaries running amok with all the 'answers' on how to be an Atheist.

Atheism is typically a do-it-yourself project, and as a DIY, were everyone's personal understanding of their own Atheism to be presented in terms of engineering, one could expect all sorts of crazy contraptions put together with vacuum tubes, cogs, whistles, tape, twine, wires, stray cats, decorative plants, glitter, paint, fancy stencil work, knitting and everything else imaginable, with no single contraption coming close in similarity to any other with exception of the one part that for the most part is always MISSING, and the part that unites these contraptions because it is MISSING is the god-shaped part.
Thus, whatever a god is, is not part of anyone's Atheist Machinery. Pretty much everything else, however, is fair game from jelly sammiches, fancy shoes, holiday decorations, favorite people, baby animals, anything and everything, except a god.

AliceBleachWhite
As an Atheist, I have yet to see any reliable, credible, replicable, verifiable evidence that would suggest any of these things you mention are actually 'things' other than as they might apply to internally subjective personally experienced experiences within the province of Psychology sans any 'para' prefixing.

Yeah I get that a lot from atheists. I get the feeling that an atheist either experiences psi for themselves as Signalfire did, or they figure that if there was verifiable evidence for psi then mainstream science would have let them know by now.

Would you say you trust mainstream science to let you know if verifiable evidence of psi becomes available?

reply to post by bwinwright

call themselves an atheist because they hate the abuses of organized religion are simply holding on to hatred that is robbing them of their peace. This is clearly a form of mental disease …

While organized religion has been one of the most corrupt and abusive forms of mind control in human history and responsible for the death and destruction of millions of people

So you recognize organized religion is corrupt and horribly abusive mentally and physically in one breath, but in the other deem it a mental illness to oppose it. That doesn't add up. You're not thinking clearly. That could be a sign of a mental health issue just saying.

you can separate yourself from this form of tyranny without labeling yourself an atheist.

Indeed, and I do. I'm an anti-theist. Not all atheists are 'militant' or even really care that much about religion except for not believing it comes from a religious god. I myself have a much stronger position against religion and religious moderates and co-existence and yadda yadda. Again, not all atheist do. I would venture a guess most don't at the end of the day.

claiming to be an atheist is so absurd because

Claiming to know the thoughts and wishes of an infinitely intelligent and powerful being is not absurd? That's precisely what religious dogma claims to contain.

The average religious person attending a physics seminar wouldn't understand a darn thing. Yet we are to believe our finite monkey brains wouldn't have any issue comprehending a being unfathomably smarter and knowledgeable than say Stephen Hawking? Yeah that's perfectly rational… not absurd at all..

We have to separate god-belief from belief in religious gods. One could believe in the former and not the later (Deism for instance). Most religious people can relate, and are atheists themselves in a sense. The Mormon's no doubt dismiss the validity of Vishnu, in the same manner atheists would dismiss Elohim.

The vast majority of rational and mentally sound people, throughout all of human history

Well if you expand the scope to include all of human history you'd have to acknowledge at one point the majority of people (the rational and mentally sound people of that time) believed sacrificing babies would alter the weather or god's wrath. Majority of people can have bad beliefs. Beliefs that are objectively false. That's true throughout our history and is true today.

There's plenty of evidence for psi of all kinds, you just have to do some digging past the 'fake mediums' type websites.

Read about Ingo Swann, the first person to have proven psycho-kinetic abilities, as well as some pretty spectacular results with remove viewing. Most of his achievements are hidden behind the CIA's firewall but what has leaked out is wonderful; I'll never forgive myself for not learning about this man sooner, contacting him and offering to buy him a very long dinner plus conversation; it would have been the highlight of my life.

Swann wiki

and to debunk some of the classic Wiki-isms that might be slanted:

Randi debunking

PS: It's my belief (heh) that we're all psychic and telepathic in varying amounts. It's trained out of us by society's fears and dogmas, rather than trained in. We're really at the very start with this skill but in time I believe it will become as important as vision or hearing.

reply to post by bwinwright


"Atheism is an absurd idea that produces mental illness ..."

ON the CONTRARY: Religion IS a mental disease
that makes its sheeple/Slaves think that they are free.

Atheism reveals how religion makes Sheeple feel free.

BlueMule

AliceBleachWhite
As an Atheist, I have yet to see any reliable, credible, replicable, verifiable evidence that would suggest any of these things you mention are actually 'things' other than as they might apply to internally subjective personally experienced experiences within the province of Psychology sans any 'para' prefixing.

Yeah I get that a lot from atheists. I get the feeling that an atheist either experiences psi for themselves as Signalfire did, or they figure that if there was verifiable evidence for psi then mainstream science would have let them know by now.

Would you say you trust mainstream science to let you know if verifiable evidence of psi becomes available?

Why would I need to 'trust' science?
Science is not a vehicle of Faith.

I could finance and do a study of the phenomenon on my own if I desired.
The thing about Science is that these studies are typically published where other Scientists in applicable concentrations can weigh in on any publication, challenge the indications pointed to in the data, challenge the procedurality, challenge the methodology, challenge the subject selection standards, and/or carry out their own study to replicate the indications.

So long as stringent observation of rigorous objective procedure and adherence to Scientific methodology is adhered to and all processes are documented sufficiently such that anyone with any questions can have their questions answered in reviewing the documented detail, there's no requirement to "TRUST" anything.

The entire point in having a result or indication and documenting the processes which led to such is so that others can repeat the same and thus CONFIRM.

It's just like baking a cake.
There's a recipe.
If you follow the instructions for making Angel Cake, you should get Angel Cake, not Haggis, or a Carburetor, or something else entirely not Angel Cake.

So far, however, all this psychic stuff leads to inconsistent data.

If people are going to have magical powers, then, it's only reasonable to expect them to be testable and measurable.
So far ... eh ... not so much.

Thanks for the insults, i guess that i must be massively ill for not believing in a jelous, petty, violent, arogant imaginary figure that lives in the clouds.

Wish you a merry xmas

reply to post by bwinwright


I am new here and this is the 2nd thread I have been on..
I am not sure I call my self an Atheist, but I surely don't believe in organized religion or the God of the Bible, who just seemed determined to keep the death tolls of humanity rising up long after the flood was over.
Some of these Biblical verses of horrible torturous deaths are not what we expect from an all compassionate merciful God who loves each an everyone of us. Why fly into rages with humanity, when He supposedly created an Universe that is so magnificent, so vast, so beautiful, and so complicated, yet could not get it right with the creation of humanity?
So why get angry over something He supposedly already knew was going to happen from beginning to end.No need for death and destruction, just a wave of the hand would have been better, besides, if it was all about Sin,... Is God exempt from the rule..Thou shalt not kill?
Plus adding to that, why did He wait til humanity learned a written language to start revealing Himself in a Book? After nearly 14 billion years from the beginning of the Universe?
I do believe there is Something, A supreme power... (I do not believe anything got here all by its self..) I feel very connected to this Source and I am very happy and peaceful with who I am..

AliceBleachWhite

BlueMule

AliceBleachWhite
As an Atheist, I have yet to see any reliable, credible, replicable, verifiable evidence that would suggest any of these things you mention are actually 'things' other than as they might apply to internally subjective personally experienced experiences within the province of Psychology sans any 'para' prefixing.

Yeah I get that a lot from atheists. I get the feeling that an atheist either experiences psi for themselves as Signalfire did, or they figure that if there was verifiable evidence for psi then mainstream science would have let them know by now.

Would you say you trust mainstream science to let you know if verifiable evidence of psi becomes available?

Why would I need to 'trust' science?
Science is not a vehicle of Faith.

Perhaps not, but people are. It's people that do science and it's people that keep other people informed of science. Who keeps you informed? Do you trust them?

I could finance and do a study of the phenomenon on my own if I desired.
The thing about Science is that these studies are typically published where other Scientists in applicable concentrations can weigh in on any publication, challenge the indications pointed to in the data, challenge the procedurality, challenge the methodology, challenge the subject selection standards, and/or carry out their own study to replicate the indications.

You speak as if you don't know that there are peer-reviewed parapsychology journals out there.

So long as stringent observation of rigorous objective procedure and adherence to Scientific methodology is adhered to and all processes are documented sufficiently such that anyone with any questions can have their questions answered in reviewing the documented detail, there's no requirement to "TRUST" anything.

The entire point in having a result or indication and documenting the processes which led to such is so that others can repeat the same and thus CONFIRM.

Your concerns are warranted but really quite elementary and have been addressed long ago by parapsychologists, as you would know except for one thing. You trust the wrong people to keep you informed.

reply to post by galaxy40


Your 'label', if so inclined, would likely be Pandeist or PanENdeist based on what you described so far. Contingent first upon the parameters set for the definition of 'God' and then whether what you believe adheres to that.

if it was all about Sin,... Is God exempt from the rule..Thou shalt not kill?

Yes. God is exempt. Divine Command Theory. It's good in of itself. God is the source of goodness and therefore any command from God is good. He commands you to kill your son, it's good. Lovely isn't it? The most vile atrocious actions are easily justified with this belief.

reply to post by BlueMule


I'm sorry, but, when you say "parapsychologist", that, for me, doesn't translate into 12 years at University for accreditation, and recognition of a mastery of any concentration.

When someone says "parapsychologist", to me, that translates into plumbers, coffee shop baristas, retail clerks, and wow-eyed people without education or accreditation in any relevant field sufficient to be taken seriously about anything.

Parapsychologists peer-reviewing each other?

Tell me; Is the institution of parapsychology such that it's self regulating in the respect that making things up or practicing bad parapsychology has any weight of enforcement behind it?
Is there any measure of regulation in effect such to prevent these people from simply arriving at whatever conclusions they want to arrive at?

Considering the extreme fringe nature of the topic, that's a little like asking a fox to guard the hen house against other foxes and report on the shenanigans of other foxes.

As I stated before, Science requires no Faith.
I don't have to believe or listen to any of my peers.
If anything, science is highly competitive, and it's often advantageous to find error in other scientists' work.
Science, is sometimes like a Gladiator Arena.
Really.
Anyone that thinks they can topple any paradigm, or bring into question anyone else's data is entirely welcome and even encouraged to strap on their armor and weapons to have at it.

This standing challenge is open to all comers; even you.

If you can topple Gravity, or any standing Paradigm, you'll be a hero.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Wow. It's worse than I thought.

I'm shocked by how you and so many other atheists (not all) can be so opposed to something you know so little about. Yes of course there are peer-reviewed parapsychology journals! The Parapsychological Association is affiliated with the AAAS for cripes sake. I suggest you ask Santa for the parapsychology college textbook. Quick! Before he flies by your house!

reply to post by bwinwright


Religion is an absurd idea that produces mental illness.

See how that works?

Do I really need to go there?

merry christmas everyone

BlueMule
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Wow. It's worse than I thought.

I'm shocked by how you and so many other atheists (not all) can be so opposed to something you know so little about. Yes of course there are peer-reviewed parapsychology journals! The Parapsychological Association is affiliated with the AAAS for cripes sake. I suggest you ask Santa for the parapsychology college textbook. Quick! Before he flies by your house!

edit on 24-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

It's fine and fun and nice and all that you stoop to personality comments, especially when no personality comments were offered, but, it's rather conspicuous when questions are avoided.

Questions like:

Tell me; Is the institution of parapsychology such that it's self regulating in the respect that making things up or practicing bad parapsychology has any weight of enforcement behind it?
Is there any measure of regulation in effect such to prevent these people from simply arriving at whatever conclusions they want to arrive at?

Considering the extreme fringe nature of the topic, that's a little like asking a fox to guard the hen house against other foxes and report on the shenanigans of other foxes.

This peer review process; what are they risking? Where's the accountability and at what consequence?
They lose their job at Starbucks?
They're not allowed to fix someone's sink?
Someone isn't going to allow them to been seen on tv in night vision green saying something like "something just touched me!"

Demonstrate the regulation and consequences please?
... or, is the operating rule simply "Don't get caught" as it applies to fraud and charlatanism?

reply to post by bwinwright

Hello, I am an Athiest and I want to bring up a few points with you.

First off, I appreciate your view on the subject.
Now I am not speaking for all Athiests, just myself. I am an athiest because I find it hard to believe in an entity that created the whole universe in 6 days. a few thousand years ago. Im sorry science and artifacts have proved time and time again that the earth is much older then what the bible or any of those religous books say.

Also how can you believe in a book that was writen thousands of years ago that was also rewriten multiple times over the years. To me that is as rediculous as believing that Clifford the dog is a real dog.

Now lets flash forward to the present time. There are thousands of people that hear voices in there head. Some of these people even listen too these voices and do horrible things like kill there children. You know what they call that? schizophrenia, now How many people in the bible heared voices in their head and said its god? Didnt some one almost sacrifice his son for this god. That is a real mental illnes.

Athiests are Athiests because we use the power of our brain to put two and two together.

Also there are countless stories of priests/holy people that paided inventors to come and build them a "miracle" Ie, crying statue, Horse that drinks from hand of another statue so that they could draw more supporters in, which will inturn make the church/temple that much richer. Now if god was so real why would priests have to pay inventors to make a miracle?
Athiests need proof, science prevides more proof then religon. Religion is nothing more then a money making scheme. You can not deny that. when you go to church they pass around collection dishes, Why must you pay to be able to worship? God doesnt need money, god didnt create money, man did. God didnt create religon, people with schizophrenia did.

reply to post by signalfire



What i do think is that people "believe" that they occasionally have the feelings of precog, or mind reading, or some such psi abilities. This is extremely common among nearly all people. (Myself included) But i bet you cant demonstrate these abilities at will. So they are not reliable anyways. (You can never tell when its real or if it is just the experience that its real. We all know that our minds play tricks on us. There is no denying that) only after the feeling, you attribute these events to a feeling you have had your whole life that you are different and are sensitive to these powers. The act of making these claims shows that you set yourself apart from everyone else. It shows that you think you are special or that you have some special power or ability that only a select few have. This is very common among almost everyone. There are a lot of people who make these claims.

I have talked and worked with a lot of people who claim all kinds of abilities but as soon as you set up a chance for them to demonstrate it they suddenly cant perform. I know they believed in their hearts that they could perform, but they never can. Not in a way that is significantly more reliable than chance. I really dont mean any offense i just really like discussing this topic.

If you or anyone else could demonstrate an extra sense or special psi ability then you would have to use the tools of science to verify it. The act of verifying it would be science. If you could send me a message with some kind of psi power i would be permanently covinced in its reality. It would be that easy.

I may be wrong, but in the state that society is in now, i honestly think that if this were a real anomaly, more than a few people would come forth and willingly display their talent and take their payday. Dont you think it would be worth a tv show? Thats worth way more than a million dollars. Not one person would stand up for that?

The MDC has very strict rules for how they verify the authenticity of peoples claims. They test a lot of claims. Its a pretty big deal. They spend more than a million dollars in the process of testing. That million dollar prize is no big deal to the foundation its not even their money, its in a trust specifically for the occasion. It was compiled by thousands of contributers who are paying attention to what they are doing. They would be more than happy to give it to someone who could perform at will or even at a rate that was more than could be expected by chance. Someone who can do anything would instantly be thrust into stardom, that would be more important than walking on the moon. Their name would never be forgotten.

reply to post by bwinwright

The atheist, however, believes that orderliness does not necessarily require intelligent direction and, of course, this false belief is both illogical and absurd.

Does the sand in a desert form patterns because all the grains of sand decided to line up next to each other? Your argument is wrong and therefore you are mentally ill for holding onto false beliefs.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I'll tell ya, I don't think you really want to know. Maybe the knowledge is too dangerous for you. Maybe it would break your mind. Or maybe you're a disinfo agent and you will just use a script to respond to whatever I say.

But just in case you have the courage to challenge your beliefs, here is a vid. Merry Christmas.

BlueMule

AliceBleachWhite
As an Atheist, I have yet to see any reliable, credible, replicable, verifiable evidence that would suggest any of these things you mention are actually 'things' other than as they might apply to internally subjective personally experienced experiences within the province of Psychology sans any 'para' prefixing.

Yeah I get that a lot from atheists. I get the feeling that an atheist either experiences psi for themselves as Signalfire did, or they figure that if there was verifiable evidence for psi then mainstream science would have let them know by now.

Would you say you trust mainstream science to let you know if verifiable evidence of psi becomes available?

edit on 24-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

See i dont think we would even have to trust the scientists. I dont think society could stop someone from coming forward.

Besides you shouldnt trust scientists. You should always check their work. Its the work of scientists that is important. I dont care who makes the claim. If im interested enough about it i will check into their work. Believe me when i say. They are usually very proud of it and cant wait to tell you all about it.