Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

Becuase Vega, some of us realize that just becuase the chance is small doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We also realize that right now we don't have nearly the breadth of knowledge we would need to disprove God. We never will as the universe expands faster than we could ever possibly explore it. So call physical God's existance a farce is about eight hundred billion years premature.

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !! You would get rid of God because you regard theism as simply the result of "mind programming". That's only one, very distorted view of "reality". Perhaps we do not want to "let God go" because there is something of great value in the concept. Here's one answer to your question....

(Quote from "A Course in Miracles" Ch 18.8.2)
The body cannot know. And while you limit your awareness to its tiny senses, you will not see the grandeur that surrounds you. God cannot come into a body, nor can you join Him there. Limits on love will always seem to shut Him out, and keep you apart from Him. The body is a tiny fence around a little part of a glorious and complete idea. It draws a circle, infinitely small, around a very little segment of Heaven, splintered from the whole, proclaiming that within it is your kingdom, where God can enter not. Within this kingdom the ego rules, and cruelly. And to defend this little speck of dust it bids you fight against the universe. This fragment of your mind is such a tiny part of it that, could you but appreciate the whole, you would see instantly that it is like the smallest sunbeam to the sun, or like the faintest ripple on the surface of the ocean. In its amazing arrogance, this tiny sunbeam has decided it is the sun; this almost imperceptible ripple hails itself as the ocean. Think how alone and frightened is this little thought, this infinitesimal illusion, holding itself apart against the universe.
OK, it's rather flowery in it's language, but it conveys the message. We feel existentially alone, yet perhaps this aloneness is the illusion, and we can dare to believe ourselves part of the magnificence of the greater whole. It goes on...

Do not accept this little, fenced-off aspect as yourself. The sun and ocean are as nothing beside what you are. The sunbeam sparkles only in the sunlight, and the ripple dances as it rests upon the ocean. Yet in neither sun nor ocean is the power that rests in you. Would you remain within your tiny kingdom, a sorry king, a bitter ruler of all that he surveys, who looks on nothing yet who would still die to defend it? This little self is not your kingdom. Arched high above it and surrounding it with love is the glorious whole, which offers all its happiness and deep content to every part. The little aspect that you think you set apart is no exception. Love knows no bodies, and reaches to everything created like itself. Its total lack of limit is its meaning.

I see nothing attractive in the atheist worldview, and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's. So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?

I see nothing attractive in the atheist worldview, and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's.

I beg to differ. Embracement of rationality and true awe and respect for nature without bias is rather attractive. To simply invent fantasies to make your life more attractive is sad, and you have my sympathy.

So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?

More bullshit. Show me an atheist on this forum who thinks that science as disproved God? However, I think it's safe to say that science long ago proved many concepts within organised religion false. Common sense renders 95% of the rest false and irrational.

Also, nothing should 'induce' someone to become atheist as you would simply be atheist by default if you were rational.

Becuase Vega, some of us realize that just becuase the chance is small doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So now you aknowledge the possibility of very small chances? I always hear theists point out how small the possibility of life forming randomly from a mixture of chemicals in the primoridial seas, and they use this small possibilty to disprove science's explanation for the beginning of life, but now all of a sudden you have no problem investing your faith in something unlikely. Please explain your sudden reversal.

why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

Well for centuries people have worked on finding God. If you go to www.godchecker.com (http://) you will find 2850 Gods that have become extinct. So it's not for lack of trying, trouble is we keep inventing them but never finding them.

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!
maybe some people need to be gullible enough to believe anything so they can be controled,manipulated and exploited for the good of others,stronger smarter ones,at least thats one explanation why would evolution allow it and not make everyone smart and logical...

www.atheists.org/Atheism/music.html

You would get rid of God because you regard theism as simply the result of "mind programming".

It's not mind programming, it's more like mind ignorance. The unevolved mind heard voices, hallusinatory voices were thought to be voices of god.

Jaynes was a psychology professor most noted for his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, where he laid out his astonshing thesis that consciousness is of recent origin (three millennia ago), and replaced internal voices as the basic means of human self-control. These internal voices were what were referred to as gods, and, he claims, the predecessors of the variety of gods people worship today. click (http://www.numenware.com/article/515/)

Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations (http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/schizophrenia_and_personal_revelations.htm)

So it's clearly shown that "god" is only an illusion of your bicameral mentality. When chaos broke then silenced the gods men invented "consciouness" as we know it today, the gods, were silent, but in the search for these gods, men created religions, and sought to gain back the hallucinations of authorative quidance from these illusionary gods.

*The ancient Greeks took a great interest in the human psyche and especially in madness. Plato who lived in the 5th and 4th centuries BC speaks about two kinds of madness, one with a divine origin and another with a physical origin. The divine madness may create prophets, relieve the generation of impurity, inspire poets, or provoke an intense desire for beauty, according to Plato. The idea of the divine madness was firmly rooted in the Greek culture even before Plato. It also appears in the Greek tragedies, for instance in Heracles by Euripidos, from the 5th century BC. But in that tragedy madness ends in catastrophe.

The platonic ideas of a connection between madness and prophecy recur in the ancient Israel. The highly esteemed religious prophets were often regarded as mad because of their odd utterances and deviant clothes and behavior. The same conceptions later appear in the Koran in the Islamic countries. The Koran uses the word majnoon to describe mad persons as well as prophets.*click (http://www.hubin.org/facts/history/history_schizophrenia_en.html)

In conclusion what we have today, in following religious texts of one denomination or another, is nothig more then following ancient hallucinations from authorative figures. i.e. Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc..

Godless

I beg to differ. Embracement of rationality and true awe and respect for nature without bias is rather attractive. To simply invent fantasies to make your life more attractive is sad, and you have my sympathy. I'm glad you have "true awe and respect for nature". Sounds like you are halfway to becoming a druid? Most pioneering scientific theories & discoveries started out as what you would call "invented fantasies". Leaping from the known into the unknown is a risk... it's not for the faint hearted!

More bullshit. Show me an atheist on this forum who thinks that science as disproved God? However, I think it's safe to say that science long ago proved many concepts within organised religion false. Common sense renders 95% of the rest false and irrational. Aren't you in danger of contradicting yourself here? If we agree that science hasn't disproved God, and the subjective evidence for God is in many people's experience, then belief in God cannot be "false and irrational". However, I can see that if you crave certainty, it is easier to dismiss it as such. The attraction of atheism it seems is the feeling of security in limiting your world to just what is certain!

Also, nothing should 'induce' someone to become atheist as you would simply be atheist by default if you were rational. True, we are all born as weak atheists. However, many feel the need for something spiritual ('Being needs' in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcendence)). Once you can understand the concepts, you have a choice... So, is atheism an attractive worldview, or are you just one 'by default'?

But then... what doesn't exist in our minds?

Without mind there would be no existence - not for us anyway.

It's not mind programming, it's more like mind ignorance. The unevolved mind heard voices, hallusinatory voices were thought to be voices of god....
...In conclusion what we have today, in following religious texts of one denomination or another, is nothig more then following ancient hallucinations from authorative figures. i.e. Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc..

Jaynes theory is not widely accepted, and he has not subjected it to peer review, prefering the popularist press. It's had some influence but there's little supportive evidence for his "bicameral mind" hypothesis or a change in our cognitive function 3000 years ago. Probably made him a bucket of money though.

Yes, schizophrenics often have hallucinations of God, and may even believe they are God. Many religious "prophets" are often outsiders to their culture, and therefore may be thought mad. Confusingly, some people (e.g. George Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox) - founder of the Quakers) showed signs of mental illness as well as genuine spiritual insight. It is therefore easy to mistakenly conflate the two.

However, I think the value of a religion should judged by the effect on a person's life. If it makes them unhappy, then drop it, it's probably wrong! However, if it's a positive influence as it is in many cases, then it's obviously NOT the result of their psychopathology.

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! .....

Because generation makes no sense to people without creation.

--- Ron.

I'm glad you have "true awe and respect for nature". Sounds like you are halfway to becoming a druid?

Having "true awe and respect for nature" doesn't make me anything... druid, theist or otherwise.

Most pioneering scientific theories & discoveries started out as what you would call "invented fantasies". Leaping from the known into the unknown is a risk... it's not for the faint hearted!

You mean scientific hypothesis which were then proved wrong one by one until there was a final conclusion supported by evidence? If a similar practice was adopted for religious beliefs, then everyone would end up agnostic at least.

Aren't you in danger of contradicting yourself here? If we agree that science hasn't disproved God, and the subjective evidence for God is in many people's experience, then belief in God cannot be "false and irrational".

I'll have to stop you there... Yes, subjective as in taking place in a persons mind, but evidence? No. Therefor false and irrational.

However, I can see that if you crave certainty, it is easier to dismiss it as such.
I don't crave certainty as such, I just don't believe in things which are clearly bullshit - like religion, astrology, ghosts, the soul, heaven, hell, prayer um... ghosts... you get my point.

The attraction of atheism it seems is the feeling of security in limiting your world to just what is certain!

I don't see a problem with 'limiting' my world to be without superstition?

True, we are all born as weak atheists. However, many feel the need for something spiritual ('Being needs' in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcendence)). Once you can understand the concepts, you have a choice... So, is atheism an attractive worldview, or are you just one 'by default'?

I would have to be atheist by default once I got old enough to realize that what I was being indoctrinated to had no place in reality. I once believed a man came back from the dead and ascended up to heaven because it was easy to remember and pretty... Although once I learned about logic this instantly disappeared... Not because it was an attractive worldview, but because there was no reason to believe a lie.

I don't crave certainty as such, I just don't believe in things which are clearly bullshit - like religion, astrology, ghosts, the soul, heaven, hell, prayer um... ghosts... you get my point.

Which point was that?

I there a particular reason why what you believe should be of any concern to anybody else?

-- Ron.

Which point was that?

Isn't it obvious? If people have so many irrational superstitious beliefs, they can't all be true (although none of them are).

I there a particular reason why what you believe should be of any concern to anybody else?

Only religious moderates will say that anybody can believe what ever crap they want. Which is dangerous since they give a safety cushion to protect the fundamentalists. If we simply laid back and respected everyones beliefs - no matter how irrational - we would be in shit street and sent back to the dark ages with years of progressive secularism down the drain.

Jaynes theory is not widely accepted, and he has not subjected it to peer review, prefering the popularist press.

Stop right there!! with the above, you truly show your damn ignorance.

HE'S DEAD DUMBASS!!

Try reading the book, the only book he wrote, before jumping into conclusions you know nothing about. :rolleyes:

*You must really read Jaynes' book to appreciate the evidence he has collected in support of his hypothesis. In the present article, J. Hamilton has found additional support for Jaynes' theory. His abstract follows:

"When a system for communicating with nonverbal, quadriplegic, institutionalized residents was developed, it was discovered that many were experiencing auditory hallucinations. Nine cases are presented in this study. The 'voices' described have many similar characteristics, the primary one being that they give authoritarian commands that tell the residents how to behave and to which the residents feel compelled to respond. Both the relationship of this phenomenon to the theoretical work of Julian Jaynes and its effect on the lives of the residents are discussed." click (http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf043/sf043p18.htm)

**It doesn't matter whether or not the scientific community accepted the ideas in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Constructing new dogma is not the goal of a good scientific treatise. Presenting new models and theories about our world is. Presenting supporting rationale and evidence is even better.
Jaynes turned archaeological sociology on its head when he proposed his stunning new explanation for the rise and fall of ancient cultures. Based on exhaustive research in multiple disciplines, Jaynes' concept was that ancient cultures were centered around religious practice that included actually hearing the voices of their gods, which Jaynes asserts originated in their own brains. The premise was grounded in bedrock brain research, but it startled many readers.click (http://www.keithpurtell.com/kthings/body_jaynes.htm)
*** In 1976, Julian Jaynes published his most famous and monumental work, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. The Origin of Consciousness... is an enormous text, virtually encyclopedic in scope. It can be very technical at times and requires a preliminary superficial knowledge or at least familiarity with the subjects of Philosophy, psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology, and Religion, all of which Jaynes communicates with authority and lucidity. Jaynes presents what on the surface looks like a radical and eccentric theory regarding the origin of consciousness, yet if one follows the book to conclusion sufficiently assimilating the vast amount of evidence presented, one cannot help but feel that it makes logical sense.click (http://www.geocities.com/desmontes93/reviewbicameral.html)

Well there, i got you Three different views from three different sources, independent of Jaynes. Ok! :m:


Godless

Only religious moderates will say that anybody can believe what ever crap they want. Which is dangerous since they give a safety cushion to protect the fundamentalists. If we simply laid back and respected everyones beliefs - no matter how irrational - we would be in shit street and sent back to the dark ages with years of progressive secularism down the drain.

That seems to imply that your concern makes a difference to something, like somebody would turn up here to seek your advice on the issue, which had not been my impression of the circumstance.

Whose mind did you change?

Does there happen to be a testimony from anybody at all to that effect, that you made a difference?

--- Ron.

he does'nt want to change any bodies mind, he's wants people to wake up and change their own, atheism is the one only sensible way of life, it has no church, or gods, just humanity, being at it's best.
people have to change their own minds, but they first have to wake up. dont they.

---noR.

That seems to imply that your concern makes a difference to something, like somebody would turn up here to seek your advice on the issue, which had not been my impression of the circumstance.

It is a collective thing that will slowly change society. The less religious a society, the further secularism can go. At least I as a single person make a difference in that I am not contributing to the cause of religious dogma and the hope that in my time I could actually make a few people think twice about what they have been indoctrinated to.

Why do you think there is growing concern about the role religion plays in the world? And why do you think organisations, intelligent people and regular people like me are trying to speak out against it?

Like I said, if collectively, everyone does nothing, then secularism wouldn't be where it is now, and we would still be burning heretics. It would be a travesty.

Why do you think there is growing concern about the role religion plays in the world? And why do you think organisations, intelligent people and regular people like me are trying to speak out against it?

I don't have that impression, of a growing concern.

Do you have some statistical data to verify the notion?

People speak out to indulge themselves. It makes them feel good. I used to do it myself, involved with all sorts of campaigns and pressure group activities, but with the time to be spent over again I would put it to better use.

It is tricky enough to cope with immediate issues, friends business and familly, without the woes of the rest of the World to worry for.

--- Ron.

There is no evidence that anything should exist outside of our minds, so why single out God?

he does'nt want to change any bodies mind, he's wants people to wake up and change their own, atheism is the one only sensible way of life, it has no church, or gods, just humanity, being at it's best.
people have to change their own minds, but they first have to wake up. dont they.
---noR.

They could just as well say the same of you.

How do you assess this awakening?

Like whoever agrees with you is awake and vise versa?

That comes across as conceit, not intelligence.

--- Ron.

There is no evidence that anything should exist outside of our minds, so why single out God?

... Can any females in this forum actually say anything relevant besides Medicine Woman?

I don't have that impression, of a growing concern.

I don't know where you have been for the last 6 years, but the problems with Islam and a religious extremist running the most powerful nation in the world backed by millions of fundamental Christians is something that warrants concern which more people are aware of now than at anytime I can recall in the past.

These events have raised attention to miscellaneous religious concerns which have become more frequent in the media (at least in Europe).

... Can any females in this forum actually say anything relevant besides Medicine Woman?

I don't know where you have been for the last 6 years, but the problems with Islam and a religious extremist running the most powerful nation in the world backed by millions of fundamental Christians is something that warrants concern which more people are aware of now than at anytime I can recall in the past.

These events have raised attention to miscellaneous religious concerns which have become more frequent in the media (at least in Europe).

You seem to assume that most people are enthralled by the mass media, which is simply not the case on a broader basis.

Near to us here in West Hounslow the local population is up to and over 60 percent Asian, with a large number of Sikhs and Muslim, including our next door neighbour, in the light of which I can't see or say that what you are talking about has made the slightest difference to community relations from day to day.

Here are some relevant statistics:
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/research/migseg/Hounslow.doc

The USA constitutes scarcely more than four percent of the Global population.

The rest carry on with their own business to mind, much the same as they ever did.

--- Ron

What Kenny? Relevant to your mind? Why should I?

perplexity:

If these issues are in many aspects of our media more than they were a decade ago, they can not possibly result in people actually being less aware of religious issues and in many cases being concerned. Call it perception, but the amount of anti religious programming on tv in the last couple of years has been evident. Public figures speaking out, news programmes featuring outspoken critics of religious figures and dogma. Most people I speak to are now aware of the dangers of religion since "the war on terror" and George Bush took office.

It's my perception that the media and the public are becoming more liberal.

However, I think the value of a religion should judged by the effect on a person's life. If it makes them unhappy, then drop it, it's probably wrong! However, if it's a positive influence as it is in many cases, then it's obviously NOT the result of their psychopathology.
the same could be said about smoking crack.

Most pioneering scientific theories & discoveries started out as what you would call "invented fantasies". Leaping from the known into the unknown is a risk... it's not for the faint hearted!
prove this.

I was under the impression that people observed phenomenon, used their existing knowledge to produce a hypothesis, devised tests that would likely disprove their hypothesis if it was wrong, and peer reviewing their hypothesis until it was reasonable to use it as a model of reality until a better theory could replace it.

I see nothing attractive in the atheist worldview, and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's. So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?
once again, you show how poorly you understand theists. let me break it down and answer it in 2 parts.
and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's
what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.

So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?
all of the atheists I have ever talk to are of the same point of view here. atheists don't believe in things before they are proved. they also don't disbelieve things. atheists, like myself, simply keep on open mind about all things, but wont accept them as reality/truth until evidence is provided. the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.

There is no evidence that anything should exist outside of our minds, so why single out God?
it is reasonable to believe in things that we perceive with our 5 senses, provided they can be Corroborated by others. it is also reasonable to assume that others are real. if we cannon make those assumptions, there is no point in exploring life for any reason other than personal pleasure. this discussion is based around the assumption that there is an objective reality.

...but the amount of anti religious programming on tv in the last couple of years has been evident
could you site examples? I have not notice anti religious programming? except in cases when terrorism was correlated with religion.

If these issues are in many aspects of our media more than they were a decade ago, they can not possibly result in people actually being less aware of religious issues and in many cases being concerned. Call it perception, but the amount of anti religious programming on tv in the last couple of years has been evident. Public figures speaking out, news programmes featuring outspoken critics of religious figures and dogma. Most people I speak to are now aware of the dangers of religion since "the war on terror" and George Bush took office.

You are buying into the fear.

There are better things to invest in.

--- Ron.

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

the mathematical probability of matter anywhere in the universe coming together under just the right conditions to support life is the same probability as taking an area the size of texas, covering it 6 ft deep in quarters with one red quarter thrown in anywhere and letting a blind man, wandering around, pick up a quarter and it be the red one. :cool:
courtesy history channel

...yeah... becasue those odds make sense... [/sarcasm]

the question of the universe being the way it is, is a pointless one. the weak anthropic principal covers it well. the universe must be this way, for if it were any other, we would not be here to see it.

nubian,

Good argument that shows that evolution doesn't work that way.

You are buying into the fear.

Not really. You pulled me away to discuss a point I don't think is that important.

the mathematical probability of matter anywhere in the universe coming together under just the right conditions to support life is the same probability as taking an area the size of texas, covering it 6 ft deep in quarters with one red quarter thrown in anywhere and letting a blind man, wandering around, pick up a quarter and it be the red one.
courtesy history channel

Yes, and the likelihood of all the matter in the universe coming together to support life designed by an intelligent creator is an extra variable which makes it a teeny bit more unlikey.

TW,

Becuase Vega, some of us realize that just becuase the chance is small doesn't mean it doesn't exist.What chance? On what basis can you calculate the probability that a god exists?

One example could be that since the god concept is simply one fantasy imagined by humans and that humans have the potential capacity to imagine an infinite variety of things then the probability of just one of those fantasies being true would be 1/infinity, which mathematically equates to zero. I think we can safely assume on that basis that gods as currently portrayed do not exist.

We also realize that right now we don't have nearly the breadth of knowledge we would need to disprove God.Who really cares? The real issue is that there is no knowledge whatsoever to even come close to indicating that a god might exist or could exist, let alone does exist.

We never will as the universe expands faster than we could ever possibly explore it. So call physical God's existance a farce is about eight hundred billion years premature.And the odds for actually finding a god are?

TW,

What chance? On what basis can you calculate the probability that a god exists?

That God exists 100% that any living person will meet or talk to God in a verifiable way. 1 in 10^777

One example could be that since the god concept is simply one fantasy imagined by humans and that humans have the potential capacity to imagine an infinite variety of things then the probability of just one of those fantasies being true would be 1/infinity, which mathematically equates to zero. I think we can safely assume on that basis that gods as currently portrayed do not exist.

No each fantasy would have a chance of being real that was not interdependant. I mean once upon a time a flying machine was fantasy as was exploring space. So your anology is ridiculous.

Who really cares? The real issue is that there is no knowledge whatsoever to even come close to indicating that a god might exist or could exist, let alone does exist.

There is plenty of knowledge, just not in places you are willing to look and sift through the bad kernals.

And the odds for actually finding a god are?

100% when you die.

If He's everywhere then why isn't He in my mind? or in any atheist's mind?

... Can any females in this forum actually say anything relevant besides Medicine Woman?

we can't know if there's something outside our minds because if we see and sense something it's in our consciousness, in our mind, otherwise we coulnd't be consicous of it.

That God exists 100% that any living person will meet or talk to God in a verifiable way. 1 in 10^777

100% when you die.

100% ? !?!? Really? How did you work that out? Have you spoken to a dead person and asked them if God exists?
If I ever see with my own eyes a corpse stand up and tell me God exists then I might believe in God.

100% ? !?!? Really? How did you work that out? Have you spoken to a dead person and asked them if God exists?
If I ever see with my own eyes a corpse stand up and tell me God exists then I might believe in God.

What is the event of dead?
Assuming it happens at exactly 12:00 sharp; at an instance of time before 12:00 one was defined as alive, and at an instance of time after 12:00 one is defined as dead.

How do atheists explain the event of die? At that very instance of time, not after.

Theist's explanation for this event: one's soul is going to the next world; leaving behind one's body in this temporary world. No communication could be done between this soul and world of us.

we can't know if there's something outside our minds because if we see and sense something it's in our consciousness, in our mind, otherwise we coulnd't be consicous of it.

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.

No communication could be done between this soul and world of us.

Then how do you know such a thing exists?

Here we have c7ity saying things that do exist don't exist and Liveinfaith saying things exist that don't exist...

You can't win.

I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.:D
Solipsists / solipsism.

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.
......

Then how do you know such a thing exists?

......

You can't win.

Quite.

How then do you prove that the mind exists on the inside, so to speak, that apart from conjecture and except as a convenient extrapolation, there is anything at all beyond your mind?

It seems to me that such is every bit as tenuous as the existence or non exitence of God.

So long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

--- Ron.

'I see nothing attractive in the atheist worldview, and nothing that indicates it is more likely to be true than the theist's.'

So a "lack of belief" (in god(s)) leads to an unnattractive world-view?

'So, what would induce anyone to become an atheist other than a mistaken belief that science has somehow disproved the existence of God?'

It would seem that you see the folly of belief, yet deny it in the same paragraph?

You seem to deduce that "non-belief" is folly as well?

What exactly do you think must be "an athiest world-view"?

Likewise if there was nothing outside our minds there would be nothing to be concious of. I forget the title (again) for people who believe nothing exists outside their own mind, but I prefer to call them insane.

we could easily be concious of something even if THE mind is all that exists. we are conscious of the parts of our mind of course.

solipsism is bull... i don't believe in that. it's not like MY PERSONAL MIND is the only thing that exist, you totally misunderstand it just like the solipsists!!!!

c7ity & perplexity:

What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun. Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?


All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

alright, how do you know that your reality is real? when you dream (assuming you do) you believe you dream is real while you are in it. you could live an entire lifetime in one dream. how can you be sure that everything around you is not just a figment of your imagination? you can't necessarily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything outside your mind exists. :p

c7ity & perplexity:
What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun.Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.


The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

But the mind is immaterial, same as God.

--- Ron.

c7ity & perplexity:
What you are suggesting is similar saying nothing exists outside of the heat generated from the Sun.Why your particular focus on the mind rather than other natural phenomena?

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place... Therefor it is rational to assume that everything outside the mind exists.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.


The materialist perspective holds true as far as we can see and we have no reason to believe any different.

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

--- Ron.

thankyou perplexity. :D

Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

Either is a matter of faith.

I would say however, that the notion of god requires a notion of mind to recognize it. In keeping assumptions as simplistic as possible it therefore seems that mind is a more pertinent hypothesis...

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

That depends on one's assumptions. Logic with no assumption has no foundation from which to progress. Therefore, it seems to me that we must presume something about "being" such that we might build a basis for expansion. IMO, the simplest, most irrefutable assumption possible is that of "self". With self presumed, perception is not hypothesis, but fact based on a contingency that is quite literally self-evident. The contents of perception are another question entirely, but that perception exists cannot be rationally questioned. As such, it would seem that mind, being the house of perception is a logical consequence of awareness.

God is not.

To me, there's a noticable difference in the leap of faith that must be taken for "self" vs. "god", though I would agree either is ultimatley faith based.

It's just that the presumption of self is a leap of faith of zero distance.

Either is a matter of faith.

I would say however, that the notion of god requires a notion of mind to recognize it. In keeping assumptions as simplistic as possible it therefore seems that mind is a more pertinent hypothesis...


Pertinent to who or what?

One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it.

Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong.

The process of the trial is then relatively quick and easy but I am not so sure about the reliability of it.

--- Ron.

Pertinent to who or what?

A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.

One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it.

One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.

Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong.

Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?

How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?

Implicit to the existence of the universe is a means by which it came to exist - not a "creator".

"hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong"

LOL, as if the burden of such decisions are "convenient". Further, you fail to address the context of right and wrong above. Just because one is the arbiter or what is right or wrong for themselves doesn't imply that their morality is necessarily applicable outside their circumstance. You seem to imply with your thinking that to find something right or wrong must necessarily apply to everyone.

Not at all. What exists beyond the Sun does not necessarily depend upon the Sun. What exists for you depends upon your perception of it.

My analogy has no difference to what you are saying about the mind. If Sun is the cause behind the heat we feel, our brain is the cause behind the mind. If nothing exists outside of our mind, then why can't I say that nothing exists outside of heat given off by the Sun? The mind is a natural phenomena just like heat given off by the Sun.

Rational if you know how to prove the premise, of what forms your mind, but you have yet to do so.
You have yet even to come with a theory of how your mind is formed.
Mind or God, the concepts are equally abstract to me.

The brain forms the mind. Looking at living things, the complexity of the brain also determines the complexity of the mind. This is blantant observation and proof that the mind is a natural result of the brain.

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.

Here we go with the 'immaterial' thing again. I'm not sure many Neuroscientists would agree with your childish stupidity:

'Most neuroscientists are convinced the mind is in no way separate from the brain. In the brain they have found a physical basis for all our thoughts, aspirations, language, sense of consciousness, moral beliefs and everything else that makes us human. Neuroscience finds no duality, no finger of God animating the human mind.'

It should go without saying that there is much we don't know about the brain, but I think it is safe to say we know enough so that no sky fairies are involved with what makes our mind tick.

'With 100 billion cells, each with 1000 to 10,000 synapses, the neocortex makes roughly 100 trillion connections and contains 90 million metres of wiring packed with other tissue into a one-and-a-half-litre volume in the brain.'

All that crap isn't just for show, you know. It does stuff... give it some credit.

I can't even see the point in thinking the mind is immaterial. Presumably you believe this because it gives you certain emotional benefits (you know... emotion... that stimulus that happens in your brain)... But again, it is just superstition and I don't think you can parallel work carried out by Neuroscientists with your blatant stuperstition.

"hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong"

LOL, as if the burden of such decisions are "convenient". Further, you fail to address the context of right and wrong above. Just because one is the arbiter or what is right or wrong for themselves doesn't imply that their morality is necessarily applicable outside their circumstance. You seem to imply with your thinking that to find something right or wrong must necessarily apply to everyone.

The problem with the mind as the sole and final arbiter is notoriously that there are as many minds as there may be right or wrongs, which on occasion is wonderfully convenient. Saves having to wonder what a fair trial would consist of.

If therefore I simply do not wish to worry for your burden of the decision I shall reserve the right not to bother.

Do have fun though, in the mean time. :)

--- Ron.

My analogy has no difference to what you are saying about the mind. If Sun is the cause behind the heat we feel, our brain is the cause behind the mind. If nothing exists outside of our mind, then why can't I say that nothing exists outside of heat given off by the Sun? The mind is a natural phenomena just like heat given off by the Sun.

You can say it if you want to. Whether it is meanigful to me is another matter.

The brain forms the mind. Looking at living things, the complexity of the brain also determines the complexity of the mind. This is blantant observation and proof that the mind is a natural result of the brain.

Here we go with the 'immaterial' thing again. I'm not sure many Neuroscientists would agree with your childish stupidity:

'Most neuroscientists are convinced the mind is in no way separate from the brain. In the brain they have found a physical basis for all our thoughts, aspirations, language, sense of consciousness, moral beliefs and everything else that makes us human. Neuroscience finds no duality, no finger of God animating the human mind.'


Where then is this mind that the brain forms?

Do you keep it in an bottle somewhere? :)

I see the mind of Shakespeare 400 years after he wrote; brain long since decayed while the mind lives on.

"A man no more knows how he thinks, just because he has a brain in his skull, than he knows how he makes blood, because he has marrow in his bones."
(W Ross Ashby)


--- Ron.

You can say it if you want to. Whether it is meanigful to me is another matter.

Perhaps if I said that we were going to go hugglez gawd for eternity it would have been.

Where then is this mind that the brain forms?

Do you keep it in an bottle somewhere?

Hiding behind some scientific unknowns are we? That is very much unlike a theist. Like the quote I supplied to you in my last post, it is within the brain as is testable by experimentation. Understanding how the mind works is another matter and I doubt we have an answer except that we know it is based upon the physical structure of the brain, predominantly in the frontal lobe. It's a bit like evolution (another thing theist idiots like yourself refute due to emotional connections with your imaginary friend), we don't understand everything about evolution and how it works, but we know that it happens.

I see the mind of Shakespeare 400 years after he wrote; brain long since decayed while the mind lives on

Firstly, his mind does not live on. Just because he wrote something down doesn't mean his mind still exists. Secondly, why not state a monkey picking it's arse and throwing shit at another monkey as an example of the mind in action? Not pretty enough for you?

I think deep down, you yourself know that you only believe in this 'soul' crap because you have an emotional need to. You won't admit it to me, or anyone here, but we both know it is the truth.

But the mind is immaterial, a mere hypothesis, the same as God, known symptomatically but not directly.The "mind" is nothing more than an abstract term for one perspective of the vast complexity of very physical interactions within our brain.
No brain = no mind.

Other perspectives include "personality" and "self", and help us distinguish one complexity from another, and help analyse elements of that complexity.

Saying that the "mind" is immaterial is like saying that the workings of a computer are "immaterial".

The problem with the mind as the sole and final arbiter is notoriously that there are as many minds as there may be right or wrongs, which on occasion is wonderfully convenient. Saves having to wonder what a fair trial would consist of.

No I wouldn't say so, more like it exposes that the notion of "fair" is largely based in fantasy and irrelevant - however suckish that may seem.

If therefore I simply do not wish to worry for your burden of the decision I shall reserve the right not to bother.

"My" burden isn't in question. You made a general statement, I replied generally. You don't have to make weak excuses to cop out of an argument where your beliefs are challenged, but you can obviously reserve the right to do so.

*smirk*

Do have fun though, in the mean time. :)

--- Ron.

For some reason I can't help thinking you basically just said "so long, and thanks for all the fish".

So long then.

If you wouldn't mind terribly before you go... I'm more curious about your reaction to what I considered the more substanitive points made above:


“ Originally Posted by perplexity
Pertinent to who or what? ”



A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.


“ One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it. ”



One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.


“ Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong. ”



Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?

How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?

“Pertinent to who or what? ”

A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.

“ One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it. ”

One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.

“ Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong. ”

Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?
How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?


My proposition was that so long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

If you are now proposing that a sufficiient number assert, that is another kettle of fish to sniff at.

It is not so bad to be selfless or mindless. Some people practice diligently to achieve it as an end.

--- Ron.

My proposition was that so long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

Isn't it really just "truth" to those who comprise the sufficient number? Doesn't "truth" require context?

If you are now proposing that a sufficiient number assert, that is another kettle of fish to sniff at.

If something is accepted as in, proven subjectively to be "truth", is that not license to assert?

It is not so bad to be selfless or mindless. Some people practice diligently to achieve it as an end.

--- Ron.

There is no such thing as "selfless" or "mindless" so long as one makes claims to either - for such a state is extinguished upon its proclamation.

For instance to say "I am selfless" is self-negating as I'm sure you could see. There must have existed a self to make the proclamation.

The same would follow for "mindless".

The selfless or mindless have nothing at all to say.

It's a bit like evolution (another thing theist idiots like yourself refute due to emotional connections with your imaginary friend), we don't understand everything about evolution and how it works, but we know that it happens.


I am not a theist, nor did I say that I am.


I think deep down, you yourself know that you only believe in this 'soul' crap because you have an emotional need to. You won't admit it to me, or anyone here, but we both know it is the truth.

I do not believe in any soul crap, nor did I say that I do.



Saying that the "mind" is immaterial is like saying that the workings of a computer are "immaterial".

If I may suggest it is more like saying that when you tap the keyboard to speak your mind the current within the transistors is a negligible factor.

--- Ron.

Isn't it really just "truth" to those who comprise the sufficient number? Doesn't "truth" require context?

Yes.

For most intents and purposes the context is the truth.

If something is accepted as in, proven subjectively to be "truth", is that not license to assert?

No.

There is no such thing as "selfless" or "mindless" so long as one makes claims to either - for such a state is extinguished upon its proclamation.

For instance to say "I am selfless" is self-negating as I'm sure you could see. There must have existed a self to make the proclamation.

Don't worry.

No need to say "selfless" for my benefit.

The same would follow for "mindless".

The selfless or mindless have nothing at all to say.

Yes indeed.

That is one of the very best things about it.

Imagine the relief...!!!

--- Ron.

Blimey, I've been away for a day and the discussion has moved on some!

Having "true awe and respect for nature" doesn't make me anything... druid, theist or otherwise. So, what are you having 'true awe and respect' for? The inevitable outcome of a blind inanimate process? Or the 'ingenuity' expressed in nature? Whatever - I'm glad.

the same could be said about smoking crack.
Smoking crack generally has a negative effect on people's lives, hence I would discourage anyone from doing it. Taking some exercise generally has a positive effect, so it's a good thing to do. Spirituality/religion follows the same rules. If it enhances your life, then do it!

prove this. I was under the impression that people observed phenomenon, used their existing knowledge to produce a hypothesis, devised tests that would likely disprove their hypothesis if it was wrong, and peer reviewing their hypothesis until it was reasonable to use it as a model of reality until a better theory could replace it.
Well, that's the neat classical model of progress they teach you at school. In reality it's not quite like that! There's a lot more argument in science, and imagination! A good example is Murray Gell-Mann's theory of quarks, which even he at one time believed was just a mathematical abstraction it was so unbelievable.

Another is Dirac's equation which predicted the existence of antimatter. Again he thought this so unbelievable (and so did everyone else) that he ignored the prediction, presuming his equation to be just a useful mathematical tool unrelated to reality. He famously said after antimatter was observed that his equation was "cleverer than he was".

A current example is "Brane Cosmology", which is really out to lunch with the fairies, and what is more it may never be "provable". However, it's elegant and coherent and fantastical!

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to. All of the atheists I have ever talk to are of the same point of view here. atheists don't believe in things before they are proved. they also don't disbelieve things. atheists, like myself, simply keep on open mind about all things, but wont accept them as reality/truth until evidence is provided. the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.
Well, as I keep having to say (yawn), there is plenty of evidence for theism, the problem is it is in the area of individual subjective experience. Such evidence cannot be shared - it's the problem of qualia! Science is crap at evaluating any evidence that is not objective and not predictably repeatable!

It doesn't matter whether or not the scientific community accepted the ideas in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Constructing new dogma is not the goal of a good scientific treatise. Presenting new models and theories about our world is. Presenting supporting rationale and evidence is even better.
Believe it if you want Godless, I won't stop you! 'Hearing voices' is not my idea of religion but if it is yours, and Jayne's theory helps you in dismissing them, then great! As I said, if something enhances your life - do it! :D

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place...

how do you know? it could be the opposite: the mind forms the "stuff outside our mind."

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

So u admit God exists :D

how do you know? it could be the opposite: the mind forms the "stuff outside our mind."

Despite the obvious power of the brain, I don't think it can simulate an entire universe.

So, what are you having 'true awe and respect' for? The inevitable outcome of a blind inanimate process? Or the 'ingenuity' expressed in nature? Whatever - I'm glad.

I wouldn't call it 'inanimate', but why can't it be both blind and ingenuitive? (if that is a word)

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.
I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.

Believe it if you want Godless, I won't stop you! 'Hearing voices' is not my idea of religion but if it is yours

I don't believe in anything, the evidence has been shown, god's origin comes from hearing voices in ancient men heads. Read your godamn bible, and see how many pathetic quotes go from "hearing the voice of god" to having visions of angels and gods"

Thus truly proven, the origins of god, religion, and the ilk comes from premature developed minds.

Godless

I would not say that the evidence is conclusive, or even credible. however, the accounts of "visions" and the like, are consistent with mental illness.

Despite the obvious power of the brain, I don't think it can simulate an entire universe.

I don't think the brain created the universe, brain is "matter" too, you know. I think the mind creates the brain. The brain is a tool for consciousness to express itself more, it's not the source of consciousness.

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.
I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.
still waiting

Brain; didnt form mind, it is merely a machine where works of mind take place, controlled by mind (concious neuron). At an instance of time before one dies, and at an instance of time after one dies, the same brain is there. But it cannot be ignited anymore, since the mind has gone. Indeed, the whole body system off (concious and subconcious), and never could be on again. Computer could be turned on again.

This begs a question of dead person's mind: gone somewhere, totally lost into nothing, or converted?

If mind is a matter, into what form it is converted? (as matter could not be totally lost but only be converted into other form of matter/energy).

As for the brain (and most of the body parts), they will obviously be decomposed, but then I wonder, why bones not so easily be decomposed? Because it contains material not easily be decomposed. Yes, but why would it contains that material? Why should the material there, forming the bones?


what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.

still waiting

Atheist live in the world of 'HOW", because science can explain the "HOW" based on observation upon repetitive events and symptomps (defined as evidence); thus after events.

But when it comes to "WHY", the before events things, how could we observe ? Everything will be speculative then, so what would you consider criteria for something being true?

Evidence, all it has to do is regarding HOW.

You could find evidence when regarding HOW IT WORKS. But WHY IT WORKS THAT WAY.... what evidence should be presented ?

We just take for granted why universe works it's way.

Brain; didnt form mind, it is merely a machine where works of mind take place, controlled by mind (concious neuron).Evidence please.

At an instance of time before one dies, and at an instance of time after one dies, the same brain is there. But it cannot be ignited anymore, since the mind has gone.You have this the wrong way round. The "mind" has gone because the brain has deteriorated to such a point that it can not work.

This begs a question of dead person's mind: gone somewhere, totally lost into nothing, or converted? If you insist on seeing the "mind" as a physical entity, then you are the one who must provide the evidence to support it.
If, however, you see "mind" as an abstraction to describe the processes that go on inside someone's head, then it is quite clear that this "mind" does not exist and thus does not need to go anywhere - it IS the processes of the brain. No brain - no mind. No brain processes - no mind.

As for the brain (and most of the body parts), they will obviously be decomposed, but then I wonder, why bones not so easily be decomposed? Because it contains material not easily be decomposed. Yes, but why would it contains that material? Why should the material there, forming the bones?It's called EVOLUTION.


Atheist live in the world of 'HOW", because science can explain the "HOW" based on observation upon repetitive events and symptomps (defined as evidence); thus after events.Yes - and our observations of "How" also lead to predictions of future events.

But when it comes to "WHY", the before events things, how could we observe ? Everything will be speculative then, so what would you consider criteria for something being true?

Evidence, all it has to do is regarding HOW.

You could find evidence when regarding HOW IT WORKS. But WHY IT WORKS THAT WAY.... what evidence should be presented ?

We just take for granted why universe works it's way.Why is it not sufficient to say: It works... because it does?
Why must there be a "Why"?

It is because people are not content with just being that they come up with the "why" for themselves - with zero chance of ever finding evidence to support that "why".

So what makes one such person's "why" any more valid than another person's "why"?

And why do you need a "why"?

Why is it not sufficient to say: It works... because it does?
Why must there be a "Why"?

It is because people are not content with just being that they come up with the "why" for themselves - with zero chance of ever finding evidence to support that "why".

So what makes one such person's "why" any more valid than another person's "why"?

And why do you need a "why"?

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.

---- Ron.

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.

---- Ron.

could just that be, one needs, or needs not, the "why". But fact is, somehow "why" questions appear in people's mind. It may deserve answer, although some people may think it's not needed to.

So because there is zero chance of having objective answer, then just ignore the "why" question?

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.We're not talking about micro-situations of "why have brown bread instead of white?" - or even "why do I need to follow rules?". These can be answered simply enough.

But answers to all those can be answered with further "why do this?" - and ultimately you'll boil it down to the most fundamental question:

"Why are we here?"

Even if there was evidence that there is a "why" (which there isn't), such questions can never be answered - and thus it is futile to ask.

You can feel free to impose your own subjective reasoning for your existence if you so wish.
But without evidence to support it... :rolleyes:

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence?...


I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.
”

still waiting
you didn't answer my question. I want to know by what criteria you judge something to be truth/real. your religion for example.

you didn't answer my question. I want to know by what criteria you judge something to be truth/real. your religion for example.

Theists live by science and faith. As far as science proves something to be truth (hence positive sentence), no difference with atheists. When it comes to question of God (and those spiritual things that sciences don't provide evidence - hence negative sentence), faith takes role, no evidence could be satisfying enough to judge its truth.

Theists live by science and faith.

Except when science says something that contradicts faith, as history clearly shows. Then faith gets in the way of scientific inquiry.

you didn't answer my question. I want to know by what criteria you judge something to be truth/real. your religion for example.
I thought we had done this in another thread... maybe not. This is a fundemental philosophical issue, and one on which there are many different views. This is mine:

Immediate and direct experience is the most true/real - i.e. You know that the sky looks blue, you are experiencing a pain, you feel angry, or you are seeing a mirage of a fridge full of beer. The experience in each case is real and undeniable.

What you make of the experience depends on how you interpret it and the value you give it. Perhaps you decide the beer is 'imaginary', so there's no point trying to drink it. Maybe your anger is judged as unjustified, or dangerous to express, so you repress it. This step involves interpretation of the immediate experience. We bring all our personal and cultural baggage to the task, and our pre-existing perspective, and selection of facts colours the conclusions we draw.

Science attempts to eliminate this baggage, by seeing things from the 'objective' absolute viewpoint of an uninvolved observer. This works well for establishing some objective 'facts' on which a consensus can be reached. However even here, because of the difficulties of reaching a consensus on evidence and method, researchers often come up with contradictory results e.g. correlations between HRT and breast cancer in women. For investigating many subjective experiences e.g. cultural norms, ethical values, art, philosophy, religion etc. science is an inadequate tool, as very little consensus can ever be reached over objective criteria of valdity or the selection of evidence.

So, religious truth works slightly differently. I think we've done the "direct experience of God" before. I can observe from the outside what effect such an experience has on someone, consider what interpretation I place on it and try to understand it both within their worldview, and also from mine.

Not every theist experiences God directly however, and for most theists, their religion is based on 'faith'. This is most like trusting a person. You leave your car with a mechanic, in good faith that he will fix it and not trash it. So, for instance I can read "Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" in the Bible, and then (as a theist) try it. I will mentally hand over my concerns, trusting that they will be looked after and then observe what happens. And yes, I find I do attain peace of mind, and in most cases also either a new perspective on a problem, the ability to deal with it or a spontaneous resolution. This is not objective evidence, but it is valid subjective evidence that it seems to work (is true/real). I can also check with other theists if they experience the same. So I continue to trust in it some more, and explore a bit further. That is the nature of 'faith' - you have to take the leap of trust, and then you can collect the evidence. This is something you can only do as an individual, and each individual must discover it afresh for themselves. This makes it very different to science where evidence is 'public property'. Confusion between these two leads to much misunderstanding.

Perhaps if I said that we were going to go hugglez gawd for eternity it would have been.



Hiding behind some scientific unknowns are we? That is very much unlike a theist. Like the quote I supplied to you in my last post, it is within the brain as is testable by experimentation. Understanding how the mind works is another matter and I doubt we have an answer except that we know it is based upon the physical structure of the brain, predominantly in the frontal lobe. It's a bit like evolution (another thing theist idiots like yourself refute due to emotional connections with your imaginary friend), we don't understand everything about evolution and how it works, but we know that it happens.



Firstly, his mind does not live on. Just because he wrote something down doesn't mean his mind still exists. Secondly, why not state a monkey picking it's arse and throwing shit at another monkey as an example of the mind in action? Not pretty enough for you?

I think deep down, you yourself know that you only believe in this 'soul' crap because you have an emotional need to. You won't admit it to me, or anyone here, but we both know it is the truth.

:bugeye: why are you getting so touchy? ron is simply using the same arguments against you that you are trying to use against him. you seem to believe that god doesn't exist because he can't be observed scientifically. well, the mind cannot be observed either and that, i think, is what he is saying. you can observe evidence of its presence but not the mind itself. so why then can't we believe there is a god based on the "evidence" of his presence alone. now keep in mind that the evidence of the presence of god is the same evidence that most of those like you would consider merely coincidental or eventual(as in "it would've happened eventually") in nature. :D

Even if there was evidence that there is a "why" (which there isn't), such questions can never be answered - and thus it is futile to ask.



so you are suggesting not to rise question when your knowledge tells you there would be no answer? Even if the question, somehow sometime, appears in mind? How could people's mind arrive into that question anyway? What triggers it? If mind could arrive into such question, sure it has some curiosity whatsoever, then isn't it limiting possibilities while such question rised?

I think, there should be answer to any questions, and answers shouldn't always be public domain (i.e proven to be truth by reproducible evidence), could be just in individual domain (because no reproducible evidence could be presented). If science could not provide such answer, then faith does.

:bugeye: why are you getting so touchy? ron is simply using the same arguments against you that you are trying to use against him.

Invalid ones at that. To turn an atheists argument against him doesn't work when the person using your own argument believes in sky fairies.

you seem to believe that god doesn't exist because he can't be observed scientifically.

What is your point here? And where did I say that? More to the point, why believe in something so far-fetched and believe it is ok to do so because it can still be true even if it can't be observed. In that case a person can literally believe anything. I believe there is a baby with the body of a spider, I don't care if science hasn't observed it - I WANT it to be true.

well, the mind cannot be observed either and that, i think, is what he is saying. you can observe evidence of its presence but not the mind itself. so why then can't we believe there is a god based on the "evidence" of his presence alone. now keep in mind that the evidence of the presence of god is the same evidence that most of those like you would consider merely coincidental or eventual(as in "it would've happened eventually") in nature. :D

Again, this is a really SHIT analogy. Stop grasping at straws.

I don't even really know where to start, because it is not just the existence of a God you are trying to justify, but I bet if you were to tell me all of your beliefs associate with this God that you would still not be able to hide behind false analogies pretending to be rational.

Just because our understanding of the brain is incomplete does not mean there is room for supernatural belief in the nature of how it works. This is just downright naivety which can only be found in the Bible which was written before men understood even the basics of our universe.

Invalid ones at that. To turn an atheists argument against him doesn't work when the person using your own argument believes in sky fairies.

What is your point here? And where did I say that? More to the point, why believe in something so far-fetched and believe it is ok to do so because it can still be true even if it can't be observed. In that case a person can literally believe anything. I believe there is a baby with the body of a spider, I don't care if science hasn't observed it - I WANT it to be true.

I thought you claimed earlier to be a "weak" atheist Kenny? You certainly don't sound like one now...
Quote from Wiki on Atheism (http://)
Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the assertion that no deities exist.

Where did I state in my last post that a God does not exist. I am just saying it is highly irrational to actually believe it, and is irrelevant.

Hey DD your link didn't work?

So, religious truth works slightly differently. I think we've done the "direct experience of God" before. I can observe from the outside what effect such an experience has on someone, consider what interpretation I place on it and try to understand it both within their worldview, and also from mine.

Not every theist experiences God directly however, and for most theists, their religion is based on 'faith'. This is most like trusting a person. You leave your car with a mechanic, in good faith that he will fix it and not trash it. So, for instance I can read "Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" in the Bible, and then (as a theist) try it. I will mentally hand over my concerns, trusting that they will be looked after and then observe what happens. And yes, I find I do attain peace of mind, and in most cases also either a new perspective on a problem, the ability to deal with it or a spontaneous resolution. This is not objective evidence, but it is valid subjective evidence that it seems to work (is true/real). I can also check with other theists if they experience the same. So I continue to trust in it some more, and explore a bit further. That is the nature of 'faith' - you have to take the leap of trust, and then you can collect the evidence. This is something you can only do as an individual, and each individual must discover it afresh for themselves. This makes it very different to science where evidence is 'public property'. Confusion between these two leads to much
misunderstanding.
it sounds like bad science to me. you assume (have faith) that god is behind something, and then make the evidence fit that assumption.

you still have not given any guidelines to tell a person what is valid. lets say you hear a voice in your head that says "I am god, go buy shampoo and give it to the homeless." buy what criteria do you judge whether or not it really is god? what motiveates you to have fait that it is god?

lets say the phone rings, you answer it, and a person claiming to be god wants you to do stuff. how do you judge whether or not you should believe it? why have faith? by what criteria do you judge what is worthy of faith?

there I asked the question 5 times, maybe you will give me a straight answer. unless, of course, the answer is "it feels right/good." to which I would laugh and point out that things feeling good gives them no more or less truth.

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

One can't be away or seprate from "omnipresent" thing or from "prime force".

but please!!! but wwaaah!! but when i die, i want to like, not die, and like, go somewhere really nice!!!

yes, and it was SANTA who brought you those presents!

/end sarcasm

Invalid ones at that. To turn an atheists argument against him doesn't work when the person using your own argument believes in sky fairies.

:rolleyes: and why not? most of what you have been saying is your opinion. same as mine. you haven't presented any concrete proof which you seem to require from any theists and offer instead insults and derision. i am irrational because i don't believe what you believe but at least i can discuss it without implying that you're delusional.

What is your point here? And where did I say that? More to the point, why believe in something so far-fetched and believe it is ok to do so because it can still be true even if it can't be observed. In that case a person can literally believe anything. I believe there is a baby with the body of a spider, I don't care if science hasn't observed it - I WANT it to be true.

i'm taking back what i said about you being delusional.

Again, this is a really SHIT analogy. Stop grasping at straws.

I don't even really know where to start, because it is not just the existence of a God you are trying to justify, but I bet if you were to tell me all of your beliefs associate with this God that you would still not be able to hide behind false analogies pretending to be rational.

someone earlier mentioned subjective proof and, admittedly, that is all i have. i KNOW myself. and i KNOW what i don't feel and what i do feel. and i KNOW - whether you want to believe me or not - that there is SOMEthing more than meets your narrowsighted eyes.
i was going thru the same doubts and, at the risk of making you feel righteous, i was a little afraid of my doubts because it has been burned into most of the minds of our society that to deny god is to go to hell. "go straight to jail. do not pass go. do not collect $100". but i took the leap of faith, so feeling like an idiot for doing it. but i was open to whatever might be there. it was more a question of, "if anything is listening let me know"...
it let me know. i got a feeling better than any drug known to man. it was like being small and utterly loved by something bigger than you can imagine. it was a complete surprise. and you can be a dick and tease me, try to discredit it or try to explain it away in any way that makes you feel better about it but it doesn't matter. because it wasn't FOR you. it was for me and my own demons.

Just because our understanding of the brain is incomplete does not mean there is room for supernatural belief in the nature of how it works. This is just downright naivety which can only be found in the Bible which was written before men understood even the basics of our universe.

why do we get to pick and choose what unknowns are plausible and which aren't? as far as the bible being written before man understood the basics of the universe.
1) man knew enough back in the day to build ginormous structures in little time and to use these structures to chart the stars and the passage of time
2) has it ever occurred to you that whatever those people were writing makes no sense to us because they didn't have the ability to explain what they didn't understand? shit happens everyday that people don't understand and they explain it the only way they know how. half the time it ends up sounding like a tall tale.
i don't even know where to start with you. but i'll say one more thing practically guaranteed to drive you out of your over-analyzing mind...
i'll pray for your lost soul. :D

i am irrational because i don't believe what you believe but at least i can discuss it without implying that you're delusional.exactly right, you cant imply it, because delusion is only on the religious side, well done.
someone earlier mentioned subjective proof and, admittedly, nothing, absolutely nothing, can be deemed as proof, if it is subjective. i was going thru the same doubts and, at the risk of making you feel righteous, i was a little afraid of my doubts because it has been burned into most of the minds of our society that to deny god is to go to hell.this is why you should wake up from this irrational/delusional dream, you been indoctrinated with,(it's a mind virus). but i took the leap of faith, so feeling like an idiot for doing it.exactly why it's delusional.(no objective evidence.) but i was open to whatever might be there. it was more a question of, "if anything is listening let me know"...
it let me know. i got a feeling better than any drug known to man. it was like being small and utterly loved by something bigger than you can imagine. it was a complete surprise. delusional A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand; A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. and you can be a dick and tease me, try to discredit it or try to explain it away in any way that makes you feel better about it but it doesn't matter. because it wasn't FOR you. it was for me and my own demons.exactly and nobody minds you having your own personal demons, as long as they are your own personal demons, and you dont try to force them on others as truth.

and nobody minds you having your own personal demons, as long as they are your own personal demons, and you dont try to force them on others as truth.

what the hell are you trying to do here? you are accusing me of trying to impose my beliefs on you? i have said that it is a possibility that god exists and i have said that he exists for me, but nowhere have i insisted that you believe it or accept it.
come ON, people. you are so ready to jump all over me because i don't feel the way you do. That is trying to force what you believe on me. i'm simply trying to add another ingredient to the pot. jeez! i assumed the purpose of this site was to debate, not to be hypocritical bullies.
:m:

what the hell are you trying to do here? you are accusing me of trying to impose my beliefs on you? i have said that it is a possibility that god exists and i have said that he exists for me, but nowhere have i insisted that you believe it or accept it.
come ON, people. you are so ready to jump all over me because i don't feel the way you do. That is trying to force what you believe on me. i'm simply trying to add another ingredient to the pot. jeez! i assumed the purpose of this site was to debate, not to be hypocritical bullies.
:m:
wow! are you taking things to personally.

I feel the preacher was just stating facts, and that last part was a generalisation, as it is exactly what the religious do to every one else, is'nt it.

:rolleyes: and why not? most of what you have been saying is your opinion. same as mine. you haven't presented any concrete proof which you seem to require from any theists and offer instead insults and derision. i am irrational because i don't believe what you believe but at least i can discuss it without implying that you're delusional.

My proof is rationalism: Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.. You are irrational, not because you have a belief I don't share, but you believe in something far-fetched with no proof. I will speak to you as though you are delusional because that's what you obviously are.

i'm taking back what i said about you being delusional.

Because I believe in a baby with the body of a spider? Why is this delusional and not belief in an intelligent creator, heaven, soul, prayer etc?

someone earlier mentioned subjective proof and, admittedly, that is all i have. i KNOW myself. and i KNOW what i don't feel and what i do feel. and i KNOW - whether you want to believe me or not - that there is SOMEthing more than meets your narrowsighted eyes.
i was going thru the same doubts and, at the risk of making you feel righteous, i was a little afraid of my doubts because it has been burned into most of the minds of our society that to deny god is to go to hell. "go straight to jail. do not pass go. do not collect $100". but i took the leap of faith, so feeling like an idiot for doing it. but i was open to whatever might be there. it was more a question of, "if anything is listening let me know"...
it let me know. i got a feeling better than any drug known to man. it was like being small and utterly loved by something bigger than you can imagine. it was a complete surprise. and you can be a dick and tease me, try to discredit it or try to explain it away in any way that makes you feel better about it but it doesn't matter. because it wasn't FOR you. it was for me and my own demons.

I'm not surprised to hear of the emotional nature of your belief as it is the only way to believe in the first place. It's also the only reason people could see the Loch Ness monster when it was nothing more than a 6 foot pole sticking out of the water, which was a test carried out for people to see what they want to see.

It's also unlike a theist to enduldge in overstating the moment they 'found God'. Better than any drug on Earth?

I'm sure you do 'KNOW'. People 'KNOW' lots of things there is no proof for: it's called superstition.

why do we get to pick and choose what unknowns are plausible and which aren't? as far as the bible being written before man understood the basics of the universe.
1) man knew enough back in the day to build ginormous structures in little time and to use these structures to chart the stars and the passage of time
2) has it ever occurred to you that whatever those people were writing makes no sense to us because they didn't have the ability to explain what they didn't understand? shit happens everyday that people don't understand and they explain it the only way they know how. half the time it ends up sounding like a tall tale.
i don't even know where to start with you. but i'll say one more thing practically guaranteed to drive you out of your over-analyzing mind...

So you admit that it is a tall tale? I wouldn't trust the 'word of God' as written by people who could not understand what they were trying to explain (your words).

[quote]i'll pray for your lost soul. :D

Then you might as well pray to a brick wall, for prayer doesn't work, and soul's dont exist. I am not lost and very happy thank you. Praise be to the FSM for that...

it sounds like bad science to me. you assume (have faith) that god is behind something, and then make the evidence fit that assumption.

you still have not given any guidelines to tell a person what is valid. lets say you hear a voice in your head that says "I am god, go buy shampoo and give it to the homeless." buy what criteria do you judge whether or not it really is god? what motiveates you to have fait that it is god?

lets say the phone rings, you answer it, and a person claiming to be god wants you to do stuff. how do you judge whether or not you should believe it? why have faith? by what criteria do you judge what is worthy of faith?

there I asked the question 5 times, maybe you will give me a straight answer. unless, of course, the answer is "it feels right/good." to which I would laugh and point out that things feeling good gives them no more or less truth.
damn, do I have to keep reposting to get an answer?

could some theist answer the question please? or are you afraid of looking into a flaw in your logic?

damn, do I have to keep reposting to get an answer?

could some theist answer the question please? or are you afraid of looking into a flaw in your logic?

nope. i've had my ass handed to me too many times. :p
and you guys are right. i did take it personally and that was stupid.
i suppose theists do hound you. i know i have been and i must say that it is a very unpleasant experience. i can only offer in explanation that most theists only do it because they want you to have what they believe they will have someday.
don't - please - start getting pissy about that. i understand that you don't want it or anything to do with it because you believe it is a dream.
i only take offense to being considered unwell for my faith in religion. and yet i am wrong for considering you, say immoral, for your lack of it. i see it as a double-standard.
in any case, why don't we all agree to disagree. you believe what you want and retain your righteousness and i will believe what i want and keep my sanity. :D

in any case, why don't we all agree to disagree. you believe what you want and retain your righteousness and i will believe what i want and keep my sanity.
I genuinely want to know how theists justify their beliefs. DD seems confident that atheism and theism are equally valid, but that would require a way to validate ones theistic beliefs. if one cannot validate ones beliefs, then they are not equal, considering atheism is built around the idea that one must justify things with evidence or logic.

you say live and let live. I say let the more valid method be known. one should not deny truth to maintain the status quo.

I genuinely want to know how theists justify their beliefs. DD seems confident that atheism and theism are equally valid, but that would require a way to validate ones theistic beliefs. if one cannot validate ones beliefs, then they are not equal, considering atheism is built around the idea that one must justify things with evidence or logic.

you say live and let live. I say let the more valid method be known. one should not deny truth to maintain the status quo.

that's the point. athiests and theists are two separate species. it's like trying to compare cats and dogs. trying to compare the group thought of canines with the loner mentality of felines. the basis of religion is faith and faith has no scientific basis. it has more to do with the "paranormal". we feel it is right. no, we can't prove scientifically that god exists. there, i said it. but we can feel it inside us and all around us and that's good enough for us. i do not under any circumstances believe in pushing my beliefs onto others. i feel it defeats the purpose of faith altogether. i tend to be ashamed of those that do. but like i said, we simply don't want the rest of you to miss out on something we feel will be a really great thing. so we tend to get overzealous.
religion is based on things that are - or should - already be self-evident. like the sins. you don't do things to others that you wouldn't want to happen to you. i suppose religion is a way of cementing those beliefs and giving a reason to the "why not?"...
all i can tell you is that science will not be able to convince theists that there is no god anymore than our feelings will be able to convince athiests that god is real. two totally different states of mind.
:D

we feel it is right
thats all I wanted. it feels good. not different than crack. I just don't want theist running around saying that their beliefs are as valid as atheism.