How would becoming an atheist improve my life?

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

If you want to compare being a theist to being on meth, by all means do so. Just remember that being a theist has none of the downsides of meth, like neurotoxicity.

Oh yes, you're right, Abrahamic theism comes with a set of downsides all its own. I'm sure we could enumerate them if we really wanted to, but there's really no need because you misunderstood the analogy and it stands regardless.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Rust

I didn't even mention the word arrogant. Pay attention.

I didn't say that you did. Read.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Oh yes, you're right, Abrahamic theism comes with a set of downsides all its own. I'm sure we could enumerate them if we really wanted to, but there's really no need because you misunderstood the analogy and it stands regardless.

You weren't talking about Abrahamic theism, you were talking about me.

[Rust]

Another quality contribution by Obbe.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ween-the-brain

It's a start, but by no means do brain scans show the complete picture of being a theist.

It's not really even a start because we weren't discussing whether they could have different brain scans, but whether the different would make one better than the other.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Obbe

You weren't talking about Abrahamic theism, you were talking about me.

Apparently you also misunderstood the argument. The example of meth was only used to demonstrate that dopemine release has nothing to do with whether or not we should hold a particular idea. Thus saying "but <insert idea x> is not neurotoxic" does not defeat my point.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Apparently you also misunderstood the argument. The example of meth was only used to demonstrate that dopemine release has nothing to do with whether or not we should hold a particular idea. Thus saying "but <insert idea x> is not neurotoxic" does not defeat my point.

Oh, so you would "hold" an idea even if it made you feel terrible?

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Oh, so you would "hold" an idea even if it made you feel terrible?

Yes, truth and predictive power is more important to me than feeling good. I mean you almost have to in order to exist in a society. If you only held ideas that made you feel good it'd be functionally solipsism where the only things that you accept as true are the ones that make you feel good.

[Obbe]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Yes, truth and predictive power is more important to me than feeling good. I mean you almost have to in order to exist in a society. If you only held ideas that made you feel good it'd be functionally solipsism where the only things that you accept as true are the ones that make you feel good.

Didn't you say we cannot compare which of these positions is better because they have no truth value? So if truth has nothing to do with it, you would hold a terrible idea for no reason?

Also I don't think he meant only accepting ideas that make you feel good, I think he was talking about one specific idea.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Obbe

Didn't you say we cannot compare which of these positions is better because they have no truth value? So if truth has nothing to do with it, you would hold a terrible idea for no reason?

Well if we're talking about the specific case of assigning a meaningless and confusing title to something, then your argument of "well it feels good" falls down because I would get no satisfaction from it. And even if I did, I still wouldn't use it because I value a logical lexicon over a confusing and needlessly complex one.

[Obbe]

'We are one' is not confusing or complex, and isn't irrational.

[Lanny]

Originally Posted by Obbe

'We are one' is not confusing or complex, and isn't irrational.

It's pointless. It's a tautology to say that "everything in the universe is part of the universe", which what your particular breed of "pantheism" is. There is no more reason to call people who believe that pantheists than there is to call people who acknowledge the existence of pizza pizzaists. It's confusing because pantheism has another meaning distinct from atheism. If you want to go pick a word for "Person who feels like emphasizing tautological facts" go right ahead, but I doubt anyone is going to use it.

[Obbe]

There's no reason to call pantheists pantheists? Then what reason is there to call anything anything? What is the "point" of anything? We could claim anything is pointless, that is meaningless, Lanny.

[Communicate]

Originally Posted by Obbe

There's no reason to call pantheists pantheists?

She did not say that.
She said there is no reason to call what YOU define as a pantheist, a pantheist.

You are, again, trying to sidestep the whole question by taking it as a given that your definition of pantheist is a good one, which is the whole issue under contention.

[Obbe]

I don't even define myself as a pantheist, I have described myself as pantheist-like which I am.

What question would are you talking about, whether or not my idea is "good"? That is subjective.

[Communicate]

I don't give a fuck about how you describe yourself. That's why my post never mentioned anything of the sort.

[Dionysus]

This thread is stupid. I would read the whole thing, but I am afraid it would carry a real risk of brain cancer if I did so.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Oh yes, you're right, Abrahamic theism comes with a set of downsides all its own. I'm sure we could enumerate them if we really wanted to, but there's really no need because you misunderstood the analogy and it stands regardless.

Your meth and dopamine analogy only stands if you use it in the context of comparing other drugs. For example, if it were demonstrated that meth released more dopamine than cocaine, it would be reasonable to say that meth feels better than cocaine. You calling meth the best thing in the world based on the dopamine levels it produces in the brain is outside the realm of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Rust

It's not really even a start because we weren't discussing whether they could have different brain scans, but whether the different would make one better than the other.

And a start to discovering whether one belief system was better for the brain than another is the brain scans themselves, which show differences between theists and atheists.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

And a start to discovering whether one belief system was better for the brain than another is the brain scans themselves, which show differences between theists and atheists.

And yet doesn't even begin to answer the question I asked, nor substantiate the alleged differences that you claimed where there. Essentially you seem to be saying "What I said is utterly baseless... but here's some people trying to figure out differences". Neat.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Lanny

Yes, truth and predictive power is more important to me than feeling good. I mean you almost have to in order to exist in a society. If you only held ideas that made you feel good it'd be functionally solipsism where the only things that you accept as true are the ones that make you feel good.

If you actually valued Truth you would start listening to those who are trying to tell you about it instead of fighting them and telling them they're wrong.

[Rust]

There's no point in continuing this. TheSexyBeast821 is a troll, and Obbe's idea of conversation is to discuss things nobody questioned or point out painfully obvious truths people were already aware of (i.e. "validity" of something nobody said was invalid, or the intention of something nobody said needed to be intentional, or the subjectivity of something everyone already knew was subjective), instead of the positive or negative qualities his viewpoint over an atheistic viewpoint.

Bye.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

There's no point in continuing this. TheSexyBeast821 is a troll, and Obbe's idea of conversation is to discuss things nobody questioned or point out painfully obvious truths people were already aware of (i.e. "validity" of something nobody said was valid, or the intention of something nobody said needed to be intentional, or the subjectivity of something everyone already knew was subjective), instead of the positive or negative qualities his viewpoint over an atheistic viewpoint.

Bye.

I'm no troll.

[Obbe]

I'm fully willing to discuss whatever the fuck you guys want to.