Faith

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Faith

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally. 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

 

Then you should probably go for it! Save yourself all the trouble of rational investigation and corroboration of evidence!

I am sorry, mate, but that is like arguing for masturbation rather than seeking an adult relationship.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, this is

Paisley wrote:

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves.

Your presence here was expected as I indicated earlier. So you have demonstrated that you have no free will by your continued attempts to present your views. How could it be any other way? You have an agenda you wish to promote which is the worldview of atheistic materialism is hopeless, purposeless driven by deterministic processes. There must be a god of some sort in order for there to be any value or purpose to anything. So you proceed to prove it's true by your obsession with the promotion of your views. You cannot help yourself as each time you reach an If/Then statement you go down the same path. You have done this many times on your threads and continue to show that you have no choice in the matter at all. You may repackage and rearrange how you present your argument but it's always the same. Your argument today bears little difference than your argument 2 years ago. You may use Radin or NDEs in an attempt to show that somehow everything is connected and there is a soul or group mind or consciousness. Or you may rephrase your attack on atheistic materialism.

In the end, you have proved that you have no free will by following the same robotic programming over and over. When you somehow inject new information it is sifted and scanned to only promote your single goal. I have yet to see you add information to your theories that show you are not a robot or programmed as you suggest of atheists. Some of your previous threads made me wonder at times if you were a Bot of some sort because your responses have been so robotic and deterministic. Eventually you will add a new line to your programming that alters this process. It may be new information based or science or it may be a book you stumble upon. What direction you take at that point depends on the objectivity you really have and your ability to inject new knowledge and ideas into your attempts to understand. So far I haven't seen a substantial departure from your main agenda, but perhaps when you trip over something significant someday it may open a new pathway in your computations. Or not.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The bottom

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line here is that believing that consciousness ceases to exist at the moment of physical death engenders pessimism, not optimism. Your "realistic" view of the world presents an outlook on life that is ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. There is no other way to characterize it. And I would argue that the vast majority of humanity see it my way because atheistic materialism is clearly not selling in the market place of ideas.

Presumably you've never found any experience in your life in any way satisfying, set goals and achieved them (or failed to), learnt anything, enjoyed art, music, literature, discourse or a good meal, or held any kind of ideal or hope for yourself or your descendants. I pity you.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves.

Even if you have a hope of a magic afterlife, the fact is that you still cease to exist. Not morbid, just real.

The bottom line here is that believing that consciousness ceases to exist at the moment of physical death engenders pessimism, not optimism. Your "realistic" view of the world presents an outlook on life that is ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. There is no other way to characterize it. And I would argue that the vast majority of humanity see it my way because atheistic materialism is clearly not selling in the market place of ideas.

Incidentally, there is a plethora of NDEs (i.e. near death experiences) that provide evidence that consciousness does not cease to exist at the moment of physical death.

jcgadfly wrote:

As for free will - which is better? Electrochemistry or the hope that the magic you pray to has made the right choices for you?

Your response does not address the argument that I made in my previous post - namely, that the atheist cannot chose his destiny in light of the fact that his blind, deterministic worldview precludes the reality of free will and intentional acts.  

And we know the physical source of NDEs. We also know that they are near death and not at death (hence the title).

My view of the world means that my purpose in life is what I bring to it. Again, no magic required.

And you cannot choose your destiny because you believe it's all laid out by whatever magic force you believe in - what's your point?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
My Faith

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

Something believed to be true without being justified by the standards of any rigourous epistemological framework (meaning one which has a good track record at distinguishing true statements from false statements).

Paisley wrote:

2) Do you have faith?

Depends on how far you extend the definition, and on point of view. If you'll accept 'things can justifiably be considered to be true if and only if there is a large and diverse body of evidence in favour and no evidence against' as a universally acceptable and rigourous epistemological framework then no, otherwise I would have to say that I have faith that it is.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: My view of

jcgadfly wrote:
 

My view of the world means that my purpose in life is what I bring to it.

Then evidently you have no purpose.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
 

My view of the world means that my purpose in life is what I bring to it.

Then evidently you have no purpose.

How sad, that you can find no purpose for your life beyond some ancient words. I already cited a handful of things for Paisley's benefit that give me meaning, inspiration and purpose.

Circumstance and I choose my purposes, which makes it all the more likely that I'll do something worthwhile about them.

Incidentally, the word 'evidently' is a bad choice when making blatant and prejudiced assertions.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You ultimately have nothing

"You ultimately have nothing to hope for because you ultimately have nothing to look forward to."

False. I have plenty to look forward to. Games, good food, women, knowledge, etc.
Now as far as death goes, we'll both face the same oblivion. You have nothing to look forward to either. So make the most of it. Enjoy life, make friends, help those in need. Nothing you are will exist. But you can make things that will endure. Some choose a legacy with their name written on it. Others have children. Still more are satisfied with lots of little things that will be unsourced, but persevere anyway. The kinds of things that makes mortality worth it. Your heaven cheapens life, and everything it accomplishes.

"No, this is not true."

Yes, it is.

"Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices."

Not true at all. I make choices every day. I may not be able to choose to fly unassisted, but I never claimed omnipotence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Right now I'm in the midst

Right now I'm in the midst of deciding whether or not to go and get a coffee from Tim Horton's. I can walk, and I can afford one. The choice is mine, and mine alone.

"Moreover, you really have no purpose."

That's yet another choice I make for myself. My purpose is to enjoy my fleeting existence. To defend myself and my allies. To, hopefully, find a woman to love, and children to raise.

"What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves."

Again, not true. Even though I can't choose to be hungry, I choose whether to eat. I can't choose to need oxygen to survive, but I choose to keep breathing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
 

My view of the world means that my purpose in life is what I bring to it.

Then evidently you have no purpose.

Cool how you magic believers can make assumptions without asking any questions.

Mine is to be as good of a human and member of society as I can.That's what I bring because that I can do.

Do you have a purpose other than kissing your God's magic butt? You seem to be the one without purpose because your purpose is unachievable.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are a theist talking

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

And there is the religious faith in magic stuff you are clearly alluding to.

What is the magic stuff that I am clearly alluding to in the OP?

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

They are not the same thing and it is obviously possible to trust your five senses and your experiences and to doubt those things that cannot be seen and whose 'activities' are open to question.

On that basis, then you should not employ any faith whatsoever (which is functionally impossible). That your car will start the next time you turn the ignition key is certainly open to question (all beliefs are open to question).

 

About faith - it's pretty obvious the sort of faith you mean. Faith in god, rising from the dead, magic food and all the rest of it. Your answers imply your position pretty obviously to me and I don't know why you are bothering to raise this as a point of contention except that you seem compelled to riposte.

The second part of your answer is a further projection of the mind numbingly boring direction of the OP. That atheists take ever so many things on faith despite the fact they say faith in god is pointless (we lose), or that given our stand-off position on faith we can have no faith in anything at all (we lose).

I have faith in my car based on its performance in the real world. One day it will break down but I chose carefully after lengthy deliberation of its merits and the history of other cars just like it over a period of 30 years and 5 million vehicles. I have no faith in god because I see no evidence of its performance in the real world. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Personal experience

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

If you believe the proof of the pudding comes down to personal experiences - and you really believe you've had these experiences - well...

Maybe reality is just personal interpretation of good and bad luck after all. But it hardly makes room for universal truth, does it.

Well, how we perceive life and the world is based on our personal experiences and how we interpret those experiences. That probably accounts for the differences between believers and nonbelievers. Having said that, the nonbeliever has no basis that the universal truth can be known, not even if he or she believes that such a truth exists in theory.

 

There is certainly a universal truth but it is not going to match up with the half-baked dogma of any of the religions that seek to explain it. The truth is not going to be some anthropomorphic 'force' with magic powers who behaves like a tribal headman. I can't visualise the extent of the universe in my own mind but you seem to cheerily peer outside the bubble of our reality into the impossible reaches of the beyond. I hope you like your view.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally. 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

Then you should probably go for it!

Exactly! Faith is not useless in all other contexts; it has pragmatic value.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves out.

There must be a god of some sort in order for there to be any value or purpose to anything.

On the worldview that is atheistic materialism, your choices and intentional acts reduce to electro-chemical processes. Electro-chemical processes are blind and purposeless. Therefore, your choices and intentional acts are blind and purposeless and any belief an atheist materialist has that he (or she) can define his (or her) own purpose must necessarily be illusory. Now, if you believe that I have made some kind of logical error here, then please point it out and I will respond accordingly. However, if you cannot provide me with a compelling counter-argument, then I will not feel obligated to respond to you. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:My

BobSpence1 wrote:

My world-view is best described as Scientific Naturalism, a more accurate description the Atheistic Materialism, since 'Atheism' is a natural consequence of the rational, evidence-based, outlook rather than a presupposition.

I disagree. A disbelief in the existence of the spiritual necessarily implies a belief in the material. If there is another option, then I am unaware of it. And contrary to your viewpoint, the evidence supports dualism (not materialism) because we clearly experience two different domains - namely, the subjective and the objective. In fact, Decartes, the founder of modern science, set up the parameters for science (originally known as natural philosophy) in a dualistic framework. Scientific materialism (and you are equating naturalism with materialism) is an ideology (or dogma); it is not science. I hope you are not conflating the two.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Reductionist 'Materialism' doesn't work either, since we now recognize the extreme importance of structure, complexity, and process, which make the difference between mere matter and structured, complex objects, like galaxies and living creatures. And such concepts are not material objects in themselves.

Everything must reduce to the physical in order for materialism to hold true. So, if you are arguing that reductionistic materialism doesn't work (whatever that means) and that immaterial objects have some kind of causal efficacy, then you are clearly undermining the materialistic worldview. Thank you for dismantling materialism for me but I really don't need your assistance. I am more than capable of completing the task myself.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is a lot of reason for despair in looking at modern society, and it is understandable why people might cling to comforting illusions like the self-deception we refer to as religious faith, that there is some super entity ultimately in charge, who offers us the prospect of some form of resolution, and the promise of a life after worldly death.

If everyone closes their eyes to the truth that there is no reason, other than a forlorn and desperate hope, to believe in such things, then it will almost guarantee that modern society will end in disaster as we run out of resources and over-crowd our planet. Our only hope is for at least some people to remain clear-eyed and work at possible ways forward rather than sink into the fantasy worlds of religion, and other forms of reality-denial.

Our materialistic society (which is directly responsible for our ecological crisis) is the product of a materalistic worldview. Imagine that! Also, you are assuming that there is an "ought" (i.e. as in we ought to do this or that) when your deterministic worldview clearly precludes you from making any such plea. If determinism is true, whatever will happen is predetermined and could not have happened otherwise. Determinism without faith ultimately leads to fatalism. Such is the spiritually-impoverished worldview that is atheistic materialism.

BobSpence1 wrote:

As to free-will, it is obviously an 'illusion' that our choices have some independent element, apart from of all the memories and moods and desires and reactions to events that make up our flow of consciousness, but the existence of such an illusion is an intrinsic aspect of consciousness.

If it is an illusion, then it is obviously an illusion that you must presuppose in practice even if you deny it in theory. And your last post provides us with proof-positive that this is indeed the case because you are rambling about "oughts" when your worldview clearly precludes the possibility.

Incidentally, why is free will obviously an illusion? It's not obvious to me. It's only obvious to you because your faith-commitment to the materialistic worldview does not allow for free will. What is obvious to me is that you are not really a freethinker; you are merely a slave to dogma.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I really see

Paisley wrote:


I really see no tangible difference between your definition of faith and Merriam-Webster's definition of hope.

Maybe the difference is, that people usually don't have hope in the existence of Hell Smiling


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally. 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

Then you should probably go for it!

Exactly! Faith is not useless in all other contexts; it has pragmatic value.

 

 

Correct. It has pragmatic value as a political tool. If, say, you want to impose tyrannical rule upon a population, "faith" will serve you well.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: A disbelief

Paisley wrote:
A disbelief in the existence of the spiritual necessarily implies a belief in the material.

 

Disbelief is an active principle. Atheism is not. This is a subtle but important difference.

 

The material world is there whether you believe in it or not. Atheism is a way to relate, it's got fuck all to do with belief or disbelief.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Anonymouse

Paisley wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

What personal experience did you have that lead to your faith in god ?

Faith is based on a non-sensory (i.e. non-physical) perception of a spiritual or divine reality. It is an experience that I have always had. And it is an experience that is apparently universal (or nearly universal) because a belief in a spiritual or divine reality is ubiquitous.

How exactly does one tell the difference, between someone who's had "a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality", and someone who's just making stuff up ?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:your choices

Paisley wrote:

your choices and intentional acts are blind and purposeless 

Now, if you believe that I have made some kind of logical error here, then please point it out and I will respond accordingly.

What you don't understand is that your computer mind has a certain set of data which is used in actions you pursue and consider. In your case, you can't help but follow the same path and arguments in the promotion of your agenda. Each thread you open always has the same intent because it can't be any other way until new data is integrated in your computations. Since you reject any data that does not fit your agenda you are in an endless loop. In effect, you will always turn right at a certain corner at a given time. If you can return to the same time period and try again, you will again turn right as the data is always processed exactly in the same manner.

When I said I had faith you'd be back to once again promote your ideas, it was based on previous observation since I had repeatedly noted your actions in repetitive promotion of the same concept. It appears you have not introduced any new information into your arguments and have only repackaged your effort. If you have a new approach based on new information or knowledge then please respond with it accordingly.

If you do not have anything new to present then don't bother.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:How exactly

Anonymouse wrote:

How exactly does one tell the difference, between someone who's had "a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality", and someone who's just making stuff up ?

I dare to answer, because I've got some experience with that. For that, it's necessary to have some people around. If I perceive non-sensorically something weird, I shout: "Hey guys, do you perceive that thing non-sensorically too?" And if they answer "Yeah, we do, it's just like you say, to every detail!" then definitely something is going on. Then we take a calculator and compute, how astronomically improbable it is for several people to have a perception of spiritual reality at the same time, and of the same kind. Then we invert that number and take it as a result how right we are Smiling

Alternatively, if I'm alone, I can ask the non-sensory perception to show me something I didn't see before, but which gives sense. Really, it's not a rocket science.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Anonymouse

Luminon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

How exactly does one tell the difference, between someone who's had "a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality", and someone who's just making stuff up ?

I dare to answer, because I've got some experience with that. For that, it's necessary to have some people around. If I perceive non-sensorically something weird, I shout: "Hey guys, do you perceive that thing non-sensorically too?" And if they answer "Yeah, we do, it's just like you say, to every detail!" then definitely something is going on. Then we take a calculator and compute, how astronomically improbable it is for several people to have a perception of spiritual reality at the same time, and of the same kind. Then we invert that number and take it as a result how right we are Smiling

Alternatively, if I'm alone, I can ask the non-sensory perception to show me something I didn't see before, but which gives sense. Really, it's not a rocket science.

So if:

1. you

2. or a group of like-minded individuals

perceive something you really want to perceive, that perception comes from something that is real?

Have you ever heard of "look for something long enough and hard enough and you'll find it"?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I dare to

Luminon wrote:
I dare to answer, because I've got some experience with that. For that, it's necessary to have some people around. If I perceive non-sensorically something weird, I shout: "Hey guys, do you perceive that thing non-sensorically too?" And if they answer "Yeah, we do, it's just like you say, to every detail!" then definitely something is going on.

What's to stop people from just humouring you ? Anyway, thanks, but the point is, I don't have any supernatural powers of perception, so no matter how large your group of like-minded people, how can I ever tell the difference between "the real thing" and people who are just making it up ?

Luminon wrote:
Alternatively, if I'm alone, I can ask the non-sensory perception to show me something I didn't see before, but which gives sense.

What, like next week's lottery numbers ? Okay, you give me those, and I'll admit that something is definitely going on.

Luminon wrote:
Really, it's not a rocket science.

Maybe not for you, but you have supernatural powers. I don't.

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:What's to

jcgadfly wrote:
So if:

1. you

2. or a group of like-minded individuals

perceive something you really want to perceive, that perception comes from something that is real?

Have you ever heard of "look for something long enough and hard enough and you'll find it"?

Please make sure you're not putting words in my mouth. I have just described a simple system of inter-personal confirmation that makes sure, that we're not imagining things.
Spiritual phenomena are fun, but not our priority. Our priority is to develop our consciousness, put our personal lives and health into order, and be helpful to our surroundings. It's true that if we wish for something and strive for it, it usually and eventually manifests, but this is not under our control, neither it's direct.
The typical area where wishing may interfere, is my etheric perception. (and emotional trickery, which our group avoids) This is, because it's directly linked to my nerve and endocrine system. If I should doubtlessly detect something not caused by me, then I must not know about it in advance, otherwise I might replicate it unintentionally. But as for majority of spiritual phenomena, we don't know about them in advance, so we can't wish for them or imagine them.


Anonymouse wrote:
What's to stop people from just humouring you ? Anyway, thanks, but the point is, I don't have any supernatural powers of perception, so no matter how large your group of like-minded people, how can I ever tell the difference between "the real thing" and people who are just making it up ?
Well, we're not after agreement or good feeling. We need real things, like health, relief of pain, fending off those that may oppress us, achieving of life goals, propagation of helpful methods, book publication, accounting, and so on. If there would be anyone that would lie to others, they would not stay in our group for long.
Our members are not greenhorns, they've been involved with groups and organizations, that are led by deluded people or manipulators. Such groups work to provide their members extraordinary experiences and feelings, in exchange for giving the leader a fame, attention and profit. But their members get practically no benefit in terms of personal life - their health, family, marriage or financial condition may be a mess. These are clear signs that there's something wrong with that person. Our members are people who proved that they can differ the true from false, they can solve their problems, they already stand on their feet and don't need to make up anything to feel good. It's also true that they're usually around their 40's or older, young people often don't have enough experience.

Anonymouse wrote:
Luminon wrote:
Alternatively, if I'm alone, I can ask the non-sensory perception to show me something I didn't see before, but which gives sense.
What, like next week's lottery numbers ? Okay, you give me those, and I'll admit that something is definitely going on.
Hell, don't change what I wrote! You completely misquoted me. This meant, "In case I would be alone, having a vision and would want to be sure that I'm not imagining it, it would have to be something that I didn't see before." This does not mean that I have any visions - I usually don't, except of meditation. Seeing things commonly is suspicious of the so-called "lower clairvoyance", which is an unreliable phenomenon. The "higher clairvoyance" is different and completely unselfish and serves to develop your consciousness and morality, not the financial profit. (so much for lottery numbers) However, clairvoyant people are free to make money by making good business decisions, but these decisions must not be morally questionable. Otherwise, their reliability would drop. That's how it works, pure, unselfish motivation is very important.
 

Anonymouse wrote:
Luminon wrote:
Really, it's not a rocket science.
Maybe not for you, but you have supernatural powers. I don't.
Everyone have these powers latently. They can be trained, it's not more diffcult than learning to drive or to play a musical instrument, at most. It's not as diffcult, as it's unusual. But I'd recommend you something faster and more obvious. You can try to visit a practitioner of alternative medicine, that has a bioresonance measuring device. These devices cost like 18 000 euro, and they're worth it. EAV meter is also impressive. These devices visibly and obviously measure a reaction of organism on mere presence of something, that should not give any reaction according to all that you know. The crudest form of clairvoyance, most available to me, is perception through etheric body, it's like my second skin. This body is directly connected to nerve and endocrine system, therefore it CAN BE measured by these devices, but it also reaches a few centimeters over the skin, so it can react on something outside of your body.
For example, you can go for EAV diagnostic session and you will see, that particular organs or areas in your body are weakened or damaged. Then you will be given a package of medicine to hold, and will be measured again. If the readings will improve, you will get this medicine prescribed. If not, the healer will give you another package to hold on and measure again. You can also take along with yourself any medicine of your own, and have it measured for helpfulness to your body. Or just an empty box, if you're skeptical Smiling ere, this measuring alone costs a symbollical price of 3 dollars. You don't have to train yourself in supernatural powers or whatever, just go to the right place and see how these so-called spiritual phenomena are measured in kiloohms, thanks to your nerve system. I've been there last week and it worked perfectly, as usual.
It is a nonsense, that it would be influenced by how much is the probe pressed, because every time it's pressed, it shows the same value. It never goes over local maximum, no matter how hard is the probe pressed. This value changes only after you hold the medicine. And all the contact places are of course moisted by salty water, so the conductivity is not an issue. The diagnostics shows (among others) your real health problems, which the practitioner doesn't know about. I think FDA is full of shit. You can either believe FDA, or go to see for yourself.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
How depressing is it that if

How depressing is it that if you don't believe in god, life has no purpose or meaning?

I have lots of purpose and meaning in my life.  Right now I'm helping guide a family through the coming death of their baby.  That has a lot of purpose and meaning. 

Just because there is no god behind my actions and life does not strip it of all possible choice, meaning or purpose. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Paisley

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line here is that believing that consciousness ceases to exist at the moment of physical death engenders pessimism, not optimism. Your "realistic" view of the world presents an outlook on life that is ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. There is no other way to characterize it. And I would argue that the vast majority of humanity see it my way because atheistic materialism is clearly not selling in the market place of ideas.

Presumably you've never found any experience in your life in any way satisfying, set goals and achieved them (or failed to), learnt anything, enjoyed art, music, literature, discourse or a good meal, or held any kind of ideal or hope for yourself or your descendants. I pity you.

Obviously, you are refusing to acknowledge that your atheistic and materialistic outlook on life is ultimately a pessimistic one. The lessons you have learned in your personal life don't mean anything in the vast scheme of things. Your personal accomplishments (or failures) do not have any eternal significance. And any hopes you presently have will die with your death. Such are the logical conclusions to be drawn from a worldview devoid of God.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Well, we're

Luminon wrote:
Well, we're not after agreement or good feeling. We need real things, like health, relief of pain, fending off those that may oppress us, achieving of life goals, propagation of helpful methods, book publication, accounting, and so on.

But all those things can be achieved without supernatural aid. That's why I picked the example of the lottery numbers.

Luminon wrote:
If there would be anyone that would lie to others, they would not stay in our group for long.

You'd have to catch them lying first, and that was more or less my point : How would you tell ? I know you're 100% convinced of your own supernatural experiences, but how can you be just as sure about some else's ?

See, the reason I asked Paisley this question, is because I wanted to know if a thiest can tell the difference between someone who's had the same "experience of the devine" (or whatever it was) as he had, and someone who's just going with the flow, or is just making stuff up.

Luminon wrote:
Our members are not greenhorns, they've been involved with groups and organizations, that are led by deluded people or manipulators. Such groups work to provide their members extraordinary experiences and feelings, in exchange for giving the leader a fame, attention and profit. But their members get practically no benefit in terms of personal life - their health, family, marriage or financial condition may be a mess. These are clear signs that there's something wrong with that person. Our members are people who proved that they can differ the true from false, they can solve their problems, they already stand on their feet and don't need to make up anything to feel good. It's also true that they're usually around their 40's or older, young people often don't have enough experience.

Hey relax, I'm not accusing you of being in a cult or anything like that. I'm sure that your opinion of the people in your group is based on cold, hard facts. Still, no matter how well-balanced and experienced they may be, that still doesn't stop them from being able to make stuff up. Human beings are complicated. They will lie for the weirdest reasons. To themselves and to others.

Luminon wrote:
Hell, don't change what I wrote! You completely misquoted me. .

Actually, I quoted you verbatim. Are you saying I misunderstoof what you were getting at, maybe ?

Luminon wrote:
This meant, "In case I would be alone, having a vision and would want to be sure that I'm not imagining it, it would have to be something that I didn't see before." This does not mean that I have any visions - I usually don't, except of meditation. Seeing things commonly is suspicious of the so-called "lower clairvoyance", which is an unreliable phenomenon. The "higher clairvoyance" is different and completely unselfish and serves to develop your consciousness and morality, not the financial profit. (so much for lottery numbers) However, clairvoyant people are free to make money by making good business decisions, but these decisions must not be morally questionable. Otherwise, their reliability would drop. That's how it works, pure, unselfish motivation is very important.

Yes..., well..., "how it works" always seems to prohibit any actual proof for some reason.

Be that as it may, I still don't see how you can tell the difference between someone who had the same supernatural experience, and someone who's lying about it.

Unless of course if the ability to tell the difference is yet another supernatural talent.

Everyone have these powers latently. They can be trained, it's not more diffcult than learning to drive or to play a musical instrument, at most. It's not as diffcult, as it's unusual. But I'd recommend you something faster and more obvious. You can try to visit a practitioner of alternative medicine, that has a bioresonance measuring device. These devices cost like 18 000 euro, and they're worth it.

Oh dear...

A loved one of mine was damn near killed by a practioner of alternative medicine, so I'm probably not the best person to discuss this kind of thing with.

All the best to you.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This observation applies equally to you

Paisley wrote:

The lessons you have learned in your personal life don't mean anything in the vast scheme of things. Your personal accomplishments (or failures) do not have any eternal significance. And any hopes you presently have will die with your death.

 

Paisley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Luminon

sorry, double post

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:your atheistic

Paisley wrote:

your atheistic and materialistic outlook on life is ultimately a pessimistic one

 

Why? Because you say so?

As for "materialism"... well, I would say I think in cybernetic terms. (Process-oriented, that is.) I am careful with passing judgment on the universe. I know too little. Unless it can be argued logically and cohesively, tested and corrobotrated, I am unwilling to entertain any specific idea that "explains" things. Including, but not limited to, religious faith. However, this doesn't stop me from ejoying the aesthetical and joyful aspects of life.

In fact it seems much more pessimistic to me to think that you must surrender your intellectual freedom and your access to valid, scientific information - which by the way is a hard earned privilege that has taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears over many hundreds (if not thousands) of years to establish - in order to earn the right to be alive and express yourself in the world.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Incidentally, there is a plethora of NDEs (i.e. near death experiences) that provide evidence that consciousness does not cease to exist at the moment of physical death.

And we know the physical source of NDEs. We also know that they are near death and not at death (hence the title).

No, materialists cannot explain how an individual can have a concscious experience while his brain is declared clinically dead and nonfunctioning.

jcgadfly wrote:

My view of the world means that my purpose in life is what I bring to it. Again, no magic required.

Simply repeating the mantra "I create my own purpose" will not change the fact that the blind, deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism precludes the reality of free will and intentional acts. If materialism is true, then any belief in free will and  teleology (i.e. purpose) must be illusory by logical necessity.

jcgadfly wrote:

And you cannot choose your destiny because you believe it's all laid out by whatever magic force you believe in - what's your point?

I believe that everything in my life is working out for a greater good. That's an optimistic outlook on life and that's how I personally define faith; that's my point.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What you fail to understand

Paisley wrote:

 

Simply repeating the mantra "I create my own purpose" will not change the fact that the blind, deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism precludes the reality of free will and intentional acts. If materialism is true, then any belief in free will and  teleology (i.e. purpose) must be illusory by logical necessity.

I believe that everything in my life is working out for a greater good. That's an optimistic outlook on life and that's how I personally define faith; that's my point.

 

Paisley is that you are repeating the mantra of a doctrine created by men to provide them their own purpose. I have no problem with you enjoying an optimistic view of life and having faith in your man-made religion - very nice for you. The trouble is your doctrine insists on the deaths of all who disagree with you to provide its torque. Regardless of what you believe, all humans are possessed of the same capacity for goodness and the same group 'spirituality'. Atheistic materialism is nothing more than a label that allows you to turn your back on something you don't want to accept - that we are all the same in our need to understand and in our fear of the unknown. There is no difference in feeling in any of us. There is no difference in our comprehension of what cannot be understood. Your man-made interpretation is no righter than ours is and is a deal less honest than our innate need for inquiry. You simply need us to be wrong to live forever and are putting your eternal life ahead of all else to the extent you able to condemn us in your mind to eternal damnation. You are a selfish person, Paisley, whether you are big enough to see this or not.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Paisley

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

Something believed to be true without being justified by the standards of any rigourous epistemological framework (meaning one which has a good track record at distinguishing true statements from false statements).

Can you provide me with two examples of a "rigorous epistemological framework that has a good track record at distinguishing true statements from false statements?"

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Paisley

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You ultimately have nothing to hope for because you ultimately have nothing to look forward to.

False. I have plenty to look forward to.

Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "ultimate." The worldview of atheistic materialism implies that everyone's ultimate fate is cessation of existence. If you believe that constitutes a positive or hopeful outlook on life, then I guess we will have to simply agree to disagree.

 

Vastet wrote:

Now as far as death goes, we'll both face the same oblivion. You have nothing to look forward to either.

We both will face physical death. But I do not see physical death as disappearing into oblivion. Nor, do I believe that my personal struggles will be all for nought. That's why my outlook on life is more optimistic than yours.

Vastet wrote:
 

So make the most of it. Enjoy life, make friends, help those in need. Nothing you are will exist. But you can make things that will endure.

Your worldview implies that everyone will eventually cease to exist and that the struggles of humanity are nothing more than one colossal exercise in futility. That you do not fully understand the logical implications of atheistic materialism suggests to me that you are not quite as rational as you profess to be.

Vastet wrote:

Your heaven cheapens life, and everything it accomplishes.

I never mentioned heaven. I simply professed a belief in the continuity of life and that what we do here has meaning and significance in the vast scheme of things.

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices.

Not true at all. I make choices every day. I may not be able to choose to fly unassisted, but I never claimed omnipotence.

Well, if you claim to have free will, then you are arguing for the existence of the soul because you are claiming some element of self-determination that is not completely predetermined by the physical process.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Right now I'm

Vastet wrote:
Right now I'm in the midst of deciding whether or not to go and get a coffee from Tim Horton's. I can walk, and I can afford one. The choice is mine, and mine alone. "Moreover, you really have no purpose." That's yet another choice I make for myself. My purpose is to enjoy my fleeting existence. To defend myself and my allies. To, hopefully, find a woman to love, and children to raise. "What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves." Again, not true. Even though I can't choose to be hungry, I choose whether to eat. I can't choose to need oxygen to survive, but I choose to keep breathing.

It all boils down to this:

1) Materialism implies that everything (including yourself) reduces to electro-chemical processes.

2) Electro-chemical processes are non-teleological (i.e. no purpose).

3) The belief that there is any purposive action in the world is purely illusory. If you believe otherwise, then you are extricating yourself from the natural (i.e. material) process and therefore undermining materialism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Vastet

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Right now I'm in the midst of deciding whether or not to go and get a coffee from Tim Horton's. I can walk, and I can afford one. The choice is mine, and mine alone. "Moreover, you really have no purpose." That's yet another choice I make for myself. My purpose is to enjoy my fleeting existence. To defend myself and my allies. To, hopefully, find a woman to love, and children to raise. "What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves." Again, not true. Even though I can't choose to be hungry, I choose whether to eat. I can't choose to need oxygen to survive, but I choose to keep breathing.

It all boils down to this:

1) Materialism implies that everything (including yourself) reduces to electro-chemical processes.

2) Electro-chemical processes are non-teleological (i.e. no purpose).

3) The belief that there is any purposive action in the world is purely illusory. If you believe otherwise, then you are extricating yourself from the natural (i.e. material) process and therefore undermining materialism.

Which shows the massive misunderstanding that you have about it all.

Just because it breaks down to that, doesn't mean that put all together it can't make it's own purpose. Materialism does not imply what you stated, what materialism states that all things are composed of matter and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interaction. Completely different from what you are stating. It is not that it breaks down to electro-chemical process, but that everything in the universe is composed of matter, no spirit, and that all phenomena are the result of those interactions of matter. I don't c your definition of materialism anywhere in there.

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

On that basis, then you should not employ any faith whatsoever (which is functionally impossible). That your car will start the next time you turn the ignition key is certainly open to question (all beliefs are open to question).

About faith - it's pretty obvious the sort of faith you mean. Faith in god, rising from the dead, magic food and all the rest of it. Your answers imply your position pretty obviously to me and I don't know why you are bothering to raise this as a point of contention except that you seem compelled to riposte.

In the OP, I asked you to define faith and I then asked you if you have faith. The problem now is that you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you employ faith - the type of faith you defined as any belief that is open to question.

Atheistextremist wrote:

The second part of your answer is a further projection of the mind numbingly boring direction of the OP. That atheists take ever so many things on faith despite the fact they say faith in god is pointless (we lose), or that given our stand-off position on faith we can have no faith in anything at all (we lose).

You lose because it is not possible to function in this world without faith. An attack on faith is an attack on rationality itself because it is not possible to engage in rational thought or discourse without presupposing some kind of belief which is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term...belief without evidence or proof.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Well, how we perceive life and the world is based on our personal experiences and how we interpret those experiences. That probably accounts for the differences between believers and nonbelievers. Having said that, the nonbeliever has no basis that the universal truth can be known, not even if he or she believes that such a truth exists in theory.

There is certainly a universal truth but it is not going to match up with the half-baked dogma of any of the religions that seek to explain it. The truth is not going to be some anthropomorphic 'force' with magic powers who behaves like a tribal headman. I can't visualise the extent of the universe in my own mind but you seem to cheerily peer outside the bubble of our reality into the impossible reaches of the beyond. I hope you like your view.

I don't live in a bubble. That probably explains why I am able to expand my consciousness and you are not.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Exactly! Faith is not useless in all other contexts; it has pragmatic value.

Correct. It has pragmatic value as a political tool. If, say, you want to impose tyrannical rule upon a population, "faith" will serve you well.

It has pragmatic value in every endeavor of life.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:What have you

Paisley wrote:

What have you taken on faith, despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary?

 

 

 

You obviously didn't watch the video I posted

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Evidently, you do not

"Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "ultimate." The worldview of atheistic materialism implies that everyone's ultimate fate is cessation of existence. If you believe that constitutes a positive or hopeful outlook on life, then I guess we will have to simply agree to disagree."

I understand it quite well. I also want no part of an unending existence. Whether real or imagined, painful or joyful. That we die is what makes living worthwhile. I might enjoy a few extra centuries, but eternity would suck. It would only be a matter of time before it bored me to insanity.

"We both will face physical death. But I do not see physical death as disappearing into oblivion."

Yet that is the only likely outcome.

"Nor, do I believe that my personal struggles will be all for nought. That's why my outlook on life is more optimistic than yours."

Quite the opposite. You view yourself in bondage to a jealous god who sees you as nothing more than someone to worship it. I am free.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Your worldview implies that

"Your worldview implies that everyone will eventually cease to exist and that the struggles of humanity are nothing more than one colossal exercise in futility."

Not at all. We don't have enough information to know the ultimate fate of humanity. You're making things up.

"That you do not fully understand the logical implications of atheistic materialism suggests to me that you are not quite as rational as you profess to be."

That you must make things up in order to make my outlook seem poor proves you haven't the slightest idea wgat you're talking about.

"I never mentioned heaven. I simply professed a belief in the continuity of life and that what we do here has meaning and significance in the vast scheme of things."

Whatever you call it, immortality is for the foolish.

"Well, if you claim to have free will, then you are arguing for the existence of the soul because you are claiming some element of self-determination that is not completely predetermined by the physical process."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not even close. It is that

Not even close. It is that very process which provides me the opportunity to make choices. To choose whether to have steak or chicken for dinner. One tastes better than the other, but also costs more. A choice to be made. A choice that exists because natural processes gave me that choice.

1) But I am not a single electro-chemical process. You cannot reduce me to one without committing a fallacy.
2) See 1).
3) See 2).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You must be joking.

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Well, how we perceive life and the world is based on our personal experiences and how we interpret those experiences. That probably accounts for the differences between believers and nonbelievers. Having said that, the nonbeliever has no basis that the universal truth can be known, not even if he or she believes that such a truth exists in theory.

There is certainly a universal truth but it is not going to match up with the half-baked dogma of any of the religions that seek to explain it. The truth is not going to be some anthropomorphic 'force' with magic powers who behaves like a tribal headman. I can't visualise the extent of the universe in my own mind but you seem to cheerily peer outside the bubble of our reality into the impossible reaches of the beyond. I hope you like your view.

I don't live in a bubble. That probably explains why I am able to expand my consciousness and you are not.

 

Your ability to expand your consciousness ended a long time ago. You feel no more than we do - only less true empathy.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Faith

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

On that basis, then you should not employ any faith whatsoever (which is functionally impossible). That your car will start the next time you turn the ignition key is certainly open to question (all beliefs are open to question).

About faith - it's pretty obvious the sort of faith you mean. Faith in god, rising from the dead, magic food and all the rest of it. Your answers imply your position pretty obviously to me and I don't know why you are bothering to raise this as a point of contention except that you seem compelled to riposte.

In the OP, I asked you to define faith and I then asked you if you have faith. The problem now is that you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you employ faith - the type of faith you defined as any belief that is open to question.

Atheistextremist wrote:

The second part of your answer is a further projection of the mind numbingly boring direction of the OP. That atheists take ever so many things on faith despite the fact they say faith in god is pointless (we lose), or that given our stand-off position on faith we can have no faith in anything at all (we lose).

You lose because it is not possible to function in this world without faith. An attack on faith is an attack on rationality itself because it is not possible to engage in rational thought or discourse without presupposing some kind of belief which is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term...belief without evidence or proof.

 

You consistently equate the expectation of an event that has occurred before with belief in a magic invisible deity. In the OP you asked a loaded question relying on contention over the definition of an ambiguous word to force your case but you failed. Faith in a parachute you properly packed yourself having done so 1000 times before is not the same thing as faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, measured, perceived in any way. Your spurious arguments underscore the emptiness of your case. This is the best Paisley can do. No proof of god, nothing but an argument of shadows. Don't try to compare your rationality to mine - you are off playing in your own ballpark.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Evidently, you

Paisley wrote:

Evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the term "ultimate." The worldview of atheistic materialism implies that everyone's ultimate fate is cessation of existence. If you believe that constitutes a positive or hopeful outlook on life, then I guess we will have to simply agree to disagree.

I would just like to ask why anyone needs to have a "positive or hopeful outlook" as opposed to a realistic one.

I agree that the fact that we cease to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful, but I see no point in trying to delude your way around reality.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:
A disbelief in the existence of the spiritual necessarily implies a belief in the material.

Disbelief is an active principle. Atheism is not. This is a subtle but important difference.

Disbelief means "without belief." But that's really irrelevant. The point is that  your "without belief" has implications as to what you actually believe.

Marquis wrote:

The material world is there whether you believe in it or not. Atheism is a way to relate, it's got fuck all to do with belief or disbelief.

Materialism is a metaphysical belief as much as dualism or idealism are. Atheists who argue that it is not are simply demonstrating their philosophical illiteracy.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is based on a non-sensory (i.e. non-physical) perception of a spiritual or divine reality. It is an experience that I have always had. And it is an experience that is apparently universal (or nearly universal) because a belief in a spiritual or divine reality is ubiquitous.

How exactly does one tell the difference, between someone who's had "a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality", and someone who's just making stuff up ?

I don't know. What I do know is that it is ultimately beyond the purview of science.

Our intuitive experiences are subject to personal interpretation. And more than that, our experiences of the objective world and what constitutes sufficient evidence is subject to personal interpretation. I look at the phenomenal world and interpret it as evidence for a spiritual or divine reality. You look at it and see evidence only for dead matter. We disagree (at least partially) because we have different interpretations. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

your choices and intentional acts are blind and purposeless 

Now, if you believe that I have made some kind of logical error here, then please point it out and I will respond accordingly.

What you don't understand is that your computer mind has a certain set of data which is used in actions you pursue and consider. In your case, you can't help but follow the same path and arguments in the promotion of your agenda. Each thread you open always has the same intent because it can't be any other way until new data is integrated in your computations. Since you reject any data that does not fit your agenda you are in an endless loop. In effect, you will always turn right at a certain corner at a given time. If you can return to the same time period and try again, you will again turn right as the data is always processed exactly in the same manner.

When I said I had faith you'd be back to once again promote your ideas, it was based on previous observation since I had repeatedly noted your actions in repetitive promotion of the same concept. It appears you have not introduced any new information into your arguments and have only repackaged your effort. If you have a new approach based on new information or knowledge then please respond with it accordingly.

If you do not have anything new to present then don't bother.

You still have not addressed where I made a logical error in my argument. If and when you do that, then I will respond accordingly. Until then, stop wasting both your time and mine.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
*blow*  *pat pat pat*  is

*blow*  *pat pat pat*  is this thing on?

I'm noticing a tendency for the theists to ignore me and my lovely babies.  I'm thinking 'cause it's hard to justify what I see - no extra sensory perception needed.

 

Btw, do the theists here believe in speaking in tongues?  Like what the pentecostals do? 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!