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?


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

Anonymouse wrote:
But all those things can be achieved without supernatural aid. That's why I picked the example of the lottery numbers.
Yeah, if that's what you mean, I can answer. An important "supernatural" power is acting behind the scenes of this world, acting upon the subconsciousness of people, to our benefit, but not to detriment of others. In this way, we can practically produce "lucky coincidences." For example, one may get a good job, get to a good school, meet a dreamed up lifetime partner, and so on. But they're not just lucky coincidences. For example, after certain sessions we had, two people involved lost their jobs that were not optimal for them, and a son of another was almost thrown out of school, for little reason. Or, if there is someone bullying us (typically a co-worker), then we can bring the balance between us. In practice it looks like something extreme happens to that person and he or she suddenly has other problems than harrasing us. But always, without perception, it is everything done in the right amount, not more than we or other people around deserve. It of course looks like a coincidence, lucky or unlucky, but the effects are very real and very needed in our situation. These "coincidences" of course do not happen, until we do the "supernatural" sessions.
There is some theory behind it, how it works and why these changes are always so "pedagogical", but I don't have to bother you with that now.

Anonymouse wrote:
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.

I thought that's obvious, by comparison. I don't have to tell everything about my experience at first, I can let others say it, and compare if it's similar or the same. It often is.

Anonymouse wrote:
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.
Well, if you think so. But not all people are the same. For example, as long as I remember, I have lied only to protect myself or others. For example to guys at school - I bet you are still a virgin, admit it!!! Smiling
Otherwise, I really have no need to lie and I have met personally very, very few liars. People usually lie to get something. We people in our circle of friends get along fine, we people often understand each other better than their own families. We have all we need, we're not here to gain something, quite opposite, we're the ones being productive.

"Actually, I quoted you verbatim. Are you saying I misunderstoof what you were getting at, maybe ?"
Yeah, that must be it.

Anonymouse wrote:
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.

"How it works", that's what is observed in reality on many cases of people. It would have weight even if it wouldn't match with theory, but it matches. It's in fact a law of resonance, if someone "resonates" with selfless aspiration, then attracts also pure and selfless forces, that provide accurate, but usually not very profitable information. It can be colloquially described as "a crow sits next to another crow".
And again, telling a real experience from someone's lie is done simply by comparison. It's just common sense, nothing else than policemen do, when they interrogate witnesses.
If people from our really wish something, like a supernatural experience, then they sooner or later get it. (or someone close from their family)
I mean things like that UFO formation shows up on the sky, does some maneuvers and then disappears. Or the mysterious light patterns show up on the wall of the people's house, but nowhere else. Things like that. I've seen a few of such phenomena, but otherwise I leave the limited miracle schedule to those who have no supernatural perception of their own.

Anonymouse wrote:
Unless of course if the ability to tell the difference is yet another supernatural talent.
In case it's very important and someone's trustworthiness is in question (not only a person, but even a company or the company's products) we have a 'secret weapon'. There is a strongly clairvoyant person that helps us in these and other issues. This person cooperates with us in exchange for theoretical knowledge, that she needs to understand better her own abilities. It's very interesting, because that person does not study systematically, but only says one thing at a time, like "You have to explain me the Second Ray" but without knowing what the Second Ray actually is. Otherwise, she does not live in ivory tower, she has two university degrees, family and well-paid job, she does not need anything else from us than the bits of esoteric theory and ocassional working together.

Anonymouse wrote:
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. 

Well, you surely know it happens in classical medicine too...

 

 

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
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

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.

Which logical error?

Your "consciouness is awarness is conscious-awareness is consciousness" circle?

or your habit of switching definitions of "faith" when someone calls you on the one you had been using?

or any of the others I can't think of right now?

"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


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

greek goddess wrote:

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.

Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative.

greek goddess wrote:

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.

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

"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
SapphireMind wrote:How

SapphireMind wrote:

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. 

Can you be more specific? How exactly are you helping this family?

"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: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:SapphireMind

Paisley wrote:

SapphireMind wrote:

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. 

Can you be more specific? How exactly are you helping this family?

 

Sapphire is a pediatric nurse who devotes her entire life to helping kids. I dare you to try turn that into something shallow.

 

 

 

"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
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

This observation applies equally to you...Paisley.

Well, you believe it applies equally to me because you believe that it applies equally to you and everyone else. The point I am making is that I don't see life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd; you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


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

Paisley wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

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.

Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative.

greek goddess wrote:

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.

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

so you believe in whatever you call God because it makes you feel good and gives you a positive emotional outlook - and you have the rocks to call that a rational approach?

"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


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

Marquis wrote:

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.

What exactly do you mean by process-oriented?

Marquis wrote:

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. 

I fail to see where I have surrender my intellectual freedom and deny myself access to valid scientific information. There is nothing in my beliefs that prevents me from engaging in the scientific method. I simply do not subcribe to the ideology of scientific materialism (which is not to be conflated with science itself).

"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
SapphireMind wrote:I'm

SapphireMind wrote:

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? 

I don't know how about your babies, but I do recognize speaking in tongues. We even had here nearby a congregation of pentecostals. When my mom was young, she hung out with them a few times.
I recognize speaking in tongues as a despicable, useless phenomenon. In esoteric terms it's like attuning ourselves on astral (emotional) noise, or metaphorically said, tuning the radio on static. Pentecostals probably think that it's something good, because it looks impressive, or better said, creepy. They think it has something to do with alleged ability of biblical apostles to talk to crowd of several languages and everyone reputedly understood them. Well, if apostles could speak in several languages, then this is speaking in no language.


 

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

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.

My issue with your group consciousness and pantheist beliefs has always been that you make conclusions without sufficient information. I have repeatedly told you that just because today  we don't understand certain things such as NDEs and most all of what you accept as proof of your beliefs does not mean that we won't understand it in the future. Wait and see. Since you don't believe in a god such as the Christian mythology why the need to jump to conclusions.

You say you accept and use the scientific method if so, remaining a skeptic until there is really something that can be understood and studied is the correct approach, not taking your personal experience alone as proof because it isn't repeatable and testable by others. If your group consciousness belief had validity or was well enough understood then anybody should be able to reproduce it. This means anybody, not a marginal science project by a proponent of the belief but by an outright detractor and unbeliever that considers your belief to be bullshit. Get Penn & Teller to reproduce it or anybody from this forum that considers your belief to be based in the land of fantasy. And it should not involve any mumbo jumbo at all but a specific scientifically followed process or path.

If you have a way to reproduce your proof be it personal experience or whatever that doesn't involve mumbo jumbo, meditation, hallucinogenic drugs or whatever please detail it.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Just

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

This observation applies equally to you...Paisley.

Well, you believe it applies equally to me because you believe that it applies equally to you and everyone else. The point I am making is that I don't see life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd; you do. 

 

How old are you Paisley? 17? We have never met and you tell me I think life is meaningless, purposeless and absurd. Excuse me? This is a projection of your personal reaction to the impossibility of understanding our position. I have a loving family, many interests and a strong spirit of integrity, freedom and community. I don't need god standing over me with a stick to force me to be a good man and nor do you.

I don't why I am here, I don't know for sure how the universe came into being. No doubt it makes sense on some level but we humans have not contrived the means to comprehend it - at least not yet. There are many wonderful things about being alive that do not include bowing down under threat of eternal torment at the imaginary inquisition in the sky.

I am guilty of making the some of the shortcuts you make thanks to my religious upbringing but they work in reverse. The chaotic and merciless nature of life on earth in which all organisms including us are food sources for each other, makes no sense to me with a god. But with no god, I can attune myself to it. I'm a gardener and an aquarist so eco-systems make perfect sense to me. We are of this earth - intrinsically. Meanwhile, intervention from external dimensions we cannot see, fathom or usefully comment on, makes absolutely no sense at all.    

 

 

 

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


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

Paisley wrote:

What exactly do you mean by process-oriented?

 

It means that I don't acknowledge the existence of static matter - "building blocks" if you like - only of processes.


Paisley wrote:

There is nothing in my beliefs that prevents me from engaging in the scientific method.

 

Yes there is. You are a "believer". This will make your judgment biased. As you prove several times every day.

"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
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

The trouble is your doctrine insists on the deaths of all who disagree with you to provide its torque.

Please provide me with the quote where I stated that everyone who disagrees with my viewpoint should die.

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

Regardless of what you believe, all humans are possessed of the same capacity for goodness and the same group 'spirituality'.

Agreed. However, your worldview denies the reality of the spiritual and any attempt by you to speak of a "group spirituality" is inherently self-contradictory.

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

Atheistic materialism is nothing more than a label that allows you to turn your back on something you don't want to accept

"Atheistic materialism" is the term I employ to identify a worldview which denies the reality of God and of the spiritual. I also use the term to weed out 'atheists' who really have a lurking God-belief.

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

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.

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

No, I do not condemn you to eternal damnation. This is simply a false assumption on your part. That being said, I do believe your interpretation of life is ultimately one that renders life meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. That you refuse to acknowledge the logical implications of your worldview simply demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

"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: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
More honest?

Paisley wrote:

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

 

Why do you need faith to occupy the prime place. That life is ultimately based on faith? What's the ultimate destination of your eagerness to elevate something as ambiguous as the word faith? You still haven't defined faith for us as you see it? What are you talking about when you say the word faith? Be honest.

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If you don't adhere to the teachings of the bible

Paisley wrote:

Please provide me with the quote where I stated that everyone who disagrees with my viewpoint should die.

 

in relation to hell, I unreservedly withdraw this point.

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I have to come back to

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. However, your worldview denies the reality of the spiritual and any attempt by you to speak of a "group spirituality" is inherently self-contradictory.

"Atheistic materialism" is the term I employ to identify a worldview which denies the reality of God and of the spiritual. I also use the term to weed out 'atheists' who really have a lurking God-belief.

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

I do believe your interpretation of life is ultimately one that renders life meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. That you refuse to acknowledge the logical implications of your worldview simply demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

These points collectively. I don't believe there is an invisible realm of spirituality where magic things happen and souls go flitting about. I used the term 'group spirituality' for your benefit but 'group feeling' would have been a more accurate portrayal of my position. Can you seriously argue that disbelief in spirituality, another word of vast ambiguity, allows you to categorize your opponents as dishonest and write off their views as absurd? I think there's a theory of mind and even a collective or shared theory of mind at a group level but that does not mean there are things going on in an invisible spirit realm we cannot detect. What is wrong with lauding those physical processes in our heads we have not categorized or understood yet? When we bore down to the atomic level of chemical processes what are we doing? Undermining the real meaning of spiritual things? We are physical beings whether you chose to believe this or not. And it's not a truth that in any way weakens the strength of our connections to each other or the value of our feelings for each other. I look forward to the day when the human brain is better understood and we can lay bare the reality of the mind. We are talking about this 100 years too soon for me to be able to do more than shadow box with you - which is no less than what you are doing with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:SapphireMind

Paisley wrote:

SapphireMind wrote:

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. 

Can you be more specific? How exactly are you helping this family?

Hey, I'm glad you asked.  How am I helping: (I will refer to the baby by the pronoun "it", just for gender neutrality and increased anonymity.

*I'm making sure their baby isn't in excruciating pain constantly, while they come to terms and make plans for the funeral.

*I care for their baby while they are at home, and they can be comfortable knowing that someone they know is taking good care of their child.

*I'm trying to take as many pictures of their baby that shows it in as positive and normal light as possible. 

*We give parents boxes to take mementos of their baby home, I'm making one for the baby specifically. 

*I'm supporting their religious beliefs and providing them with compassion

*I've helped organize the regular caregivers so that they only have nurses that already know them and their child. 

*I give them an outlet to vent frustration and unhappiness and how unfair it is that their child will be leaving them.  

*I know that this is going to be the worst week of their life and I do my damndest to try and help make sure that it is as easy as I can possibly make it. 

That's the majority of it.  If I happen to be there when the baby passes, I will take pictures, give the family time alone with their child, bathe the baby, take footprints/handprints, put it in the shroud and take it to the morgue. 

"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
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

How do non-teleological electro-chemical processess suddenly become teleological electro-chemical processes? Magic?

If the deterministic worldview of materialism is true, then logical necessity dictates that every intentional act must have been completely determined by the entire causal nexus from the beginning of time to very moment the act was made. IOW, every choice you have ever made was ultimately determined by the Big Bang. Now, either purposive action is purely illusory or the entire natural process is an intelligent one. The former displays the irrationality of the materialistic worldview. The latter qualifies as a teleological argument for the existence of God. 

latincanuck wrote:

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. 

The very fact that consciousness exists qualifies as first-person evidence against materialism. Clearly, mental phenomena are not physical phenomena. Also, how does insentient electro-chemical processes suddenly become sentient electro-chemical processes?

"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:I understand it

Vastet wrote:

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.

Well, spiritually speaking (to quote St. Francis), it is only by dying that we are born to eternal life. But we are talking about two different types of deaths.

Vastet wrote:
 

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.

I see jealousy is an attribute of the ego-self, not God.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:

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.

Well, spiritually speaking (to quote St. Francis), it is only by dying that we are born to eternal life. But we are talking about two different types of deaths.

Vastet wrote:
 

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.

I see jealousy is an attribute of the ego-self, not God.

Like we're talking about two types of "faith" and two types of "god".

"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


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

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

I'm making things up? Previously, you concurred that our eventual fate is certain oblivion. Now you seem to be changing your tune. Which one is it?

Vastet wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

Okay, I'll demonstrate my foolishness by choosing life while you demonstrate your wisdom by choosing death

"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:Not even close.

Vastet wrote:
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).

To put it bluntly, every choice you make is predetermined and ultimately caused by the Big Bang. The belief that you are the cause of your own choices is purely illusory. To argue otherwise is to extricate yourself from the causal nexus of the entire natural process and thereby make an argument for the existence of the soul.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:
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).

To put it bluntly, every choice you make is predetermined and ultimately caused by the Big Bang. The belief that you are the cause of your own choices is purely illusory. To argue otherwise is to extricate yourself from the causal nexus of the entire natural process and thereby make an argument for the existence of the soul.

Now you're playing "the Big Bang is your God" crap. I thought better of you.

 

 

"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


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

You have true empathy? You can actually feel my pain? Intresting. It would appear that you have evidence that our feelings (and therefore our feeling-awareness) are connected. You must be one of these New Age atheists like Sam Harris. Huh? 

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


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

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

You have true empathy? You can actually feel my pain? Intresting. It would appear that you have evidence that our feelings (and therefore our feeling-awareness) are connected. You must be one of these New Age atheists like Sam Harris. Huh? 

Electro-chemical triggers that respond to emotion (another electro-chemical process) that humans and some other animals can perceive. No worship or magic required.

It's easier for me to believe that you're just an insensitive jerk.

"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


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

Take a hissy fit if you must. But I must forewarn you that it will not change the facts - facts that I have already spelled out in my last post: "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 sufficient 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
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

Which logical error?

Your "consciouness is awarness is conscious-awareness is consciousness" circle?

or your habit of switching definitions of "faith" when someone calls you on the one you had been using?

or any of the others I can't think of right now?

I hope you are not expecting me to respond to that mess.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

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.

Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative.

My interpretation of life is quite positive, as I have thus far found a number of positive ways to enrich my time during my brief existence. I guess if anything, it is my view of death that is negative. But I can't imagine I'll be happy or miserable once I reach death, because I won't be able to feel anything at all. Besides, I aspire to be a cadaver in death, which I view as positive.

Paisley wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

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.

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

 

Now you're being dishonest with yourself. Your way of "making sense of life" has nothing to do with empirical observation or pursuit of true knowledge, but rather with just making up your own cushioned version of reality. I hardly think that qualifies as a rational approach.

 

 

 

 


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sapphire is a pediatric nurse who devotes her entire life to helping kids. I dare you to try turn that into something shallow.  

The question was addressed to Sapphire, not you. Why don't you give Sapphire the opportunity to speak for herself?

"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
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sapphire is a pediatric nurse who devotes her entire life to helping kids. I dare you to try turn that into something shallow.  

The question was addressed to Sapphire, not you. Why don't you give Sapphire the opportunity to speak for herself?

I did....but you didn't respond.  Look up.  My picture is pretty easy to notice.

"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!


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind wrote:Hey, I'm

SapphireMind wrote:
Hey, I'm glad you asked.  How am I helping...

I don't think I could do all that. You should be proud of yourself that you can though, it's brilliant work you're doing.

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


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I am proud of what I do, but

I am proud of what I do, but there are just as many different things that people do that they should be just as proud of that I couldn't do.  Even in the nursing world, I can't do geriatrics, especially alzheimer's care, because I'm too uncomfortable with my own aging. I can't do pediatrics (older kids) because it freaks me out too much because it could be my kid.  I can't do regular adult care because I just don't think I could.  But there are people who can do those things and they are heroes to me, especially those who do elder care with compassion.  I could never do that and I am very thankful that there are those who can and that they do it well. 

Everyone has an important job and makes the world go 'round.  Even the dude at McDonald's.  Without those guys, I wouldn't have caffeine and sugar to rev me up before my shifts and I might not be as chipper as normal without that.  It seems silly, but everyone's part in the system is valuable.  The environmental (janitorial) staff at our hospital is incredibly important, patient safety and staff comfort wise.  The kitchen staff is important to the families and the staff.  One of the cooks makes fresh cookies for the nightshifters, and we're all in a better mood for that.   Blah.  I'm a bit of a pollyanna, but I love what I do, and I am proud knowing I make a real difference in the world, but so does everyone else, it just isn't always as noticeable. 

"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!


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

Paisley wrote:

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.

Right. So you could just be making it all up. No way for me to find out. That's kind of frustrating.

Thanks for answering.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Well, spiritually speaking

"Well, spiritually speaking (to quote St. Francis), it is only by dying that we are born to eternal life. But we are talking about two different types of deaths."

There is only one kind of death.

"I see jealousy is an attribute of the ego-self, not God."

So you aren't a christian. After all, the bible says quite clearly that god is jealous.

"I'm making things up? Previously, you concurred that our eventual fate is certain oblivion. Now you seem to be changing your tune. Which one is it?"

You shifted the topic from you and I to humanity in general. I did not change anything.

"Okay, I'll demonstrate my foolishnessby choosing lifewhile you demonstrate your wisdom by choosing death. "

You will die forever whether you choose to or not. Get over it.

"To put it bluntly, every choice you make is predetermined and ultimately caused by the Big Bang."

No.

"The belief that you are the cause of your own choices is purely illusory."

I never said I was the cause for my choices, merely that I make choices.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"To argue otherwise is to

"To argue otherwise is to extricate yourself from the causal nexus of the entire natural process and thereby make an argument for the existence of the soul."

Ridiculous assertion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Faith is a gift from

Faith is a gift from Gorgamond. It created the universe to watch us suffer and one can see Gorgamond’s hand everywhere they look. In the universe Gorgamond created, there are countless ways to suffer so there are countless ways to entertain Gorgamond. i am the prophet of Gorgamond have faith in my words or suffer after death! Faith is awesome! Smiling

 


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

Luminon wrote:
Yeah, if that's what you mean, I can answer. An important "supernatural" power is acting behind the scenes of this world, acting upon the subconsciousness of people, to our benefit, but not to detriment of others. In this way, we can practically produce "lucky coincidences." For example, one may get a good job, get to a good school, meet a dreamed up lifetime partner, and so on. But they're not just lucky coincidences. For example, after certain sessions we had, two people involved lost their jobs that were not optimal for them, and a son of another was almost thrown out of school, for little reason. Or, if there is someone bullying us (typically a co-worker), then we can bring the balance between us. In practice it looks like something extreme happens to that person and he or she suddenly has other problems than harrasing us. But always, without perception, it is everything done in the right amount, not more than we or other people around deserve. It of course looks like a coincidence, lucky or unlucky, but the effects are very real and very needed in our situation. These "coincidences" of course do not happen, until we do the "supernatural" sessions.

Okay, interesting. Something extreme happens to the person who was bullying one of your circle ? And it wouldn't happen if you didn't have one of your sesions ? Sounds like good oldfashioned witchcraft.

Luminon wrote:
I thought that's obvious, by comparison. I don't have to tell everything about my experience at first, I can let others say it, and compare if it's similar or the same. It often is.

Ah yes, well..I'm not totally sure what you're into, but would I be correct in assuming that in your circle there's a lot of shared mythology ? I mean, a lot of reading of the same books, familiarity with the same concepts, terminology, etc... It wouldn't really be hard for any of them to make a good guess.

Luminon wrote:
Well, if you think so. But not all people are the same. For example, as long as I remember, I have lied only to protect myself or others. For example to guys at school - I bet you are still a virgin, admit it!!! Smiling
Otherwise, I really have no need to lie and I have met personally very, very few liars.

Okay, maybe lying's too harsh a term. But I'm sure you've met people who pretend to be someone/something they aren't. Sometimes out of necessity, or sometimes just because it's fun.

Luminon wrote:
People usually lie to get something. We people in our circle of friends get along fine, we people often understand each other better than their own families. We have all we need, we're not here to gain something, quite opposite, we're the ones being productive.

Of course you're gaining something. You said it yourself : a deeper understanding that you often can't find with your own family.

Luminon wrote:
"How it works", that's what is observed in reality on many cases of people. It would have weight even if it wouldn't match with theory, but it matches. It's in fact a law of resonance, if someone "resonates" with selfless aspiration, then attracts also pure and selfless forces, that provide accurate, but usually not very profitable information. It can be colloquially described as "a crow sits next to another crow".

Okay, I don't see how that's relevant. My bad, probably. I should have been more clear.

Luminon wrote:
And again, telling a real experience from someone's lie is done simply by comparison. It's just common sense, nothing else than policemen do, when they interrogate witnesses.

That would have to make your experience incredibly specific, and something that couldn't be guessed by someone who knows you and shares your beliefs.

Btw, Paisley answered the question, and he says no, it's impossible to tell the difference. See, that's what's so frustrating about trying to make sense of theism. There's a theist on every side of every question. *sigh*

Luminon wrote:
In case it's very important and someone's trustworthiness is in question (not only a person, but even a company or the company's products) we have a 'secret weapon'. There is a strongly clairvoyant person that helps us in these and other issues. This person cooperates with us in exchange for theoretical knowledge, that she needs to understand better her own abilities. It's very interesting, because that person does not study systematically, but only says one thing at a time, like "You have to explain me the Second Ray" but without knowing what the Second Ray actually is. Otherwise, she does not live in ivory tower, she has two university degrees, family and well-paid job, she does not need anything else from us than the bits of esoteric theory and ocassional working together.

I'm guessing she doesn't do lottery numbers either ? Sorry, I keep repeating this, but I'm really not trying to take the piss. I just think the same argument applies here. I mean, how can you know what she needs ? She gets to meet up with a group of people who take her "powers" seriously. Sounds like that would be fun for her. Make-believe for people who don't like to admit that that is what they're doing. Harmless fun. (I personally know a mensa-member who takes astrology serioulsy. She did my chart once. Very detailed, and it all turned out to be bollocks. But I'm sure she had fun making it)

Again, if that sounds condescending, I apologise. Heck, if you guys had zapped my bully a few years ago, I'd probably be in your group too.

Luminon wrote:
Well, you surely know it happens in classical medicine too...

People ending up dead instead of cured ? Sure. But in that case, it's the result of a medical professional not doing his/her job properly. Deaths caused by practioners of alternative medicine are just the natural result of what they do, which is nothing. Big difference.

But yeah, that's another thread entirely...


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

greek goddess wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative.

My interpretation of life is quite positive, as I have thus far found a number of positive ways to enrich my time during my brief existence. I guess if anything, it is my view of death that is negative. But I can't imagine I'll be happy or miserable once I reach death, because I won't be able to feel anything at all. Besides, I aspire to be a cadaver in death, which I view as positive.

But in your previous post you asked why "anyone needs to have a positive or hopeful outlook as opposed to a realistic one," which implies that the outlook you presently have on life is not actually a positive or hopeful one. Also, you stated previously that  you "agree that the fact that we cease to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful." It appears to me now that you are contradicting yourself. Which one is it? Do you believe that you have an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive or not?

greek goddess wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

 

Now you're being dishonest with yourself. Your way of "making sense of life" has nothing to do with empirical observation or pursuit of true knowledge, but rather with just making up your own cushioned version of reality. I hardly think that qualifies as a rational approach.

No, I am not being dishonest. Belief in the existence of a spiritual or divine reality is a metaphysical belief. Metaphysics itself is a branch of philosophy and the methodology of philosophy is rational thought. It is the task of metaphysics to construct a coherent worldview that makes sense of life and all that we experience.

"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
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You call it delusional; I call it making sense of life which seems to me to be the more rational approach.

so you believe in whatever you call God because it makes you feel good and gives you a positive emotional outlook - and you have the rocks to call that a rational approach?

The worldview of atheistic materialism is ultimately irrational because it views the world as utlimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The theist worldview is

The theist worldview is irrational because it presumes a state of existence which has not been observed as true, and often includes beliefs about reality that have been proven wrong.

There is no such thing as an atheist world view, as atheism is merely the rejection of theism. A rejection of a world view is not a world view in and of itself. Therefore it cannot be irrational.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

My issue with your group consciousness and pantheist beliefs has always been that you make conclusions without sufficient information. I have repeatedly told you that just because today  we don't understand certain things such as NDEs and most all of what you accept as proof of your beliefs does not mean that we won't understand it in the future. Wait and see. Since you don't believe in a god such as the Christian mythology why the need to jump to conclusions.

You say you accept and use the scientific method if so, remaining a skeptic until there is really something that can be understood and studied is the correct approach, not taking your personal experience alone as proof because it isn't repeatable and testable by others. If your group consciousness belief had validity or was well enough understood then anybody should be able to reproduce it. This means anybody, not a marginal science project by a proponent of the belief but by an outright detractor and unbeliever that considers your belief to be bullshit. Get Penn & Teller to reproduce it or anybody from this forum that considers your belief to be based in the land of fantasy. And it should not involve any mumbo jumbo at all but a specific scientifically followed process or path.

If you have a way to reproduce your proof be it personal experience or whatever that doesn't involve mumbo jumbo, meditation, hallucinogenic drugs or whatever please detail it. 

Evidently, you haven't been able to detect a logical error in my argument that atheistic materialism implies by logical necessity that our choices and intentional acts are purely illusory.

"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, you believe it applies equally to me because you believe that it applies equally to you and everyone else. The point I am making is that I don't see life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd; you do. 

 

We have never met and you tell me I think life is meaningless, purposeless and absurd. Excuse me? This is a projection of your personal reaction to the impossibility of understanding our position.

I'm afraid I understand your position better than you do. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which renders life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. If this is a source of contention for you, then I suggest you may want to rethink your outlook on life.

"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:

What exactly do you mean by process-oriented?

 

It means that I don't acknowledge the existence of static matter - "building blocks" if you like - only of processes.

Interesting. I don't have a problem with a processive view per se. I simply have a problem with an atheistic processive view. "Atheistic immaterialism" is an oxymoron.

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

There is nothing in my beliefs that prevents me from engaging in the scientific method.

Yes there is. You are a "believer". This will make your judgment biased. As you prove several times every day.

Everyone is a "believer" (and nonbeliever) in some sense and is therefore subject to bias. On this view, no one would be fit to do science.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Atheistic immaterialism" is

"Atheistic immaterialism" is an oxymoron."

In fact it is not. Plenty of atheists believe in the immaterial. You further demonstrate your lack of understanding as to what atheism is.

"Everyone is a "believer" (and nonbeliever) in some sense and is therefore subject to bias. On this view, no one would be fit to do science."

Except that scientists recognise their potential for bias. That's why they use peer review, and make concentrated efforts to eliminate bias from experimentation even before hypothesis are subjected to peer review.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Forthright yes,

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

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.

Take a hissy fit if you must. But I must forewarn you that it will not change the facts - facts that I have already spelled out in my last post: "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 sufficient evidence or proof."

 

But not a hissy fit. When I have a hissy fit, you'll know about it. I don't agree with your contention that you quote here yet again that supposes that faith in god and faith in things reliably proven by evidence can be compared. This assertion is just - silly. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow - it always has in my life. I have no faith in god/s operating in some invisble dimension. Why don't you get it? Too much invested in your belief system?

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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.

You have true empathy? You can actually feel my pain? Intresting. It would appear that you have evidence that our feelings (and therefore our feeling-awareness) are connected. You must be one of these New Age atheists like Sam Harris. Huh? 

If you have no belief in hell then I withdraw this point. I believe christians have an oxytocin deficiency. If you are not a born again fundy - your position remains unclarified - then this point dies not apply to you.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to pull your teeth on that one champ

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sapphire is a pediatric nurse who devotes her entire life to helping kids. I dare you to try turn that into something shallow.  

The question was addressed to Sapphire, not you. Why don't you give Sapphire the opportunity to speak for herself?

 

Sure Sapphire can speak for herself but if she is offended by me lauding her vocation, I'm sure she'll tell me about it.

 

 

 

 

"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
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

Why do you need faith to occupy the prime place. That life is ultimately based on faith? What's the ultimate destination of your eagerness to elevate something as ambiguous as the word faith? You still haven't defined faith for us as you see it? What are you talking about when you say the word faith? Be honest.

Faith is a nonsensory preception (or an intuitive sense) that engenders trust, hope, love, peace, wisdom,  vision, strength, bliss, acceptance, positive attitude, etc.  

 

 

"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: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Attention class

Does anyone have any idea what Paisley's beliefs are and why he goes to all this trouble, his position opaque, in support of the immaterial? If we are deluded and pointless, what is he doing here? If he's not a fundy, he's not going to score points with Jesus converting us, is he? Is h just here to argue for his own edification or to satisfy himself we still believe in the something? What this all about...anyone?

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok then but

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

My interpretation of life is more honest than yours because I fully acknowledge that it is ultimately based on faith.

Why do you need faith to occupy the prime place. That life is ultimately based on faith? What's the ultimate destination of your eagerness to elevate something as ambiguous as the word faith? You still haven't defined faith for us as you see it? What are you talking about when you say the word faith? Be honest.

Faith is a nonsensory preception (or an intuitive sense) that engenders trust, hope, love, peace, wisdom,  vision, strength, bliss, acceptance, positive attitude, etc.  

 

This is a thumping great sprawl of a definition. At least I know why you're arguing as you are. Let me digest this while I play Call of Duty.

 

 

 

 

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