Religion Defined

Cris said:
And with no proof that there isn't anything else then false hopes tend to win the day.
Click to expand...

But see that's the thing. There is proof, but as of today that proof can only be obtained on a personal level. You are not going to see any undeniable evidence anywhere in this type of physical reality. I certainly don't expect anyone to "believe" one way or the other. That is not my concern. Besides, for me it's not a belief, it's a reality, a full realization. I already have proof, and I have seen the evidence. To say there is no life beyond this world because there is no evidence is no different than one saying there is because that is what he/she believes without the evidence. From my perspective there is no difference between the Atheists and the Christians because they are both bound by a set of opposing beliefs - two sides of the same coin. For someone to come up to me and say that life doesn't exist beyond this world would be no different than someone coming up to me and saying there is no such thing as oxygen. I really wouldn't know how to respond to such a statement nor would I even try or be concerned about it, because unless they have experienced it for their self I couldn't explain it to them anymore than I could explain color to someone who was born blind.
 
Last edited:
Forrest,

There is proof, but as of today that proof can only be obtained on a personal level.
Click to expand...
In other words it is all in your mind. That is better known as imagination - fantasy, or at worst delusion.

If you want to claim a proof then it would need to be independent and observable by anyone.

Religious folk often claim personal proof - also called direct perception - it is all indistinguishable from imagination, pure fantasy.

Short of someone who has died coming back as a ghost on TV and describing their afterlife experience - we have zilch to show there is anything remaining once they die.
 
ForrestDean said:
Besides, for me it's not a belief, it's a reality, a full realization.
Click to expand...
The funny part here is that you don't realise that your belief is a belief.

I already have proof, and I have seen the evidence.
Click to expand...
Nope.

From my perspective there is no difference between the Atheists and the Christians because they are both bound by a set of opposing beliefs
Click to expand...
Then obviously - if you think atheists have a set of beliefs - you don't know what atheism is.
 
Cris said:
In other words it is all in your mind. That is better known as imagination - fantasy, or at worst delusion.
Click to expand...

It is very interesting that you would say that. So what you are saying is that this physical reality is fantasy?

How would you define what is fantasy? Or more importantly how would you define what is real?

We define this physical reality by what we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch which are nothing more than electrical impulses interpreted by the mind. If you could experience other realities where your entire surroundings appear much more real and that are incredibly more solid, clear, and vivid that would make the physical world appear thick, mucky, dim, and dreary by comparison, which one would you consider real and which one would you consider an illusion?
 
ForrestDean said:
It is very interesting that you would say that. So what you are saying is that this physical reality is fantasy?

How would you define what is fantasy? Or more importantly how would you define what is real?

We define this physical reality by what we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch which are nothing more than electrical impulses interpreted by the mind. If you could experience other realities where your entire surroundings appear much more real and that are incredibly more solid, clear, and vivid that would make the physical world appear thick, mucky, dim, and dreary by comparison, which one would you consider real and which one would you consider an illusion?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I can't figure out what you are talking about. You appear to be new to these type of discussions.

It seems that it is not possible for us to know reality. This is in the sense that our brain is "us" and it receives signals from the various senses. From that data it constructs a model upon which it operates. Theoretically if all the signals being fed to the brain were so perfect but from a set of very sophisticated lab equipment with our brain at its center being kept alive artificially - it would be that model that we would operate with. We would not know if it was real or not. In this sense what we define as reality is the internal model of what our senses tell us. We cannot objectively prove that that model is not a matrix style virtual reality or some other physical reality.

In effect it doesn't matter - our constructed model is our reality, and your model might be different to mine.

Fantasy is an imaginative speculative concept without evidence for support but extreme in nature and without precedent. The god idea is a fantasy for example - there is no prior precedent for such a thing - it is claimed to be able to create an entire universe, so it is extreme, and there is no evidence.

Your claim for some type of alternative reality appears to fit that definition of fantasy.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Then obviously - if you think atheists have a set of beliefs - you don't know what atheism is.
Click to expand...

Hehe, well not even the Atheists can agree amongst their selves on that issue, so that part if debatable. However, my previous statements are non debatable, but you are certainly free to disagree if you like.
 
Cris said:
Honestly, I can't figure out what you are talking about. You appear to be new to these type of discussions.

It seems that it is not possible for us to know reality. This is in the sense that our brain is "us" and it receives signals from the various senses. From that data it constructs a model upon which it operates. Theoretically if all the signals being fed to the brain were so perfect but from a set of very sophisticated lab equipment with our brain at its center being kept alive artificially - it would be that model that we would operate with. We would not know if it was real or not. In this sense what we define as reality is the internal model of what our senses tell us. We cannot objectively prove that that model is not a matrix style virtual reality or some other physical reality.

In effect it doesn't matter - our constructed model is our reality, and your model might be different to mine.

Fantasy is an imaginative speculative concept without evidence for support but extreme in nature and without precedent. The god idea is a fantasy for example - there is no prior precedent for such a thing - it is claimed to be able to create an entire universe, so it is extreme, and there is no evidence.

Your claim for some type of alternative reality appears to fit that definition of fantasy.
Click to expand...

See, now we are beginning to talk on the same wavelength. I agree with most of what you just said.

My answer to the question I asked earlier about which one would you consider real and which one would you consider an illusion is that both are an illusion, neither are real. Only the experience is real.
 
ForrestDean said:
Hehe, well not even the Atheists can agree amongst their selves on that issue, so that part if debatable.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous.
Atheists don't need to agree - all they have in common is a lack of belief in "god".
There is no set of beliefs involved in being an atheist.

However, my previous statements are non debatable, but you are certainly free to disagree if you like.
Click to expand...
And now you're just being stupid:
A) I am debating your previous statements.
B) There is no evidence to support your claims.
 
ForrestDean said:
There is proof, but as of today that proof can only be obtained on a personal level.
Click to expand...
That's not objective proof or evidence. There's no way to confirm personal experiences, so there's no reason I should believe them. I wonder even why you would trust them? How do you know your experiences correspond to a real thing? Minds are subject to all sorts of inaccuracies, which is why science was invented. I wouldn't say I know there's no afterlife, but it seems unlikely, I don't see any possible mechanism given our current level of technology. Minds are physical objects. Nothing not physical can be considered real.
 
spidergoat said:
How do you know your experiences correspond to a real thing?
Click to expand...

Well considering the explorations of other realities can be much more real than this physical reality then that same question can also be applied to this physical reality.

I certainly don't expect anyone to believe whether or not life exists beyond this world. It's not my intention to convince anyone. I'm just saying that for myself I know that life exists beyond this world. If I never experience it then yes, for me it would be a belief, but since I do then it is not.

spidergoat said:
Nothing not physical can be considered real.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you misspoke when you typed that, or you meant it in a different way. If not, then are radio waves considered physical? You can't see them, you can't touch them, you can't hear them unless you use a physical device to intercept them, you can't smell them or taste them. What about love or hate?

And once again, when exploring other realities the surroundings feel just as real and even more solid and vivid than they do in this physical reality. So when you say that "nothing not physical can be considered real" then I would assume you to mean as opposed to anything that is physical is real. If I were to base my experiences upon that logic then I can safely assume they to be just as real as this physical world.
 
ForrestDean said:
Well considering the explorations of other realities can be much more real than this physical reality then that same question can also be applied to this physical reality.

I certainly don't expect anyone to believe whether or not life exists beyond this world. It's not my intention to convince anyone. I'm just saying that for myself I know that life exists beyond this world. If I never experience it then yes, for me it would be a belief, but since I do then it is not.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.

you can't hear them unless you use a physical device to intercept them
Click to expand...
Right. So according to you they aren't physical but they can affect physical equipment directly. Oh boy...
 
ForrestDean said:
Well considering the explorations of other realities can be much more real than this physical reality then that same question can also be applied to this physical reality.
Click to expand...
The difference is that many people experience reality at the same time (as well as any sensors or detectors we make), while your personal experience is just in your head. I realize you don't want to convince me, but why is it convincing to you?
 
spidergoat said:
You experienced the reality of life after death? How does that work without experiencing death as well?
Click to expand...

I know this will probably be a lot of "woo" for some here, but since you asked, here goes:

When the physical body completely ceases to function or expires that society most commonly labels as "death", consciousness just shifts into a reality that most closely matches it's current beliefs and perceptions. The physical body doesn't have to be terminated in order to experience the same alternate realities. A person can shift their consciousness into the same reality as they would after they permanently left their physical body due to the physical body no longer being viable also known as "death".
 
ForrestDean said:
Well considering the explorations of other realities can be much more real than this physical reality then that same question can also be applied to this physical reality.

I'm sure you misspoke when you typed that, or you meant it in a different way. If not, then are radio waves considered physical? You can't see them, you can't touch them, you can't hear them unless you use a physical device to intercept them, you can't smell them or taste them. What about love or hate?
Click to expand...

Ah I see your problem. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "physical" means.

Physical refers to matter, energy, and forces, that combine to form everything in our known universe.

Electromagnetic radiation, e.g. radio waves, visible light, x-rays, etc, are all part of that set. And within atomic structures there are strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. And all we know is affected by the 4th force - gravity.

As for emotions like love and hate - these are formed primarily from biological hormonal, and neuron activity within our brain - all entirely physical.

We know of no other types of physical reality or alternate realities. Everything we currently claim as known is entirely physical in nature.
 
Cris said:
Ah I see your problem. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "physical" means.

Physical refers to matter, energy, and forces, that combine to form everything in our known universe.

Electromagnetic radiation, e.g. radio waves, visible light, x-rays, etc, are all part of that set. And within atomic structures there are strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. And all we know is affected by the 4th force - gravity.

As for emotions like love and hate - these are formed primarily from biological hormonal, and neuron activity within our brain - all entirely physical.

We know of no other types of physical reality or alternate realities. Everything we currently claim as known is entirely physical in nature.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. :cool:
 
ForrestDean said:
The physical body doesn't have to be terminated in order to experience the same alternate realities.
Click to expand...
How do you know they're the same "alternate realities"? Sure, we know that the mind can enter different states (some of which are known as "mental illness") but why project that on some kind of "afterlife"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top