Passive-agressive Atheism

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 27, 2013.


Do you think the non-religious are often passive-agressive in debates?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Titles are merely words invented to simply classify things.
    Actions define who, what, and where we are.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    There are two sides of the brain. The left brain is more differential and rational, while the right brain is more integral and intuitive. Science is more left brain while religion is more right brained. Science differentiates reality into tiny pieces, while religion uses broad based concepts, like God, to explain everything (integration).

    Although we have two sides of the brain, only one side of the brain will be under conscious control at a time. In the cases of atheism, which is more left brained, due to its connection to science, the right brain will be more unconscious and therefore more crude in expression and subject to potential compulsion.

    Picture an integral and intuitive platform that is unconscious and therefore more crude and compulsive. It would internally feel like an intuitive perception that was spatially integrated, even though generated by the differential part of the brain. Since this is not exactly possible, there may be a need to overcompensate which can show up as passive aggressiveness. There is a need to force fit.

    I am not be critical but rather just showing the cause and effect of the brain.

    Religion is more right brained and therefore the left brain less conscious. What that would do is create a differential POV that is crude in expression, compared to science, and subject to potential compulsion; dogmatic.

    This is the unconscious debate in a nutshell. We have differential pitched as integral and integral pitch as differential. Since each side has better control over the side of the brain the other is compelled by, both see the flaw in the other. But since both are unconscious of one side of the brain, there is a continued compulsion and aggression. This is useful because it helps to define the brain.

    I like working from both sides but tend to side with religion since they are the underdog; visiting team. If I write on a religious site I tend to side with the science underdog. It hard to be right brain in the land of left or left brain in the land of right.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    You're right about one thing, religion has nothing to do with any rational process of investigation.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    That would make God part of the cosmology, the natural universe. If he's not asserted to be part of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, then postulating his existence does not claim to falsify the fundamental premise that underlies all science, and which has been tested exhaustively and often with great hostility for half a millennium without ever coming close to refutation:

    that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its past and present behavior.​

    God is then just one more natural force that we have to investigate, measure, and describe with theories and laws. No different from heliocentricity, plate tectonics or relativity. Too complicated for people to understand in the Stone Age, but that doesn't make him supernatural.

    But I should point out that these days the cosmologists are telling us that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless since (according to the current model) the natural universe does not span merely the contents of the space-time continuum, but the space-time continuum itself, as well as the laws of nature. This universe is all there is, and all there ever was, and all there ever will be. Space wasn't just empty, it didn't exist.

    I have often suggested charting time on a log scale, which places the Big Bang at minus infinity. Additionally, it stretches out those first few yoctoseconds that everybody's having so much trouble tracking. We experience time passing at a linear rate, many billions of years later when the differential is too small to measure, but that doesn't mean that it actually happens that way.

    On the other hand, as I've also pointed out numerous times, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us only that entropy tends to increase over time. Spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are unremarkable, and the Law places no restriction on their magnitude. Why can't the Big Bang be nothing more than a local reversal of entropy? The net mass, energy, and everything else in the universe is still zero. This (to me) utterly straightforward application of the Laws of Physics (which I learned way back in the Dark Ages before "cosmology" evolved from a chapter in the Philosophy textbook into a clumsy amalgam of philosophy, theoretical physics and pure mathematics) does not require us to take a whole new look at the laws of physics or the shape of the space-time continuum. For all we know, there could have been thousands of other Big Bangs, so long ago and so far away that there's no way we could be aware of them.

    Occam is almost always misquoted. What he said is that we should test the simple solution first, because it will be faster and cost less. Then if it turns out to be wrong we still have time and money to test the more complex solution. If we test the complex solution first and it turns out wrong, we're fifty years older and have used up our entire science budget.

    So you're an atheist who pretends to be an agnostic when necessary to avoid being burned at the stake?

Share This Page