what faith you

mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
what faith you

 

You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.

 

I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.

I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.

Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote:

Upside wrote:

Magus - Ok, I understand your position. I still think the same is true that I said to DG. That is that an experience or evidence that is directly connected with personal experience cannot be directly transfered from one human to another human. Since that is impossible, personal experience would need to occur to trigger or provide the evidence that you are requesting or demanding.

DG - I do not think your sequence of reasoning is accurate. I do not think that God or theology reduces man. Instead I think that man feels reduced compared to God. As an act of reverance or awe, a man can declare that he is nothing compared to the God he serves. Meph - he can speak for himself....but I would say that Meph has come to the realization that compared to God he is such a small creature on this small planet. Compared to God, Meph is not very powerful. Compared to God, Meph is not very ____, you fill in the blank.

The next question is why has Meph come to that realization or perspective? 1) Is it because he has applied the simple logic of: we are small, God is big.? Or 2) has he come to this realization and perspective through a personal experience which has provided what he deems to be solid evidence that the God he believes in, is real, and is powerful? Now, out of awe or reverance for how powerful he believes God to be, he as a Christians shows his this by humility in proclaiming his insignificance compared to God?

The simple statement, there is no God technically refutes everything I have said. And without the personal experience leading to evidence, it is hard for any of this to be real for anyone other than the human involved.

 

 

Upside,

I couldn't have said it better.

I think the bad experiences with me have been from half hearted or no hearted efforts, with this or work - such as if DG went at his job research half way - there is also the bad experience brushing with the other guy's half hearted thing and he brings his problem with him to the job or conversation.

It is a leap from the message to the experience - I mean there were some friends who had the experience (you could be talking about marriage here or hang gliding but I'm talking about faith in and relationship with God in Christ) and they told me about it, but it was nothing like experiencing it firsthand.

I have the experience like DG of wholehearted loving my work, never satisfied without making this detail or that better. I wonder DG if you have had a half hearted day at work and that experience was a bad one for you as for me. I'm not leading you here, but that is similar to the difference in faith in God - half hearted versis whole hearted, only it is much more dramatic in the faith experience, the difference I mean.

I mentioned hang gliding, and maybe there's an empirical similarity there too. There is a video on youtube: "hang gliding in Yosemite" which I think almost gives the empirical of hang gliding. I won't ever experience it first hand - even though I would really like to - because there are things too valuable to me that I wouldn't risk to have the empirical. I wonder if that is somewhat similar with many with faith. But I think it's a lot harder too to get across how much fun it is with faith. There's a part of it that is really hard to video.

Mephibosheth (remote to flight)


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod wrote:


Actually, Christian Theology claims that man is born marked for damnation except for his ability to save himself by begging and is hence worthless. Man is incapable of being a moral agent under Christianity since he cannot save himself except through faith. It commits, hence, an internal contradiction with the supposed notion of God "loving" man.

Being that Christian theology says that man is worthless from birth (as meph has established) per se and cannot save himself except through faith...I simply cannot see how on Earth you could claim that such theology could bring "joy", especially considering the mutual contradiction. See:


Actually, Christian theology as I described it was accurate, and was something I was already aware of before Meph reminded me of such by saying he was worthless without Christ, unless you can correct me. How could a theology which reduces man to such be construed as bringing joy?

 

 

Deludedgod,

The question you ask is stellar.

How could you view yourself as worthless if the God of the universe is willing to send His Son to die for you (the price He's willing to pay for you is the highest).

As for, "where's the fun in that?" - it's a matter of leaving delusion and coming to reality. The reality is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Man had the freedom to fall and did. We were born into that spiritually polluted environment. We have a problem we can't solve: a debt to God of our sin. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. God doesn't treat the problem lightly (look at what happened to His Son because of it), yet He is willing to do it because of His love for you and me. He is willing to make you a son. Jesus is ready to call you "friend". The father stands and watches the road for the prodigal to come home. The prodigal "comes to himself" in the pig lot, he decides he doesn't like his current master. He doesn't give two weeks notice, he flees.

The owner of the trees comes looking for fruit again this year and there is none. He tells the gardener, "cut it down", but the gardener pleads for another year. "Let me fertilize it, dig around it, try and loosen it's roots from the world, and if it doesn't have fruit next year, then we'll cut it down".

Neither the gardener nor you made the tree. You don't know how to make a tree or the fruit. You don't know how to make joy either. If you will loosen your roots from this world and your own prejudice against God and Jesus He will make the fruit of joy for you. "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life". Don't worry you'll have plenty to do if you do this. Faith in God requires your whole being. Accepting the reality of God orders everything in the right place, including your mind.

Actually God considers you worth more than you could ever consider yourself, and it's real. The devil would flatter you into a false state of security in yourself.

 

Mephibosheth (paid for)

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Don't pretend as if I do

Don't pretend as if I do not know the theology behind this such that I think it is nonsense anyway. You must realize the reason I remained silent was because there is no point in me discoursing on theology I already believe (unless the converse can be shown) to be false. Do we discourse on the finer points of Death Star Mechanics?

Quote:

How could you view yourself as worthless if the God of the universe is willing to send His Son to die for you (the price He's willing to pay for you is the highest).

Theistic claims make no sense whatsoever. No "price" is paid by such a supposed "sacrifice". After all, cognitive dissoncance can be overcome by a simple hypothetical:

Would You Go On The Cross?

Quote:

As for, "where's the fun in that?" - it's a matter of leaving delusion and coming to reality.

This is an ironic claim to make for someone whose arguments have hitherto been burned to ash and cinder. Truly, can such cognitive dissonance be overcome if the one engaging in it is so utterly locked in an epistemological foundation which makes no sense?

Quote:

The reality is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Yeah...no...not quite...modern cosmology. It does the Christian mind good:

The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology

Quote:

Man had the freedom to fall and did.

Hardly. Has not this issue of theological fatalism been done to death since, what, the days of Augustine himself! Do you truly think I have as of yet not encountered such defenses, and that, with the help of todangst, of course, refuted them?

The "Fall" commits an internal contradiction.

Quote:

We were born into that spiritually polluted environment.

This claim makes no sense from a metaphysics standpoint. Could you respond in such a way that assigns correct ontological categories to beings and entities you are attempting to class, with reference to intrinsic properties of such things, or for a more honest approach, at least a reference to Tillichian negative theology?

Quote:

We have a problem we can't solve: a debt to God of our sin.

Again, theistic claims make no sense. How can an entity have a debt to a being which has ultimate metaphysical control? It is analgous to saying that a conscious puppet on strings has a debt to his puppet master, which is inheretly absurd since the puppet master controls any and all action of the puppet and hence is

Please, please do not respond with the standard dull theodicy: Free will. At very least you could try for something slightly more respected like Iranaen theology. Such ad hoc notions do not go well in todays scientific epistemology. This is another steel bit in the mouth of the issue of Theological Fatalism, and the relationship of the nature of "debt" to a being which foreknew and fore-controlled such things. You will find that we have already dealt with such issues:

"The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience

Quote:

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Reading Iranaeus between the lines here...why must we be burdened of this? "Sin" is an ad hoc notion anyway, it does not make any sense in the context of Theological Fatalism, any more than the notion of free will makes any sense at all! Could you use words that are not incoherent?

Quote:

God doesn't treat the problem lightly (look at what happened to His Son because of it),

What problem? Again, given the Christian assertion regarding the nature of such a being, you are simply making up the problem. Furthermore, as per the first article, please adress precisely what "sacrifice" you refer to?

Quote:

yet He is willing to do it because of His love for you and me. He is willing to make you a son. Jesus is ready to call you "friend". The father stands and watches the road for the prodigal to come home. The prodigal "comes to himself" in the pig lot, he decides he doesn't like his current master.

Yeah...that sounds great, but there is a big problem. And please try to avoid emotional cognitive dissonance when I say this but there is no evidence of this. None. You are not within your epistemological rights to hold this position. Beliefs are beliefs regardless of volition. If I walk into a wall, I do not have the right to believe I did not, in fact, walk into a wall.

So try again, this time, with a proper epistemological model that makes claims and then adresses them according to the standard heirarchy of veracity of epistemological claims. I would suppose that your claim, as things stands, falls near the bottom, below "guess". And yet, you are treating it as if it belongs above the top of the heirarchy, above tautology, no less! In epistemological terms, this is High treason.

Tell me, is there some Maslowian need for you to do this to avoid such dissonance, or are you deliberately antagonizing me?

 


Quote:

You don't know how to make a tree or the fruit.

Give us twenty years, tops. We already know how to write genetic code. Give the rate of acceleration of base-pair sequencing as per Moore's Law, we shall create a tree for you, we shall write it as we would write a message in ink on paper.

Quote:

You don't know how to make joy either.

Yes I do. See, when I tell the guy who has a 25% chance of a terminal brain disease destroying his mind in 30 years that with siRNA vectors, we might be able to destroy the disease altogether...that's joy. What has your miserable Yahweh ever done to that order?

Quote:

If you will loosen your roots from this world and your own prejudice against God and Jesus He will make the fruit of joy for you.

The "prejudice" of which you speak is the request for a rational epistemological reason for believing in "X". That's not prejudice, that's thinking.

Quote:

Faith in God requires your whole being. Accepting the reality of God orders everything in the right place, including your mind.

Zzzt. Wrong. "Faith" by definition is a rejection of e

You may wish to review your epistemological rights:

What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking

It helps to know what your philosophical rights to believe X are. Judging by the theory of knowledge heirarchy:

 

Heirarchy Level

Description

Probability of Being True

Tautology

 A tautology is one of the foundational a priori truths I referred to. It is a logic statement from which anything can be derived. For example, A=A is a tautology.

 Absolute, by definition. Tautology is the only thing which we can confidently speak of as “absolute truth” because it is absolutely necessary to base all our knowledge on tautology.

Theorem (Mathematics)

 A mathematical theorem is proved solely by a priori reasoning, and is derived as such, for example, that the angles in a triangle add to 180 degrees is a theorem.

 Near absolute.

Law (Science)

 An established mathematical relationship between things which is considered to be of a more elevated status of truth claim than a scientific theory. Laws are not dynamic. They refer explicitly to a principle and are either true or they are false. They can always be summarized in a single line by mathematical equation. For example, Boyle’s Law states that the pressure and volume of an ideal gas are inversely proportional when temperature in Kelvin is constant. This sort of explicit nature makes a law very different from a theory, where a law is a single, stone, fact which represents a described relationship, a theory

 Very good. A law, when established empirically as a necessary mathematical relationship, is rarely overturned, provided that it was gleaned by the proper empirical processes that we may call it a law. Laws need to be derived from experimentation, which makes them different from mathematical truths, but once established laws rank on the scale of truth claims as between a theorem and a scientific theory.

Theory (Science)

 A scientific theory is a model of the world that has been confirmed through experiment, it describes the mechanisms of a phenomenon and the pheonomenon itself. A theory is dynamic, and is continually overturned or added to by more coherent descriptions of the world.

 Reasonable, depending on the theory. Theories are highly dynamic as bodies of knowledge. They are constantly being updated, modified, and sometimes, overturned completely.

Conjecture (Mathematics)

 A conjecture refers to a mathematical hypothesis that appears likely to

 Reasonable, but it cannot be used to derive proof of mathematical statements, since it is not formally proven itself.

Hypothesis (Science)

 

 No way of knowing

Theory (vernacular)

 

 No way of knowing

Guess

 This is where your belief goes, Meph

 No way of knowing, hence ZERO until such an epistemology is established

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

 

Honestly, theist claims make no sense.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


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

mephibosheth wrote:
deludedgod wrote:


Actually, Christian Theology claims that man is born marked for damnation except for his ability to save himself by begging and is hence worthless. Man is incapable of being a moral agent under Christianity since he cannot save himself except through faith. It commits, hence, an internal contradiction with the supposed notion of God "loving" man.

Being that Christian theology says that man is worthless from birth (as meph has established) per se and cannot save himself except through faith...I simply cannot see how on Earth you could claim that such theology could bring "joy", especially considering the mutual contradiction. See:


Actually, Christian theology as I described it was accurate, and was something I was already aware of before Meph reminded me of such by saying he was worthless without Christ, unless you can correct me. How could a theology which reduces man to such be construed as bringing joy?

 

 

Deludedgod,

The question you ask is stellar.

How could you view yourself as worthless if the God of the universe is willing to send His Son to die for you (the price He's willing to pay for you is the highest).

As for, "where's the fun in that?" - it's a matter of leaving delusion and coming to reality. The reality is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Man had the freedom to fall and did. We were born into that spiritually polluted environment. We have a problem we can't solve: a debt to God of our sin. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. God doesn't treat the problem lightly (look at what happened to His Son because of it), yet He is willing to do it because of His love for you and me. He is willing to make you a son. Jesus is ready to call you "friend". The father stands and watches the road for the prodigal to come home. The prodigal "comes to himself" in the pig lot, he decides he doesn't like his current master. He doesn't give two weeks notice, he flees.

The owner of the trees comes looking for fruit again this year and there is none. He tells the gardener, "cut it down", but the gardener pleads for another year. "Let me fertilize it, dig around it, try and loosen it's roots from the world, and if it doesn't have fruit next year, then we'll cut it down".

Neither the gardener nor you made the tree. You don't know how to make a tree or the fruit. You don't know how to make joy either. If you will loosen your roots from this world and your own prejudice against God and Jesus He will make the fruit of joy for you. "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life". Don't worry you'll have plenty to do if you do this. Faith in God requires your whole being. Accepting the reality of God orders everything in the right place, including your mind.

Actually God considers you worth more than you could ever consider yourself, and it's real. The devil would flatter you into a false state of security in yourself.

 

Mephibosheth (paid for)

 

 

 

As Jesus and God are one and the same - God offered himself to himself and, as such, lost nothing. Humanity is so valuable to God he gave up nothing for it.

As for your reality, you contradict your OP again. You're claiming knowledge about that which you earlier claimed can only be belief.

Man had the freedom to fall? That view conveniently forgets that God set up the situation so that the Fall was the only result - Adam and Eve only knew what good and evil were after they ate from the tree. Entrapment at its finest.

If the "owner of the trees" is as skilled at gardening as his son, he's looking for fruit out of season. He's just waiting to cut the trees down because he knows no better.

To be honest, meph, I feel sorry for you. You think your life is so worthless that you believe you must cede your existence to something else so you can be happy.

In order to have a good life, you've stopped living.

edit - Should've figured you'd beat me to it, DG. 

 

"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


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
Somewhere I missed movement

Somewhere I missed movement in the blog.  No responses to my last post, but now a resurgence of highly documented research.

I'd like to revisit my last post for any responses, if none, that will be that.  You mentioned silence due to discussing issue that didn't make sense.  The discussion of personal experience seems valid.

A belief in God, claims of theists make no sense?  However it is less of a stretch for me to believe all the equations and reasoning that you have provided?  I read based on the link you provided, one of the topics.   My reactions are impressed, overwhelmed, confused.  There are so many twists and turns in all of the logic, i'm sure a straight line could connect all of it, but I am not sure at the same time.  

Do you have a simpler version of all of these documents?  Are only the extremely studied and advanced members of this world able to gain the understanding you have of the theories?  What about those who don't fully understand them all?  Do you understand, I guess what is the point, to be able to directly define everything about existence that can be scientifically proven?  Everything as close to a law as possible?  Questions come in peace, but I don't understand the purpose of your pursuit man?   

 

Upside


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   The discussion

Quote:

 

The discussion of personal experience seems valid.

 

No it is not. When we discuss immediate-world epistemology, we refer to deriving knowledge of things based on experience, but sense of your immediate world is derived from an a priori reasoning foundation with a posteriori knowledge complementing it. You can gain absolute knowledge only through direct empiricism. Upon this, are built the methods of indirectly inquiring into the empirical world, and drawing conclusions. However, immediate experience is not valid grounds for holding conclusions which can only be drawn from indirect empirical methodology. If I experience drinking water, I am not suddednly in possession of the necessary knowledge to conclude that water is made of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. For conclusions to be drawn about the phenomenon behind the experience in question, the experience per se is not valid grounds for deriving such knowledge! Personal experience can only give us direct knowledge of the immediate world. We cannot draw upon mechanisms as a result. If I "feel" the perception associated with "being close to God" I am not within my epistemic rights to believe that it is the result of God anymore than it is the result of chemicals in the pineal gland which simulate such an experience. The only way to derive mechanism of phenomenon is by an indirect empirical methodology, like science.

Quote:
 

A belief in God, claims of theists make no sense?  However it is less of a stretch for me to believe all the equations and reasoning that you have provided? 

Because you can check the validity of my claims yourself, whereas because theism results from incoherency and "personal experienc" no such similiar epistemological foundation is present. You aren't supposed to take what I say at face value! You are supposed to research it yourself. I am within my epistemic rights when I present such mathematical equations.

Also, simply because you, being a human hence with the capacity for reason, can check for fallacy or egregious falsehoods in my work yourself. That is why I post it.  

 

When we speak of epistemic rights, we speak essentially of, given our knowledge of the world, what do we have the right to believe. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless of volition. If I just walked into a wall, I do not have the epistemic right to believe I did not just walk into a wall. We are not speaking of rights in the political sense. If I run into a wall, and choose to believe that this did not happen, I have the political right to do this. Stormtroopers are not going to swoop down on me for choosing to believe this. However, that does not mean I have the epistemic rights to believe this. Epistemic rights depend on a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world. A valid epistemology needs to consider:

1)      What elements support my view?

2)      What is the relationship between the direct evidence I can observe and the conclusions I can draw?

3)      How watertight is my method for gaining data upon which I make conclusions? Is it a fair method of gathering data?

4)      Do I ignore or acknowledge elements that refute my view? Do I focus on only elements which verify my view?

5)      Is the a priori foundation of the argument valid? Is there logical fallacy in the argument?

6)      Am I bifurcating? Is my proposition set up as a challenge to a pre-existing claim, and then evidence for it produced only by attempted refutation of the opposition? (This is the reverse of 4)

7)      What foundation of data from others do I base my knowledge claims on? Does this data go through steps 1-6? Is this data a valid epistemological foundation?

My view conforms to this. Meph's does...not. 

Quote:

There are so many twists and turns in all of the logic

What twists and turns do you speak of? Or are you just asserting?

Quote:

 Do you understand, I guess what is the point, to be able to directly define everything about existence that can be scientifically proven?

This sentence is grammatically incoherent. I do not understand it.  

Quote:

 Do you have a simpler version of all of these documents?

*shrugs*. It was hard enough to cut them down by the amount that I did. Actually, that one you refer to (the cosmology paper is the only one with equations) is actually quite a simple piece of work. I suspect you are simply put off by the equations. Don't be. 

 

 

[   

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


antistokes
antistokes's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-10-21
User is offlineOffline
ah, faith

it always did confuse me, even when i was a christian.

just because you want something to be true, does not make it true. gravity will work regaurdless of your faith that you can fly, say.

personally, i think the idea of a god strips the world of its intrinsic beauty and purpose (which would be to NOT die, basically). i was much more depressed as a christian than i am as an atheist. the idea of god, afterlife, etc, downplayed the importance of this world (you know, the real one?) and i think that is borderline criminal.

what also facinates me, and this may be slightly off-topic, is the ability of the human mind to lie to itself. the fact that people can firmly believe things that are blantly untrue seems to be to be one of the great neurological myteries of our times.

so: can we think of an evolutionary advantage that lying to ourselves to such a dramatic extent may confer? and yes, i did read the god delusion, but i think dawkins was streaching himself a bit in that section.

"Everything is entropy, everything is statistical, everything is random."
"Entropy is god. Under certain conditions, god will look like deltaG."
"We wouldn't have god if it wasn't a state function!" D. Gerrity


Shadrach
Shadrach's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
i cant prove there is no

i cant prove there is no santa clause either, but i would believe in him before god. atleast i see st. nick every year at the mall.

god is never around...ever.


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for the post

Thank you for the post DG/ANTISTOKES.  I hear what you are saying, I understood this last post.   I find your reasoning valid.  Then again how could I not, it is direct logic.  These are the lines I draw from what you said, correct me if I am wrong:

epistemology --> Experience

absolute knowledge --> direct empiricism

immediate experience -> not valid grounds for absolute knowledge, since it can only be drawn from indirect epist..  

This line of reasoning just points out that, it can't be proven that a person had an experience with God unless God reaches out and phsycially interacts in some way.  Unless he provides valid direct empiricism.  That word has been thrown around a ton, and I am currently looking for a thesaurus.  Otherwise to say that a person had an interaction with God may be just misinterpreted.  This instead could be chemicals in the brain causing "experience."  Someone may say, "God really helped me through that."  Well what if your parent also was nearby helping, maybe your parent actually did the help.  Clearly much room for doubt and skepticism there.  

Ok, human mind lies to itself, I agree.  Then how do we know when it isn't lying?  It sounds like an argument that will get caught in an infinite loop.  Direct empiricism for example; it is all relative to the determination of the mind.  If brain is functioning properly, no mind disorder or drugs, you may contend that direct empiricism is not questionable, it is absolute.  

Your search is for absolute proof.  The whole faith and theism topic isn't built on that in today's world.  Although there are many who would argue that they have absolute proof, but it is not in the way you describe absolute proof.  The belief that there have been absolute proof in the past and the historical accounts that the Christians hold as true.  It is built on the fact or possibility that there consists more than matter and objects in this world.  More than scientific equations and math based formula.  Absolute proof cannot be provided for things of spiritual world or things outside of matter.  If you dig into my arm you will find veins.  It is very possible that you know how many you would find.  You can't do the same for spiritual world.  So what?  Deny any existence of this?  There surely isn't any equations for this part of the puzzle.  

Depression - downplayed importance of the world.  I agree again.  Christians, a select number, say the world is bad - avoid anything that might be bad in it.  Yuck.  That's a problem.  I guess the real question with the world is does it make one happy to have all the material wealth and possessions possible.  Well yes it does.  For a little bit.  Ever remodel your house, put in a nice new set of carpet in all the rooms or get a new car?  Then you spend the next year just admiring and enjoying that article of possession?  Not me, I start to notice all my walls need painted.  My Jeep would look better with a set of 35" tires.  So there would be a balance, where a "Christian" would really need to say, the world is not bad, but everything in it isn't going to make me happy.  It is actually commen sense and logic mixed in with greed, etc.  

 

My suggestion made in last post was the one that you found to be gramatically unsound.  It was that the documents you reference have "twists and turns."  This meaning that they are not easy to follow or comprehend.  When documents are created in such a way, although considering myself to be of solid intellect, I come away feeling as if the author is trying to confuse rather than inform.  Surely the large majority does not operate or attempt to bust through the equations and suggestions in those documents.  If you want me to try or others to try, they would be organized in a modulized manner.  However, if you operate at a superior and high level of reasoning, then simplifying and organizing may be a task outside of your capability.   I don't say that as a slam, even if you were worried about that, but if these documents are out there to help others - they aren't written in a way that most or many or few could begin to comprehend.  I admit I have not at this time spent any time processing through all of the claims and calculations.   

You and I are on this world man.  We're made of a bunch of blood, water, bones, muscles, and I have a scale which tells me what % i'm most of.  Everything of me, if put on a chop block can be explained.  My brain is the light switch.  Some are brighter than others.  Then what else exists?  Do you believe of the spiritual world?  Or ashes to ashes.  Dirt to blood and bones?  There is a gap I see in your asolute truth and reasoning.  Unless you explain every experience as a function of your brain's chemistry?  A mind that as Antistokes says, "the human mind lies."  Then every experience is a function of a mind that isn't dependable for things outside of matter and physical composition.  This leaves much to explanation.  Christian, theist, atheist regardless of your stamp, what is left when your blood drains and your body crumbles?  

 

 

 

Upside


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote: I can barely

Upside wrote:

I can barely handle the text editor in this blog, having to pick heading, paragraph, etc is already discouraging me.  Can someone fix that?

Upside,
There's no need to choose format.
The format of my post, which you are reading, is the default

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You are still missing the

You are still missing the point. Epistemology is not experience. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. THe point, which you ignored, that I made, was that direct experience of phenomenon cannot provide knowledge of the underlying mechanism. If I drink water, that does not provide me with the knowledge that water is H20, and that this H20 is affecting my tongue through electrical signals being transferred through the glassopharngyl nerve. Epistemology of empericism refers to experience, and there is no way to conclude from immediate experience what generates the experience. The only way to do that is an inductive indirect method, such as science, so the idea of something being "outside testing" is an absurdity. If we cannot test a phenomenon, then our conjecture has no actual evidence, since the "experience" is not evidence of what generates the underlying mechanism. So, since it is asserted that this incoherent spirit world is outside the limit of human epistemology it is pure assertion. By definition, it is outside human epistemology, nothing can be provided to support it, so why speak of such things?

And no, I do not believe in the "spirit". There are relatively obvious problems with concluding in the existence of something "outside" the empirical world. I outlined/refuted such here:

All a posteriori Arguments For the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

Also, the idea of something "outside" the empirical world "causing" something presents an impossibility, as I have shown:

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


antistokes
antistokes's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Ok, human mind lies to

Ok, human mind lies to itself, I agree.  Then how do we know when it isn't lying?  

 well, as my old pchem prof said, "We saw it again and again, so we called it a Law." statistics are how we generally tell lies from truths, and MULTIPLE, REPEATABLE expeiments (can't really do statitistics on a single data point). also, if i try your experiement and get a different result, you can bet i'm publishing a whup-ass followup study.

do i beleive in something i can't measure? on the other hand, i also think that the cat is neither dead NOR alive. sometimes the equations tell us strange things about the nautre of realility on its smallest, most fundamental scales. 

 

and these equations say that reality is statistical in nature. 

 There surely isn't any equations for this part of the puzzle. 

i would say that i have faith in the equations, but i know what faith is (though i am still struggling to define it) from my parents (my daddy was a minister). i would at least maintain that the equations are more beautiful than anything a faith or religion can come up with. but then, isn't that usually so with the truth?

i think faith is something that is extreamly addictive and hard to let go of. 

i will also maintain that there is a neurological corrolate for the mind. i do not deny the exsitance of the mind, clearly some sort of delocaliczed, time dependant electrical event(s) with lots of feedback loops.  

these is so an equation(s), and i'd rather have an equation than a soul. 

worship, however, i'll give to you-- but i should mention that i'm with modest mouse -- "We are our own damn gods".

and we don't like taking that kind of responsibility, do we?  

"Everything is entropy, everything is statistical, everything is random."
"Entropy is god. Under certain conditions, god will look like deltaG."
"We wouldn't have god if it wasn't a state function!" D. Gerrity


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

 

Truly, can such cognitive dissonance be overcome if the one engaging in it is so utterly locked in an epistemological foundation which makes no sense?

This claim makes no sense from a metaphysics standpoint. Could you respond in such a way that assigns correct ontological categories to beings and entities you are attempting to class, with reference to intrinsic properties of such things, or for a more honest approach, at least a reference to Tillichian negative theology?


Please, please do not respond with the standard dull theodicy: Free will. At very least you could try for something slightly more respected like Iranaen theology. Such ad hoc notions do not go well in todays scientific epistemology.

Reading Iranaeus between the lines here...why must we be burdened of this? "Sin" is an ad hoc notion anyway, it does not make any sense in the context of Theological Fatalism, any more than the notion of free will makes any sense at all! Could you use words that are not incoherent?

Yeah...that sounds great, but there is a big problem. And please try to avoid emotional cognitive dissonance when I say this but there is no evidence of this. None.

You are not within your epistemological rights to hold this position. Beliefs are beliefs regardless of volition. If I walk into a wall, I do not have the right to believe I did not, in fact, walk into a wall.

So try again, this time, with a proper epistemological model that makes claims and then adresses them according to the standard heirarchy of veracity of epistemological claims. I would suppose that your claim, as things stands, falls near the bottom, below "guess".

And yet, you are treating it as if it belongs above the top of the heirarchy, above tautology, no less! In epistemological terms, this is High treason.

Tell me, is there some Maslowian need for you to do this to avoid such dissonance, or are you deliberately antagonizing me?

Give us twenty years, tops. We already know how to write genetic code. Give the rate of acceleration of base-pair sequencing as per Moore's Law, we shall create a tree for you, we shall write it as we would write a message in ink on paper.

 

DG,

Honestly DG, you remind me of Jason Garfield juggling 10 clubs with attitude - (latin and philosophical terms instead). It's impressive I'll admit - and I'm sure it takes a lot of time to learn and practice to maintain. And you seem to do it with expression.

Think of the difference between this and God's grace: God chooses those who are last in education, social standing, morals - He forgives the greatest sin to make the brightest saint. There are those who are last that will be first. Grace came down.

On your hill you have performance first - DG's juggling, comedy hour, trivial pursuits, brain parade, extreem fighting, dirty dancing.

On our hill we have grace.

People like it.

I like it.

Jesus approached the stage thing different than you and yours. He redefined performance. Even Jesus glorified God - not Himself. The parade was only on the way to die for us. They piped but He didn't dance - to the performance music.

When you take away all the glitter of performance is there substance there? I don't find it - only an appearance of substance, reference to substance, boasting of substance, substance in another language, promised substance, another place and time substance.

You also remind me of guys who tell tall stories about how fast they have done construction jobs - how much, how quick, how good. But when I'm there it's normal speed or I have to re-do it. You did such and such and refuted such and such - did I see it? Do it again?

Are you far enough away from home to be such an expert? You might fool those who haven't experienced the substance of God's grace in Jesus. Fortunately I have and am not impressed with the performance. I see who glory is supposed to go to in your performance. I'm dazzled, but not nourished by your sophistry.

 

Mephibosheth (not a TV/movie guy)

PS (BTW - the "20 years tops joke" was the funniest I've heard in a long time. It'll be eternally funny)

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As I said before, I care

As I said before, I care not for confusing and meaningless metaphor which injects nothing into the prose. THere are two types of people in the world:

Those who can argue and defend their positions

Those who cannot

While it is interesting that you accuse me of using a smokescreen to cover lack of substance, you merely assert this claim, yet cannot point out any of the flaws in the arguments I present.

Contrasting, I can rip your claims asunder seconds after you post, and it takes me seconds of effort.

You maintain a veil of posting quality by injecting prose which may sound nice but has no meaning. So, henceforth, I shall expect you write with honest lucidity.

Perhaps you have not heard that term before. I would be unsuprised. If you are going to claim I am presenting sophistry, you must counterrefute me. That is how a rational debate works. You assert being unimpressed by my arguments. Fine. Then do as I have done to you, bored and without effort: Refute me. No seriously. I am waiting. I have all the time in the world.

Quote:

(BTW - the "20 years tops joke" was the funniest I've heard in a long time. It'll be eternally funny)

It is not a joke. Perhaps you should learn about Moore's Law and its relation to base pair coding, study developmental biology, study evolutionary biology, study biomimickry, and then, when you are so qualified that you have the right to comment on what we can do...then, you can scorn it. Until then, don't even bother. Just don't ta;l regarding that which you know you don't know.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
DG, I do not think you can

DG, I do not think you can honestly make the claim that, "you do not like providing information in a confusing manner."  That would also mean that you do not take great pride in your vast knowledge.  If you had no pride in your vast knowledge, your philosophical documents would be written much more simpler.  As I have stated, you are very intelligent, you could produce a document that even the least intelligent human could comprehend.  You have chosen to write in a manner that will confuse 98% of those who read it.  That is the claim I have made.  If you can honestly tell me that you write your documents in a way to lower your self in a means of helping others understand, which shows humility and not an overwhelming sense of pride, then I will withdraw all of my statements and take your word. 

Why is it worthwhile to discuss things for which we cannot provide proof?  This is all relative to one's perspective, you know that.  I don't think people/person's should talk about what all the "spirit" or spiritual world is going to do.  You are right, we have no means of intelligent understanding of how that would work since it is outside our realm of understanding.  I'm not sure there is a great need to talk about such things, but to deny their existence is going a step further.

Now you have limited your understanding to what you can see and then perform statistical analysis on.  What if you lose your vision man?  Then you have become unable to experience the only element of this world that exists or that you are willing to accept based on science? 

I feel as in debating, if the nature of the debate may get ugly, as I do not feel like I am positively providing encouraging information DG.  I do not like this, but worth mentioning.

Antistokes - Multiply repeated experiments, still have a flaw.  Have you tried keeping a log of the times you have used your mind's perception, and for those times, did the next occurrence create the same result?  Was the result correct?  How do you know the result was correct?  

Antistokes - you have uncovered or stated my feeling of how your philosophy is lacking.  You rely on yourself to be your own God?  How does that work?  So outside of what I can think of and gather is the extent of everything?  I agree if we are our "own damn Gods," we are most certainly going to be blind to anything outside of that tunnel vision thinking. 

Philosophy has little meaning.  If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job.  Very hard to find.  Very little value in philosophy.  I can wrap all kinds of reasoning and deduct anything I want that will support my philosophy. 

I have a black Jeep, I used to have a black convertible car.  They aren't real expensive, who cares if they were.  No birds in sight, clear day, I clean my car/jeep and wax it.  When i'm done, at least 5 times this has happened ( i only wax cars 3 times a year) a bird comes by and takes a large shit on my clean vehicle.  Birds NEVER crap inside my car when I have the convertible top down?  They don't like dropping their load where they can't see the product?  The result, is too beautiful for them, that they would rather crap and put a big huge white dash on a hood where only black exists.  Why would a bird do that?  I have my own ideas?  I think birds have fun taking their craps?  I like pissing off of bridges, and watching my urine splash into the river.  If it is dark it isn't as fun, I can't see it.  Why does a bird enjoy dirtying a black car?  I've surely digressed, and you may not find any point in this paragraph.  On top of that the grammar may be lacking ;o)  I admit telling that story is fun, and even more fun would be using a large shotgun to blast the bird as it is flying away after dropping its load. 

{edited for readability}

Upside


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If you are having trouble

If you are having trouble with some of the terms, use this:

Deludedgod's Philosophical Dictionary

Quote:

Philosophy has little meaning. If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job. Very hard to find. Very little value in philosophy. I can wrap all kinds of reasoning and deduct anything I want that will support my philosophy.

Excuse me? That is utter nonsense. Philosophy is humanity's most important intellectual activity, apart from science. You cannot reason or deduce any and all philosophical position that you desire. I have no idea where you got this misunderstanding. YOu can reason falsely into a position, but if you do that, someone else will point it out.

And just because having a PhD in philosophy makes it difficult to get a job does not mean the activity is worthless.

This may be the most absurd and insulting statement I have ever read. A spit on man's intellectual capacity.

BTW- its deduce.

Also, your posts are very hard to read.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


antistokes
antistokes's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-10-21
User is offlineOffline
If you get a doctorate

If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job.  Very hard to find.

lol, not for me, i'm getting mine in chemistry.

people always need good chemists, because chemistry works. my eventual plans are for neuroimaging (right now i'm doing biophysics). we'll see about your little "faith" state then. 

Antistokes - Multiply repeated experiments, still have a flaw.  Have you tried keeping a log of the times you have used your mind's perception, and for those times, did the next occurrence create the same result?  Was the result correct?  How do you know the result was correct?

i've got some plans towards that goal. they involve three dimentional time resolved imgaing studies of live neural networks on resonable timescales-- without employing labels that are cytotoxic so the studies may be done in vivo (sorry, that's a sticking point for me. so much of what we know about mental dynamics is based on technology that is useless of observation of live systems). there's some interesting work about 3D cell culture experiments in nature methods that acutally give me hope for these goals. 

anways, the last person to leave my lab went to a postdoc at MIT, so i'm not too concerned about 'finding a job'.  

as for knowing if the result was correct, all ya gotta do is ask someone else. again-- all i ask for is repeatable results. that someone else can do, and get the same answer as me.

but you know what? i think you just want the universe to be w strange, weird, inexplicable place, possible with a side dish of intent.

only humans do intent. it's hardwired into the our brains to want to change the world-- and when we can't, like with your birds, we try to invent something that lets us change the world to our liking. lucky items of clothing, prayer to a 'high power' that is 'on our side, the side of good'.  

but the good new is that the universe is weird. 

I agree if we are our "own damn Gods," we are most certainly going to be blind to anything outside of that tunnel vision thinking. 

hp lovecraft had some good stories on this one, about orthogonal realities and devices that might let us sense them. all i got are five senses and faulty wiring to integrate the signal and spit something back out at the world that will grow and change and survive. if there is a mind or a soul to be found, it depends on the interactions and inputs it gets from our shared enviroment.  

what does it mean to be your own god? it means you take reponsiblity for what small amout of change and growth you do in this world.  and you accept that life is not in your control, not in anyone's control. life is based on random events, and, as my inorganic TA once told me, 'entropy drives more processes than you can possilby imagine' ( i think she may have been a jedi).

 

"Everything is entropy, everything is statistical, everything is random."
"Entropy is god. Under certain conditions, god will look like deltaG."
"We wouldn't have god if it wasn't a state function!" D. Gerrity


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote: DG, I do not

Upside wrote:

DG, I do not think you can honestly make the claim that, "you do not like providing information in a confusing manner." That would also mean that you do not take great pride in your vast knowledge. If you had no pride in your vast knowledge, your philosophical documents would be written much more simpler. As I have stated, you are very intelligent, you could produce a document that even the least intelligent human could comprehend. You have chosen to write in a manner that will confuse 98% of those who read it. That is the claim I have made. If you can honestly tell me that you write your documents in a way to lower your self in a means of helping others understand, which shows humility and not an overwhelming sense of pride, then I will withdraw all of my statements and take your word.

I don't think DG writes in a confusing manner. In fact I enjoy reading most of what he writes, and have learned quite a lot. Heres is tip for those who want things in simpler terms, ask questions. I can't stress that enough. If you don't understand something quote DG, and ask him to explain it better. But instead of doing that you just assert that its hard to understand.

Upside wrote:

Why is it worthwhile to discuss things for which we cannot provide proof? This is all relative to one's perspective, you know that. I don't think people/person's should talk about what all the "spirit" or spiritual world is going to do. You are right, we have no means of intelligent understanding of how that would work since it is outside our realm of understanding. I'm not sure there is a great need to talk about such things, but to deny their existence is going a step further.

You assert that the spirit exists and then you assert it is outside our realm of understanding. How is it that you know anything about it if it is outside our realm of understanding?

Upside wrote:

Now you have limited your understanding to what you can see and then perform statistical analysis on. What if you lose your vision man? Then you have become unable to experience the only element of this world that exists or that you are willing to accept based on science?

We have 5 senses, visions is just one of them.

Upside wrote:

I feel as in debating, if the nature of the debate may get ugly, as I do not feel like I am positively providing encouraging information DG. I do not like this, but worth mentioning.

Antistokes - Multiply repeated experiments, still have a flaw. Have you tried keeping a log of the times you have used your mind's perception, and for those times, did the next occurrence create the same result? Was the result correct? How do you know the result was correct?

Yes experiments have flaws, human error, unknown factors, however science grows when those flaws are discovered.

Upside wrote:

Antistokes - you have uncovered or stated my feeling of how your philosophy is lacking. You rely on yourself to be your own God? How does that work? So outside of what I can think of and gather is the extent of everything? I agree if we are our "own damn Gods," we are most certainly going to be blind to anything outside of that tunnel vision thinking.

Please define god? Now this is just confusing.

Upside wrote:

Philosophy has little meaning. If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job. Very hard to find. Very little value in philosophy. I can wrap all kinds of reasoning and deduct anything I want that will support my philosophy.


So finding a job is the only thing of value in an education?


Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth wrote: As in,

mephibosheth wrote:
As in, "come down off the Cross and I'll believe?"

As in show me some evidence. Any. I want to see what you believe is sufficient evidence for a belief in a being that is beyond belief. 


Arkanrais
Arkanrais's picture
Posts: 109
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I have been following this

I have been following this thread since start and the shortly followed train wreck it has become.

mephibosheth, I will thank you not on my behalf, but on the behalf of all the anonymous viewers who have read through this thread and seen the lack of substance on your part and the constant efforts from deludedgod and others to get you to put forth a coherant argument on your part. It is often forgotten that the main point of debates like these is not to convince your opponent of what you are arguing but to convince the audience and I am very confident that the many people who have been debating you have been doing an upstanding job of doing so.

with your latest posts, you seem to be making as much sense as Chef brian.

I have read 2 or 3 of deludegod's articles on this website and a large number of his posts and although thre are a few things in them that I don't understand, it doesn't mean I will discount whatever he has said because of a small discrepancy on my part.

to me, it seems you are being either very dishonest or there is something very wrong with your mental facilities.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:

mephibosheth wrote:
As in, "come down off the Cross and I'll believe?"

As in show me some evidence. Any. I want to see what you believe is sufficient evidence for a belief in a being that is beyond belief.

 

CE,

Hagar cried out and the Lord opened her eyes to the well - it was there, but she couldn't see it.

Cry out.

Zechariah ask the angel, "How shall I know this?" He gave him evidence in his not being able to speak until the promised birth.

That would turn DG into a works bomb.

Gideon received a sign concerning his fleece's humidity level.

Do point: dat true.

Paul said God's eternal power and deity have been clearly perceived in the things which have been made - man is smart enough to not have an excuse here.

You plugged your computer in.

The carpenter stretches a line, he marks it out with a pencil; he fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.

He cuts down cedars; or he chooses a holm tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest; he plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it.

Then it becomes fuel for a man; he takes a part of it and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread; also he makes a god and worships it, he makes it a graven image and falls down before it.

Half of it he burns in the fire; over the half he eats flesh, he roasts meat and is satisfied; also he warms himself and says, "Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!"

And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol; and falls down to it and worships it; he prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for thou art my god!"

They know not, nor do they discern; for He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their minds, so that they cannot understand.

No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire, I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted flesh and have eaten; and shall I make the residue of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?"

Do you see the elephant in the room here? The guy wants a sign. Vila gets out the fine tuned clearance alignment adjuster and does it himself.

My Bible starts out, "In the beginning God..." Batteries included, no assembly required.

 

Mephibosheth - (turn it on)

 

 

"And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply"

"So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why"

"He said you look like a fine unpstanding young man, I think you'll do"

"So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you"

"woah!"

 

"Sign Sign everywhere a sign"

"Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind"

"Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign"

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You can't use the BuyBull

You can't use the BuyBull until you prove it true.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Meph

Meph

THe quality of your posts has been declining rapidly. You jumped from vague meaninglessness to fundamentalism...to, well, your last post is shockingly lacking any lucidity. It literally makes no sense. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but there is no thread. There is no underlying coherency. The sentences appear to be gramatically sensible, but are syntactically broken. It looks like English, but it is almost impossible to discern due the number of category errors and statements which have no logical predicates.

Know that I am not exaggerating in any way when I say that youexude symptoms of the cocaine addicts. Cocaine is a stimulant, affecting not just the electrophysiology of the CNS, but also mental functioning (as well as causing tachycardia and arrythmia). The patients, while high, would ramble. They would string words and ideas together, but they would not make any sense. In the same way, I truly cannot follow anything you are saying. I am actually starting to be quite concerned for your mental health, since you seem incapable of doing what we assume is a normal part of human contact: lucid communication. Worse then cocaine addicts, you remind me of people with the neurological disorder called aphasia, where patients would lost the ability to construct logical sentences with proper subject and object and such, and would start talking grammatically correct nonsense such as "the calender switched on the tennis ball". Have you contracted a neurological disorder in the rather short interval since your last miscarraige of prose? Aphasia can be caused by TIA, stroke, or associated neurological trauma. Has this been the case with you? Shouldn't you be in hospital if so?

[Disclaimer: This is intended solely as satire. It is not, in any way, shape or form, an implication that my interlocutor should genuinely seek medical advice, nor am I giving implying that he genuinely has aphasia or any associated neurological disorder. It is simply a joke]

Go through this thread and read everything you have written. Everything. Nearly 100 posts, in all, just in this thread. Not once (and I just re-read every single one of them) did you manage to construct a single coherent thought. I'm suprised you still have command over sentences.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or is talking

Is it just me or is talking to Meph like banging your head against a brick wall?


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

meph wrote:

"My Bible starts out, "In the beginning God..." Batteries included, no assembly required."

All you have to do is provide the same amount of imagination to believe as the writers did to create it.

Imagination. Completely human, completely natural. No God required - in fact, a god or gods is often the end result.

"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


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
My last post was a rushed

My last post was a rushed attempt to respond to several items.  I spent 5 minutes throwing it together.  Haste makes waste, is a popular saying.  Based on a lot of the responses directed at my last post, this small saying proved true in most all of your opinions.

First, congratulations Antistokes on your degree in Chemistry.  There are many things you will be able to do with that degree.  If you ever settle down and want less of a challenge you can pull in over 90k as a pharmacist.  Forge ahead with that degree there are some great rewards.  

My statements about philosophy were accurate from the sense of difficulty that comes with finding a job once you obtain a doctorate or other lower level degree in philosophy.  That does not mean it is worthless, although I did say that there was little value in philosophy, I will get to what I meant by that in a second.  If you get a degree in philosophy your potential to be successful will not be hindered by this degree, in fact, the education and intelligence you gain will be highly useful in your life as well in your potential career.  In making the statements I made I should not have presumed that others would infer those statements, especially in a debate forum.

I find value in philosophy.  I use logic and reasoning every day, and there are times when this is very enjoyable.  I do not find value in philosophy when a topic is debated and there are strong claims made that don't include the entire picture. 

Again you have derived that there is not a God, and outside of anything scientific and philosophical (can be derived using reason and absolute truth), there is nothing included as part of philosophical debates.  I feel when aspects of our existence that are discounted which a large portion of the population deem true, then the value of the philosophy has degraded and lowered in value.  For example I mentioned spiritual world.  I am not talking about a "holy spirit," I merely mentioned spiritual world and its existence.  The possibility of this was immediately destroyed.  It would be like me totally throwing out all of your philosophical documents and study as false.  You can argue that your documents are backed by science and can be proven.  Spiritual world statements I cannot argue that, however there are many people who would attest to such existing.  This would go beyond drug addicts or members of our population who have been inflicted with a mind disorder from birth. 

All have mentioned that you could ask someone else if you wanted to validate something you were thinking.  So if asking a population if they had any encounters with a spiritual event, it would be out of the realm of possibility because the spiritual event would not fit the absolute truth and empirical reasoning, then I would be asserting.  I have caught on to the rules in this realm. 

I don't wish for a strage universe, I live in a strange universe.  I believe that everyone in some way is weird, and the person who may be the most weird would be the person who denies being weird.  I like to think out of the box, I am natually examine and observe things that may be weird to others.  There are many more things that are weird about me.  There are facial expressions and poses in this site that I have found weird, but then again - not half as weird as some of the thoughts I am capable of having as a human.

I could care less about convincing an audience.  I have said from the beginning that I am not an undercover missionary or an undercover creature of the dark.  I don't have intentions to slap anyone with the "Truth."  I only put that in quotes because not everyone in this site believes the so called truth to be the truth - so I am respecting your beliefs by doing so. 

 So I am not trying to slap anyone with the this "Truth."  If the "Truth" is so powerful and it wanted to slap someone with the truth it could do it all by itself, and it wouldn't necessarily use me to do it. 

Doctor DG are you a doctor by the way?  Do you take patients right over the blog?  Was the diagnosis and medical treatment you so prescribed over the blog - part of your normal professional procedure? 

There are many things I have observed, some visible and others through blog posts, which I could use to cut down another blogger.  I am sure there are things I excel in where others here on this blog are failing in, or vice versa, there may be things that others here in this blog excel in that I fail in. 

I can sit here and badger anyone that fails at something I am good at.  What is the point in your last post.  I found it hard to read, more unprofessional than some of what I have seen from current post graduate students. 

DG's documents are detailed and interesting.  I do not discount all of his documents or any of his documents, because they are difficult in organization.  As everyone attacked my statements, clearly strong support of member DG, that was not the intent of my post.  I was searching for the motivation behind why he wrote them the way that he did.  That is totally separate from the quality within the documents.  I am not attacking his documents, I wouldn't do that on this site, like a pack of soldiers you all have drawn your swords.  Stand down soldiers.

I've grown tired of the discussions on this site.  Honestly, it isn't because I am not winning.  Because I have nothing to win.  I really feel like there is a huge dimension left out of the philosophy from the members in this site, and it really makes it impossible to discuss. 

 

 

 

Upside


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Doctor DG are you a

Quote:

Doctor DG are you a doctor by the way?  Do you take patients right over the blog?  Was the diagnosis and medical treatment you so prescribed over the blog - part of your normal professional procedure?

I am a doctorate, but not a physician. Nor was I being serious. It was a joke. I am a research scientist who is versed in medicine, not a practicioner. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote: Again you

Upside wrote:

Again you have derived that there is not a God, and outside of anything scientific and philosophical (can be derived using reason and absolute truth), there is nothing included as part of philosophical debates. I feel when aspects of our existence that are discounted which a large portion of the population deem true, then the value of the philosophy has degraded and lowered in value. For example I mentioned spiritual world. I am not talking about a "holy spirit," I merely mentioned spiritual world and its existence. The possibility of this was immediately destroyed.  It would be like me totally throwing out all of your philosophical documents and study as false. You can argue that your documents are backed by science and can be proven. Spiritual world statements I cannot argue that, however there are many people who would attest to such existing. This would go beyond drug addicts or members of our population who have been inflicted with a mind disorder from birth.

Please describe the spiritual worlds so we can even discuss it.  It is a very loaded term.  We must first understand what you mean by spiritual world.

Upside wrote:
 

All have mentioned that you could ask someone else if you wanted to validate something you were thinking. So if asking a population if they had any encounters with a spiritual event, it would be out of the realm of possibility because the spiritual event would not fit the absolute truth and empirical reasoning, then I would be asserting. I have caught on to the rules in this realm.

I don't wish for a strage universe, I live in a strange universe. I believe that everyone in some way is weird, and the person who may be the most weird would be the person who denies being weird. I like to think out of the box, I am natually examine and observe things that may be weird to others. There are many more things that are weird about me. There are facial expressions and poses in this site that I have found weird, but then again - not half as weird as some of the thoughts I am capable of having as a human.

So the universe confuses you, and that means? 

Upside wrote:
 

 I could care less about convincing an audience. I have said from the beginning that I am not an undercover missionary or an undercover creature of the dark. I don't have intentions to slap anyone with the "Truth." I only put that in quotes because not everyone in this site believes the so called truth to be the truth - so I am respecting your beliefs by doing so.

So I am not trying to slap anyone with the this "Truth." If the "Truth" is so powerful and it wanted to slap someone with the truth it could do it all by itself, and it wouldn't necessarily use me to do it.

Is your purpose to test your steel then?

Upside wrote:
 

       I've grown tired of the discussions on this site. Honestly, it isn't because I am not winning. Because I have nothing to win. I really feel like there is a huge dimension left out of the philosophy from the members in this site, and it really makes it impossible to discuss.

 

Bullshit, prove this "huge dimension". This is nothing more than you running becuase you are out of your league. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote:

Upside wrote:

Again you have derived that there is not a God, and outside of anything scientific and philosophical (can be derived using reason and absolute truth), there is nothing included as part of philosophical debates. I feel when aspects of our existence that are discounted which a large portion of the population deem true, then the value of the philosophy has degraded and lowered in value. For example I mentioned spiritual world. I am not talking about a "holy spirit," I merely mentioned spiritual world and its existence. The possibility of this was immediately destroyed. It would be like me totally throwing out all of your philosophical documents and study as false. You can argue that your documents are backed by science and can be proven. Spiritual world statements I cannot argue that, however there are many people who would attest to such existing. This would go beyond drug addicts or members of our population who have been inflicted with a mind disorder from birth.

All have mentioned that you could ask someone else if you wanted to validate something you were thinking. So if asking a population if they had any encounters with a spiritual event, it would be out of the realm of possibility because the spiritual event would not fit the absolute truth and empirical reasoning, then I would be asserting. I have caught on to the rules in this realm.

I don't wish for a strage universe, I live in a strange universe. I believe that everyone in some way is weird, and the person who may be the most weird would be the person who denies being weird. I like to think out of the box, I am natually examine and observe things that may be weird to others. There are many more things that are weird about me. There are facial expressions and poses in this site that I have found weird, but then again - not half as weird as some of the thoughts I am capable of having as a human.

I could care less about convincing an audience. I have said from the beginning that I am not an undercover missionary or an undercover creature of the dark. I don't have intentions to slap anyone with the "Truth." I only put that in quotes because not everyone in this site believes the so called truth to be the truth - so I am respecting your beliefs by doing so.

So I am not trying to slap anyone with the this "Truth." If the "Truth" is so powerful and it wanted to slap someone with the truth it could do it all by itself, and it wouldn't necessarily use me to do it.


Unless people don't understand, don't trust, or for some other reason refuse to accept the real truth. Always a possibility.

Quote:

Doctor DG are you a doctor by the way? Do you take patients right over the blog? Was the diagnosis and medical treatment you so prescribed over the blog - part of your normal professional procedure?

There are many things I have observed, some visible and others through blog posts, which I could use to cut down another blogger. I am sure there are things I excel in where others here on this blog are failing in, or vice versa, there may be things that others here in this blog excel in that I fail in.

I can sit here and badger anyone that fails at something I am good at. What is the point in your last post. I found it hard to read, more unprofessional than some of what I have seen from current post graduate students.

DG's documents are detailed and interesting. I do not discount all of his documents or any of his documents, because they are difficult in organization. As everyone attacked my statements, clearly strong support of member DG, that was not the intent of my post. I was searching for the motivation behind why he wrote them the way that he did. That is totally separate from the quality within the documents. I am not attacking his documents, I wouldn't do that on this site, like a pack of soldiers you all have drawn your swords. Stand down soldiers.

I've grown tired of the discussions on this site. Honestly, it isn't because I am not winning. Because I have nothing to win. I really feel like there is a huge dimension left out of the philosophy from the members in this site, and it really makes it impossible to discuss.

Instead of trying to pick apart individual sentences in your post, I could see that there was an overall message you were going for here and I think I know what you're getting at. Kind of. Maybe.

If scientific arguments aren't what you're looking for, then you should maybe consider starting your own thread about some philosophical question or conversations you have on your mind. One Todangst is the local philosophy buff, as far as I understand.

As for your comment that we're like soldiers with our swords drawn: that is very true. One of the main ideas behind this forum, as far as I can tell, is that it allows atheists to rally together to answer questions from theists. It is a common practice for theists to throw out a series of broad, unrelated questions until a question arises that the opponent can't answer due to a lack of familiarity, and then the theist claims victory via the "Look! He doesn't know! Well, I do! Jesus!" strategy. So by joining together, we can keep that kind of dishonesty from going on and expose it for what it really is.

However, even if what you're looking for is a philosophical debate, if you say something that another poster recognizes as a scientific claim, they will no doubt engage you from a scientific angle. It just can't be helped. Similarly, if you saw someone mention an idea that was scientific but had a philosophical element to it, you might wish to engage them from a philosophical angle.

I don't think it's anyone here limits arguments to one approach if they can be addressed from several.

Anyway, if you have a philosophical question, then pose it under a new topic. But you can't expect everyone to "stay philosophical".

If there is a problem with what someone says, the problem will be pointed out, no matter what the nature of it.

*shrug*

Peace.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: You

MattShizzle wrote:
You can't use the BuyBull until you prove it true.

 

Is it just me or is talking to Meph like banging your head against a brick wall?

 

I simply believe in the natural world. I disbelieve in anything supernatural.

 

I don't believe in spirits, ghosts or gods.

 

I believe what is moral is that which is helpful to my fellow humans and what is immoral is that which harms them.

 

 

 

 

 

MattShizzle,

 

 

Nice of you to stop by and be helpful. You are a quiet sort of a guy, but when you have something...you have something.

Stop by again.

Just bang.

 

 

Mephibosheth (he's not heavy, he's my fellow)

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Meph THe

deludedgod wrote:

Meph

THe quality of your posts has been declining rapidly. You jumped from vague meaninglessness to fundamentalism...to, well, your last post is shockingly lacking any lucidity. It literally makes no sense. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but there is no thread. There is no underlying coherency. The sentences appear to be gramatically sensible, but are syntactically broken. It looks like English, but it is almost impossible to discern due the number of category errors and statements which have no logical predicates.

Know that I am not exaggerating in any way when I say that youexude symptoms of the cocaine addicts. Cocaine is a stimulant, affecting not just the electrophysiology of the CNS, but also mental functioning (as well as causing tachycardia and arrythmia). The patients, while high, would ramble. They would string words and ideas together, but they would not make any sense. In the same way, I truly cannot follow anything you are saying. I am actually starting to be quite concerned for your mental health, since you seem incapable of doing what we assume is a normal part of human contact: lucid communication. Worse then cocaine addicts, you remind me of people with the neurological disorder called aphasia, where patients would lost the ability to construct logical sentences with proper subject and object and such, and would start talking grammatically correct nonsense such as "the calender switched on the tennis ball". Have you contracted a neurological disorder in the rather short interval since your last miscarraige of prose? Aphasia can be caused by TIA, stroke, or associated neurological trauma. Has this been the case with you? Shouldn't you be in hospital if so?

[Disclaimer: This is intended solely as satire. It is not, in any way, shape or form, an implication that my interlocutor should genuinely seek medical advice, nor am I giving implying that he genuinely has aphasia or any associated neurological disorder. It is simply a joke]

Go through this thread and read everything you have written. Everything. Nearly 100 posts, in all, just in this thread. Not once (and I just re-read every single one of them) did you manage to construct a single coherent thought. I'm suprised you still have command over sentences.

 

 

Deludedgod,

You read all my 100 posts?! That's like a cat scan in itself!

Far from me to try to prove any lucidity. I'm surely on the slippery slope. You scanning me, Antistokes with her periodic chart out, MattShizzle banging his head and making fun of the Bible, Susan's tipped her hat, and none of you guys even think you have a spirit (except Upside) and I'm crazy. You think I'm worried?

DG, you have referenced Hume. Is he the guy that talked his mother out of her faith and when she was on her dying bed she wrote him asking for comfort but he didn't make it....?

I'd hate to have my destiny resting on DG's reasoning guys - Quando Omni Flunkus Moratodi DG -

 

Mephibosheth


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

mephibosheth wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

Meph

THe quality of your posts has been declining rapidly. You jumped from vague meaninglessness to fundamentalism...to, well, your last post is shockingly lacking any lucidity. It literally makes no sense. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but there is no thread. There is no underlying coherency. The sentences appear to be gramatically sensible, but are syntactically broken. It looks like English, but it is almost impossible to discern due the number of category errors and statements which have no logical predicates.

Know that I am not exaggerating in any way when I say that youexude symptoms of the cocaine addicts. Cocaine is a stimulant, affecting not just the electrophysiology of the CNS, but also mental functioning (as well as causing tachycardia and arrythmia). The patients, while high, would ramble. They would string words and ideas together, but they would not make any sense. In the same way, I truly cannot follow anything you are saying. I am actually starting to be quite concerned for your mental health, since you seem incapable of doing what we assume is a normal part of human contact: lucid communication. Worse then cocaine addicts, you remind me of people with the neurological disorder called aphasia, where patients would lost the ability to construct logical sentences with proper subject and object and such, and would start talking grammatically correct nonsense such as "the calender switched on the tennis ball". Have you contracted a neurological disorder in the rather short interval since your last miscarraige of prose? Aphasia can be caused by TIA, stroke, or associated neurological trauma. Has this been the case with you? Shouldn't you be in hospital if so?

[Disclaimer: This is intended solely as satire. It is not, in any way, shape or form, an implication that my interlocutor should genuinely seek medical advice, nor am I giving implying that he genuinely has aphasia or any associated neurological disorder. It is simply a joke]

Go through this thread and read everything you have written. Everything. Nearly 100 posts, in all, just in this thread. Not once (and I just re-read every single one of them) did you manage to construct a single coherent thought. I'm suprised you still have command over sentences.

 

 

Deludedgod,

You read all my 100 posts?! That's like a cat scan in itself!

Far from me to try to prove any lucidity. I'm surely on the slippery slope. You scanning me, Antistokes with her periodic chart out, MattShizzle banging his head and making fun of the Bible, Susan's tipped her hat, and none of you guys even think you have a spirit (except Upside) and I'm crazy. You think I'm worried?

DG, you have referenced Hume. Is he the guy that talked his mother out of her faith and when she was on her dying bed she wrote him asking for comfort but he didn't make it....?

I'd hate to have my destiny resting on DG's reasoning guys - Quando Omni Flunkus Moratodi DG -

 

Mephibosheth

Meph,

My destiny rests on my actions and my reasoning.

Your's rests on believing that you're kissing up to the right God. 

Or are you going to contradict yourself again and say you know you're right? 

"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


antistokes
antistokes's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-10-21
User is offlineOffline
I'd hate to have my destiny

I'd hate to have my destiny resting on DG's reasoning guys

heh well i intend to live forever or die trying. and i'm not whipping out a periodic table, i'm whipping out statistical thermodymanics and quantum theory, which is the basis for the periodic table. 

i have had people die on me. it's terrible and scary and we don't know much about the phenomenon, and plenly of people would like there to be either a heaven where we go and play football with god all day (ala american dad) or some sort of "spirit" and can "trancend" (ala buffy).  if we wanted to die, we would be been punched out my natural selection a very long time ago. heaven is a good answer, because it massauges our collective monkey egos into us thinking that we're just that important. 

in you opinion, do animals go to heaven? my parents told me no, when my guinea pigs died, because guiena pigs don't have souls and thus cannot be saved by jesus's everlasting love. 

i know people get annoyed at scientests, beacuse we sometimes take away ideas (the earth is the centre of the universe) that people want to believe-- prolly more reasons too-- but if you ever want something to consistantly work (electronics, say) in the shared dream we call real world, then everyone turns to us nerds. 

sorry, i guess this has kind of turned into a nondebate. i still don't have a good definition of faith, which is purportedly the topic. unless you count "i knows it when i sees it"-- like the supreame court definition for porn. i don't like this answer, because as i scientest i don't think that something so important as a definition can be left out of a good debate. 

"Everything is entropy, everything is statistical, everything is random."
"Entropy is god. Under certain conditions, god will look like deltaG."
"We wouldn't have god if it wasn't a state function!" D. Gerrity


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Far from me to try to prove any lucidity. I'm surely on the slippery slope. You scanning me, Antistokes with her periodic chart out, MattShizzle banging his head and making fun of the Bible, Susan's tipped her hat, and none of you guys even think you have a spirit (except Upside) and I'm crazy. You think I'm worried?

This paragraph has no meaning behind it, it is somewhat reminscint of Aphasiac, although instead of commiting a category error, it simply has no line of thought.

Far from me to try to prove any lucidity

This is not even a complete sentence

You think I'm worried?

This does not follow from the rest of the paragraph

none of you guys even think you have a spirit

This is the first thing you have right. And I do not believe I have a spirit. I have already explained why. I shall explain it again.

-It is not a valid predicate, unless defined so. "Spirit" belongs to an ontological null set. It is incoherent to speak of such things. There is no meaning behind a predicate which attempts to refer to smething as existing without referencing positive property. This, in effect, means I can reject it a priori since the proposition belongs to ontological category Ø. It was summed up by Wittgenstein and WV Quine:

No Entity Without Identity -WV Quine

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world -Ludwig Wittgenstein

The lalonic remarks of these two great philosophers reflect an obvious hole in the proposition of the existence of "spirits" and other confusing metaphysical reference, there is no coherent way of saying such things exist. To exist is to exist as something. This is the law of identity. To exist as something requires that something be something, yet this spirit is not "something". If we speak of the natural world as N, then all supernatural is is ~N, which means that refers to Ø. The only way out of this is to go the way of Tillich: Stating that the "spirit" or other such associated things like "God" exist presents us with an internal contradiction.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
Archeo - this is good

Archeo - this is good recommendation.  Real talk, nice. 

Appears the war continues.  Next I may start telling yo mama jokes.  I heard a new one at a comedy show, last comic standing a couple weeks ago but it is pretty nasty. 

Magus, I can't talk to you.  I write a paragraph putting my thought out there, and all you have ever produced for a post is a one line sentence.  Put some of your philosophy and knowledge out there, instead of taking the safe road and being untouchable with your one sentence responses.  Totally off the subject, but how often do you lift weights?   Your picture is kind of mean, but I can see the neck muscles popping out there.  


Christians and non Christians have never seemed to get along throughout history.

When taunted I do feel like dishing some revenge, but it is tiring.  So if one doesn't take part in ongoing bashing of views or relentless debates, this means they are out of their league?  

You are trying to taunt me Magus.  Here offer me some one sentence remarks to my paragraphs of thoughts.  

Tongue out

 

 

Upside


Upside
Theist
Upside's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-11
User is offlineOffline
One thing I forgot. Archeo

One thing I forgot.

Archeo - I would also say that when in a debate, and a Christian answers the question by saying "jesus" that it sounds pretty weak or a "copp-out."  At the same time I wouldn't expect a Christian to have the answer for every question, just like I wouldn't expect an athiest to have the answer to every question though both may try. 

Faith is built on the fact that some things are unknown and that nobody has the answer to every question.  Faith is built on the fact that God created us/the earth with a certain amount of mystery built in, this then creates a dependence on God.  

Antistokes - there is my attempt to give you a faith definition.  It is really laughable though, I am sure the responses to this post will be like a small town's firework show on the 4th of July.  

 

Upside


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote:

Upside wrote:

Archeo - this is good recommendation. Real talk, nice.

Appears the war continues. Next I may start telling yo mama jokes. I heard a new one at a comedy show, last comic standing a couple weeks ago but it is pretty nasty.

Magus, I can't talk to you. I write a paragraph putting my thought out there, and all you have ever produced for a post is a one line sentence. Put some of your philosophy and knowledge out there, instead of taking the safe road and being untouchable with your one sentence responses. Totally off the subject, but how often do you lift weights? Your picture is kind of mean, but I can see the neck muscles popping out there.


Christians and non Christians have never seemed to get along throughout history.

When taunted I do feel like dishing some revenge, but it is tiring. So if one doesn't take part in ongoing bashing of views or relentless debates, this means they are out of their league?

You are trying to taunt me Magus. Here offer me some one sentence remarks to my paragraphs of thoughts.

Tongue out

I was not trying to "taunt" you.

I would write more, but why bother, in my few sentences, I have added more t0 the discussion then you have. Most of my reply was some questions. Tell you what when you have something of substance to say, I will be glad to write more than a few sentences. Unless you are done with your assertions and vague language, why should I bother?

[edit: clarification]

[edit: forgot to respond to this Smiling ]

Upside wrote:
Totally off the subject, but how often do you lift weights? Your picture is kind of mean, but I can see the neck muscles popping out there.

I lift weights 3 - 5 days a week. I need to keep my strenght up to hold my joints in place due to hyperflexibility.

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: Upside

Magus wrote:

Upside wrote:
Totally off the subject, but how often do you lift weights? Your picture is kind of mean, but I can see the neck muscles popping out there.

I lift weights 3 - 5 days a week. I need to keep my strenght up to hold my joints in place due to hyperflexibility.

 

 

 

 

Magus,

 

I think this workout principle applies to the spirit.

Let's say you want to do something, but in your brain's control room you are thinking, "that wouldn't be good for me or somebody else" - even though you are pulled toward doing it.

If you resist the pull of what part of you wants in favor of what you know is better - that could illustrate a spiritual workout.

 

Mephibosheth


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

but in your brain's control room you are thinking

The brain does not have a control room. The mind is an ontological interagency function, heterophenomelogical. There are no mini-brains that function autonomously. This idea reveals a childish and frighteningly idiotic view of how the consciousness works.

Quote:

If you resist the pull of what part of you wants in favor of what you know is better - that could illustrate a spiritual workout.

Firstly, unless you have some sort of direct physical damage to the interagency functions, it is impossible to refer to "part" of you wanting X and part of you wanting Y. While there can be conflict between areas of the brain (notably in Lesch-Nyhans patient) no lobe of the brain functions autonomously. So you are not making sense.

No...it just demonstrates how functional inhibition works. Whilst, of course, no brain function works autonomously, the reasons you make decisions and the associated feedback loops are primarly concentrated in the neural clusters of the Anteriori cingulate cortex and parietaloccipatal system. The number of functional references that the brain is required to make to execute any decision or inhibition is vast beyond reckoning. The answer to why we make or resist such decisions does not lie in a ridiculous, magical spirit world.

Do you really want to know how functional inhibition between want and inhibition tug-of-war works? I shall tell you know it is not because of a mysterious spirit. Firstly

1) Spirit belongs to an ontological null set

2) No mechanism can be derived from a supernatural postulation as to how the spirit generates functional inhibition.

3) It appeals to repeated ad hocism

4) It makes no sense from a metaphysical standpoint

5) It attempts to refer to an extrinsic property (decision making) by referencing a "thing" with no extrinsic property

6) There is a complex web of biochemical loops which determines emotions associated with doing things. Functional inhibtion is not evidence for a "spirit world", only that such loops are in working order. This is evidenced by the fact that we have the capability to destroy functional inhibition directly. Also, by destroying neuronal clusturs in the VMPFC, we can directly influence why people choose to do or not do things. They become much more utalitarian, although, I suspect it would be much more difficult to turn someone into an intuitive Sadeian since social functions associated with deciding to do or not do things despite personal gain, are much more complex and embedded.

Now...onto deciding doing and not doing things...and the reasons behind them...there is some very good information on executive function in this link:

 On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

The joys of neurophysiology.... 

 

So, yeah...I really do not see what you are getting at.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Upside wrote: One thing I

Upside wrote:

One thing I forgot.

Archeo - I would also say that when in a debate, and a Christian answers the question by saying "jesus" that it sounds pretty weak or a "copp-out." At the same time I wouldn't expect a Christian to have the answer for every question, just like I wouldn't expect an athiest to have the answer to every question though both may try.

Faith is built on the fact that some things are unknown and that nobody has the answer to every question. Faith is built on the fact that God created us/the earth with a certain amount of mystery built in, this then creates a dependence on God.

Antistokes - there is my attempt to give you a faith definition. It is really laughable though, I am sure the responses to this post will be like a small town's firework show on the 4th of July.

First off, I acknowledge that you're simply giving a definition and not claiming that this is your position. Just so everyone is clear.

 

I think invoking the word "faith" is also a cop-out. I've explained this in other threads, but I'll go over it again here.

According to the definition you've given (which I don't doubt is how it is often taken), faith is given as a reason to believe since man doesn't know everything.

It's not unusual for a Christian (or any other "faith" user, but especially a christian or catholic) to try and create a sphere of authority for faith by attacking reason in order to show that it is somehow defecient. Like you've said: We don't know everything, so our ability to reason and understand is allegedly defecient and we need "faith" as a means to understanding!

This simply isn't true though. I can still make a reasoned decision in the absence of certain knowledge. For example, I am currently sitting in a library somewhere in Indiana. You could pose the question, "Is there a computer similar to the one you're using at such-and-such a library in San Francisco?"

I have no knowledge of San Francisco. I've never been there, let alone seen its computers or libraries, so I have no way of knowing if there really is a computer similar to the one I'm using at the said library. But I can ask myself what would be a reasonable belief. I know that California exists, that San Francisco exists, that libraries exist, that computers exist, that other computers similar to the one I'm using exist, etc. Would it be reasonable to believe that there was such a computer at such a library? I might not be correct in adopting the stance that there is such a computer, but it would still be a rational stance. A christian might stop me here and say that I am, to a certain extent, having faith that there is a computer. And in that understanding of the word faith---the one that is more like "wagering"---I would say, yes, I suppose I am. Because I think it's reasonable to think so. But this is not like a theistic faith. My alleged "faith" in this situation is based on what I know about reality. A christian faith is based on what they don't know about reality, and is, in fact, contrary to reality (and logic) in many ways.

Here is another example. A christian/catholic/faith-user might say something like, "Well don't you have faith in your doctor whenever you seek treatment? How do you know he is qualified or that he is helping rather than hurting? Since you don't have the medical knowledge equal to your doctor's, aren't you exercising a little faith in that situation?"

Again, this is a completely different usage of the word faith. I know that doctors exist. I know that medical treatment exists. I know that doctors must take the hippocratic (sp?) oath. I know that I can sue the doctor for malpractice if necessary. I know that doctors generally don't want to be sued for malpractice or to lose their reputation or job. I have very persuasive evidence---evidence based on physical reality---that assures me that trusting the doctor is an okay thing to do. Of course, I can't be absolutely certain that my doctor, for one reason or another, isn't going to suddenly go crazy and inject me with poison, but what is rational to believe?

The christian/catholic/faith-user application of "faith" is not at all like this. Their use of the word is meant to be a supplement to man's ability to reason since reason is said to be insufficient in some respect (I've already shown two fallacious arguments such a faith-user might make, and the other possible arguments aren't much better).

But faith is completely meaningless without reason. When I, an atheist, say that I won't believe in god based on faith, I actually mean that I refuse to believe in just anything based on faith. I don't believe in leprechauns or unicorns based on faith, for example.

If a faith-user had a rational basis for such a belief, they would not need to invoke faith. Reason would be enough. For example, if I saw a unicorn with my own eyes or saw a fossilized unicorn skeleton in a museum or something along those lines, I would not need to have faith in unicorns. I only need faith when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS.

So faith means nothing by itself, and yet it can't let reason have all the control. So reason is attacked and supposedly "demonstrated" to be insufficient.

When faced with this problem, the faith-user must supply a good argument for why reason should be considered insufficient. Such arguments, when not circular, should be easy to thwart.

So, yes, it's a cop-out. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
  Deludedgod, You don't

 

Deludedgod,

You don't believe you have a spirit.

I believe there is a consequence in this to you and that your posts lack spirit.

The Scripture says "God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth".

 

 

 

But you have cut yourself off from communion with this part of yourself and with God.

 

Mephibosheth (sorry about that)


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

 

But you have cut yourself off from communion with this part of yourself and with God.

There is a phrase associated with the invalid technique where one attacks the man and not his argument. You may have heard it before, once, twice, a hundred times? Wait...wait for it...right on the tip of my tongue....haven't mentioned it in a while (after all I encounter it so infrequently *rolls eyes*) so I might not remember...

(Learns to make post drip with sarcasm) 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


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

mephibosheth wrote:

 

Deludedgod,

You don't believe you have a spirit.

I believe there is a consequence in this to you and that your posts lack spirit.

The Scripture says "God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth".

 

 

 

But you have cut yourself off from communion with this part of yourself and with God.

 

Mephibosheth (sorry about that)

Define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is and not what it isn't. 

"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


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Define

jcgadfly wrote:
Define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is and not what it isn't.

The spirit is nonexistant.


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

CrimsonEdge wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is and not what it isn't.

The spirit is nonexistant.

Damn, CE. Take the fun out of it why don'tcha. Smiling 

"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


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
mephibosheth wrote:

 

Deludedgod,

You don't believe you have a spirit.

I believe there is a consequence in this to you and that your posts lack spirit.

The Scripture says "God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth".

 

 

 

But you have cut yourself off from communion with this part of yourself and with God.

 

Mephibosheth (sorry about that)

Define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is and not what it isn't.

 

JCGADFLY,

Well, I don't see anything in my definition that tells what it is not JCG.

The Scriptures tell us that when God created man out of dirt he breathed life into man. The spirit is the breath of life of a man that God breathed into the lifeless dirt. When the God breathed dirt dies, the spirit lives on and the dirt goes back to being dirt.

I would describe your spirit as where you live in the most fundamental sense.

Conscience would be one manifestation of that spirit. God made man in such a way that he can "connect" with his spirit or inner man.

The Scriptures also tell us that a man's spirit is the thing that knows, discerns his thoughts.

The Spirit of God knows and discerns the thoughts of God.

The Christian is given the gift of the Holy Spirit in him which enables him to understand the thoughts and Word of God and walk by faith - described as "walk by the Spirit".

This is further described as yielding to the Spirit and putting the desires of the flesh to death, resisting them.

This requires vigilance and spiritual strength, and could be described as war.

The Devil's spirit is at work too - in the sons of disobedience. He is broadcasting his attitudes and thoughts to his servants.

 

Mephibosheth (hope this helps)

 


mephibosheth
TheistTroll
mephibosheth's picture
Posts: 354
Joined: 2007-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Mephibosheth wrote: DG, you

Mephibosheth wrote:
DG, you have referenced Hume. Is he the guy that talked his mother out of her faith and when she was on her dying bed she wrote him asking for comfort but he didn't make it....?

 

Deludedgod,

You didn't comment on this - was that just an oversight or a convenient revelation?

Mephibosheth (checking roots here)


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mephibosheth

mephibosheth wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
mephibosheth wrote:
Deludedgod,

You don't believe you have a spirit.

I believe there is a consequence in this to you and that your posts lack spirit.

The Scripture says "God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth".

But you have cut yourself off from communion with this part of yourself and with God.

Mephibosheth (sorry about that)

Define "spirit" in a way that tells me what it is and not what it isn't.

JCGADFLY,

Well, I don't see anything in my definition that tells what it is not JCG.

The Scriptures tell us that when God created man out of dirt he breathed life into man. The spirit is the breath of life of a man that God breathed into the lifeless dirt. When the God breathed dirt dies, the spirit lives on and the dirt goes back to being dirt.

I would describe your spirit as where you live in the most fundamental sense.

Conscience would be one manifestation of that spirit. God made man in such a way that he can "connect" with his spirit or inner man.

The Scriptures also tell us that a man's spirit is the thing that knows, discerns his thoughts.

The Spirit of God knows and discerns the thoughts of God.

The Christian is given the gift of the Holy Spirit in him which enables him to understand the thoughts and Word of God and walk by faith - described as "walk by the Spirit".

This is further described as yielding to the Spirit and putting the desires of the flesh to death, resisting them.

This requires vigilance and spiritual strength, and could be described as war.

The Devil's spirit is at work too - in the sons of disobedience. He is broadcasting his attitudes and thoughts to his servants.

Mephibosheth (hope this helps)

You have not defined "spirit".

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You didn't comment

Quote:

You didn't comment on this - was that just an oversight or a convenient revelation?

Wait, so when you miss 2000 word responses in which I tear you apart, you can ignore them. WHen I miss one line of irrelevancy, you bitch? How dare you. This is hypocrisy of the highest degree.

The answer is because it is irrelevant. I do not care particularly for Hume's personal life, nor was I aware of that particular detail, nor do I care. For me, what matters about Hume was what he wrote in An Enquiry Into Human Understanding which laid the groundwork for nearly all of the philosophical tradition we see today. He introduced some of the most critical problems in Philosophy today, Induction, Skepticism, methods of epistemology, he was the most important atheist philosopher of the 18th century, and his work laid critical groundwork for most of contemporary philosophy. Kant, Sartre, Nozick, Searle, Dennett,  you name it. No self-respecting Analytical philosopher does not know Hume. Why?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism