next »

[Dacke]

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, could you please exemplify.

[paste]

they actually did use two dimensions in a few cases where there was a significant secondary religion: for instance, look at the darker greens of africa, or look at how they have a different category for 'shintoism and buddhism' and 'buddhism'. so i do think they take that into account.

I agree it's "good enough".  Just a bit broad and I'm just nitpicking.  Also, what is France supposed to be?  It looks like a combination of gray and purple?  

in most cases though, countries do not have significant secondary religions, and in most cases they have a majority religion which pretty much everyone belongs to and you're thought of as "different" if you do not belong to that religion. so i think it reflects reality in that sense for most of the cases: e.g. the US *is* a christian nation, whether we atheists want to admit it or not. for instance, my city (paterson, nj) has the second largest muslim population of any city in the US (after dearborn, michigan) -- yet there are still at least 10 churches for every mosque in this city.

It could just be that Christians typically use more churches (and/or different kinds) than Muslims use mosques.  But yeah, it was probably some high-power church or politician(s) that felt the Muslim presence in Paterson was "threatening our Christian nation" and installed churches to in effect gerrymander the district.

[Mipe]

I'm really disappointed with you guys. I thought we were all mature enough that we wouldn't flock to a religious thread and bash everyone's beliefs. It's okay to be proud of what you believe in, but jesus (pun unintended), you people are being ridiculous

Who are you to preach unto us?

Are you... the next messiah? I swear I didn't know how being lazy was a sin 

[phubans]

I once did a quick survey on Yahoo Answers that simply asked, "Atheists, have you ever done drugs?" Quickly the replies came rushing in to proudly assert things like, "No, never." Based on this sample, I would estimate that about 90% of the respondents who represented themselves as atheists had never done any perception-altering drugs. I found this particularly interesting because of the dramatic change in consciousness that happens when a person uses drugs (especially psychedelics like cannabis, mushrooms, LSD, or DMT).

I understand most atheists will dismiss the effects and perceptions of drugs as some hallucinatory illusion that results from changing the brain's chemistry.

In conclusion, I find it interesting that someone who has never had a dramatic change in perception would make so many assumptions about the nature of reality. It's like making assumptions about XY even though X is the only state that has been consciously experienced. Personally, I have had some very life-changing experiences while under the influence of cannabis and at the time they were not only remarkable but perceptually as real if not more than anything I perceive on a daily basis.

That said, I encourage people to find the courage to take the scientific approach and research this matter first hand.

[Μarkham]

It always strikes me as silly when christians, especially those of fundamentalist type, use the phrase what would jesus do? and go along their life with ownership of a home, not being in Israel, not having 12 followers, not being in total poverty, not healing the sick, etcetera.

Well, their intent on the phrase is "What would Jesus do in this particular situation that I am currently faced with."

[Dacke]

@phubans: I think most science-oriented atheists are aware that perception can not be fully trusted. It is a very well-known and well-studied area, after all. There is no need to use drugs to discover that first hand, there are plenty of other ways (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion). That's why it's so important to use a scientific method to get to the facts, lest you be fooled by your less-than-perfect brain and sensory organs.

Personally, I usually experience mind-altering effects when I sleep-walk while having a high fever. I get strange ideas about reality and sometimes even hallucination-like experiences.

[phubans]

Well either way. After death we will either cease to exist or go on existing forever.

Personally, I want to do neither. Oh well. Fuck...

[JoGribbs]

@phubans
1) There's so much wrong with your survey technique that if I actually went out of my way to explain it I would probably come of as more patronizing than if I just ended the sentence here.

2) We dismiss hallucinatory experiences because they can be explained with further experience. We construct an order of sense data based on which ones conform to a coherent structure. It's my opinion that we don't have super-sensible access to the world, but that we build a mental model of 'the world', and that model includes the fact that certain sense data does not correspond to a physical world in the same way as others. There is a whole lot of stuff that has been written for hundreds of years about this, because it's a difficult/ interesting question. I appreciate you trying to come in and clean it all up but it's a harder question than you're making it out to be.

3) I am an Atheist who smokes weed regularly and has taken stronger stuff in the past. I know that that might not conform to your ideas but I think it's important not to generalise/ act like other people have no idea just because you have had drugs.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

It could just be that Christians typically use more churches (and/or different kinds) than Muslims use mosques.  But yeah, it was probably some high-power church or politician(s) that felt the Muslim presence in Paterson was "threatening our Christian nation" and installed churches to in effect gerrymander the district.

not that likely: there's also a huge hispanic and black population here, along with the muslims. what i meant was that even in US cities with particularly high populations of non-christians, christians are still the most numerous people in that city, by far. as far as i know, there's no state and no city in the US where christians aren't the majority; it's only when you get down to the neighborhood level that you can find groups that aren't christian-dominated. so i don't think it's misleading to color the country purple or whatever color christianity was, because it usually works out that states have a majority religion (largely because religion is a tool of statism).

[phubans]

2) We dismiss hallucinatory experiences because they can be explained with further experience.

Good, so apply that logic now to this model:

A is non-drug-induced reality and B is drug-induced reality.

You begin with knowing A. You now know B, which contradicts A.

In your case, you choose to believe that A is valid why? Because you experienced it first or because it's more consistent? In my case, I have chosen to believe that B is actually the true reality and A is the hallucinatory or trance experience. I can easily see why you'd think that A is the true reality and B is the hallucination, but it seems you cannot see why I would regard it as the other way around. That is why we are at an impasse and nothing can be said or done to convince the other.

Why you'd continue to smoke weed considering that it's merely a hallucination makes me wonder why. I had to quit smoking because I was afraid of the very real experiences pertaining to reality that I was coming to discover.

[C.A. Silbereisen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTWlQaZ0DWo
Relevant

DERP

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

2) We dismiss hallucinatory experiences because they can be explained with further experience.

Good, so apply that logic now to this model:

A is non-drug-induced reality and B is drug-induced reality.

You begin with knowing A. You now know B, which contradicts A.

In your case, you choose to believe that A is valid why? Because you experienced it first or because it's more consistent? In my case, I have chosen to believe that B is actually the true reality and A is the hallucinatory or trance experience. I can easily see why you'd think that A is the true reality and B is the hallucination, but it seems you cannot see why I would regard it as the other way around. That is why we are at an impasse and nothing can be said or done to convince the other.

Why you'd continue to smoke weed considering that it's merely a hallucination makes me wonder why. I had to quit smoking because I was afraid of the very real experiences pertaining to reality that I was coming to discover.

the movie inception deals with this a bit

but yes, what matters most is consistency and repeatability to the scientific method. experiences have to be repeatable to be real, and dreams are not usually repeatable, whereas experiences in the so-called real world are.

another important element is that something is observable to more than one person. dreams are only observable to you, not to society. reality is a social construction, not a personal one. reality is just what people agree to be real. and since people don't share dreams or hallucinations, only experiences that people share (as well as experiences which are repeatable) are considered real.

that's why one is called objective and the other is called subjective. objective experiences are experiences others can have as well. subjective ones are ones only you can have.

[phubans]

True. That's why my entire spiritual experience is complicated by the component of solipsism. I cannot truly know if anyone outside of myself exists, or if they're truly working in my best interest if they do exist; for all I know, I could be some sort of divine being, trapped inside of this physical form by being deceived by my enemy at one point in time, and everyone/everything in this world could be manipulated by that enemy to stop me from ever being free. Of course this sounds far-fetched, but it's a common theme in various spiritual beliefs and has been considered by many philosophers (Plato, Descartes) and even adapted into films (The Matrix, etc)... But above all, it's what I've personally experienced. I cannot trust others, but if I'm going to trust anything it has to be my own experiences. They haven't put me in a good place, no, but that's not going to change what I regard as truth.

[JoGribbs]

...

It is not even a matter of which comes first, it is of which succeeds the other. The thought that 'I am experiencing' entails the higher-order thought of 'I think I am experiencing'. There are even higher order thoughts of 'I think I think I am experiencing' and so on; it is a peculiarly human thing to think in such a way.

I have the thought 'I am experiencing' in the case of 'real' experience and hallucinations, but in the latter case I have the higher order thought of 'I don't think I am experiencing'. Experience on hallucinogens does not contain within it the experience of not being on hallucinogens, but the opposite is true (I am not trying to use this statement to make a point, because the order it implies is just based on language).

But I understand that I haven't really answered your challenge, and that is what makes one experience better than another. If I had to pare down the difficulty to it's essential, I'd say it's that our senses get information and they don't really care about the source. We do not have direct privileged access to the world, otherwise there would be no error or deception.

The thing is it is hard to find someone who's entire experience has been dominantly on drugs rather than the other way around. Our world, as much as some would wish otherwise, is to a great degree constructed by how we humans interact with it. What I mean is that us and the world are co-dependent, and the majority rules; pavements aren't designed for the blind and our world isn't designed for the madman who sees only unicorns. We can never understand what it is like to be these people who see the world completely irrevocably different, as Paul said, but we understand what the construct the majority of us buy in to, and why we have bought into it.

Maybe that is not good enough for you but I can't offer anything more. Certainty inevitably leads to scepticism.

[phubans]

No, that's a good, intelligent answer. It's weird that I'm participating in this thread while talking to my friend about the very same things. If I had my way I'd be content to eat Cheetos and watch "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" or whatever people watch on TV these days.

[C.A. Silbereisen]

The thing is it is hard to find someone who's entire experience has been dominantly on drugs rather than the other way around.

If we don't limit ourselves to drugs here, there are plenty of people with certain mental illnesses who perceive reality differently from most people most of the time.

Mental illnesses are social constructs as well btw.

[JoGribbs]

If we don't limit ourselves to drugs here, there are plenty of people with certain mental illnesses who perceive reality differently from most people most of the time.

Mental illnesses are social constructs as well btw.

I address this further in my post.

@phubans: Sometimes I feel like just watching korean martial arts movies instead of earning money or getting an education. It is an attractive prospect.

[Pineapple]

Today it struck me.

What seems to be the group most vehemently opposed to abortion is christians.

This is a silly fact.

1 Peter 2:22 says about jesus, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
A: jesus is sinless

1 John 5:20 says, And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
John 10:30 says, "I and My Father are one."
See also John 1
B: jesus and god are the same deity

A: jesus = sinless
B: god = jesus
C: therefore, god = sinless

D: God killed many people for a plethora of reasons. Citation

C: god is sinless
D: god kills people
E: therefore, killing people is not sin

F: Human infants are people Citation

E: killing people != sin
F: infants = people
G: therefore, killing infants != sin

Abortion is the practice of killing a human infant after it is conceived and before it is born Citation
H: abortion = killing infants

G: killing infants != sin
H: abortion = killing infants
I: therefore, abortion != sin

In fact, if we adjust C to adhere more closely to the passage Matthew 5:48, Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect., we can restate it as
C: god = perfect

we can then see that
C: god = perfect
D: god kills people
F: infants = people
J: therefore, killing infants = a trait of perfection

J: killing infants = a trait of perfection
H: abortion = killing infants
K: therefore, abortion = a trait of perfection

Cold, hard, irrefutable simple basic logic.

So why aren't christians more supportive of the practice?

[Dacke]

In your case, you choose to believe that A is valid why? Because you experienced it first or because it's more consistent?

It's a matter of consistency, probability and utility.

reality is a social construction

Well, no. Reality exists independently of our experiences of it. But our understanding of it is both flawed and dependent of social constructs, so I guess you're half-right.

[Gimym JIMBERT]

@_madK
Blind horse are rare
Rare things are valuable (see gold)
Therefore Blind horse = valuable

Cold, hard, irrefutable simple basic logic.

@Phubans
Why the experience of A invalidate B or the other way?
They can be both true!
When I put 3D glass I have a different experience of 3D tv than without. I'm not sure one is more real.


BTW I ultimately belive in logic that can handle a=!a
The brain can handle this case.
Proof? The only thing that does not change is changement.