If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Forget

Vastet wrote:
Forget wikipedia, this is beyond scientific understanding and therefore not to be found in its pages even as source material

 

The key to using Wikipedia is verifying the reference material. Very few readers actually click beyond the one page.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:How would we go

Vastet wrote:
How would we go about showing that existence to others? How about by showing us a consciousness that came from 'wherever' instead of using consciousness which has arisen from a brain? If consciousness can exist without a brain, then there's probably consciousness' 'floating' all over. Why don't we all get possessed? Why hasn't two consciousness' ever switched bodies?

What proof do you have that consciousness originates in the brain?  If for example, consciousness was not dependent on a brain, the brain could then be the conduit for which consciousness manifests physically.  A receiver and transmitter if you will.  Do you have evidence that consciousness originates and "has arisen from" the brain?  Just because that's the only place we humans detect it doesn't mean it had to originate there.  

As far as answering your questions directly:

1. Showing us a consciousness that came from 'wherever'...

What is wherever, or where?  I don't think I understand what you're asking here.  Are you suggesting I show you another source that can manifest consciousness besides a brain?  If so, what other sources do we know of that can manifest consciousnesses?  I don't have a magical egg that can receive radio stations unless I install a radio receiver in it.  Problem is, to make my egg receive a radio station, I have to install the very thing that we already know can manifest radio signals thus it does not change the original problem which is finding another way to manifest a radio wave from the air... same with consciousness in this case, unless you have another source.  

If consciousness can exist without a brain, then there's probably consciousness 'floating' all over...

some believe so.

Why don't we all get posessed...

likely it's a similar reason why when you turn on your radio you don't hear 5000 different stations playing at once.  Can 2 stations overlap?  of course... can someone be posessed?  Sure, it's written in scripture many times.  

Why hasn't 2 consciousnesses switched bodies?  

If I had to guess, I would say it's the same reason why my 92.9 radio station has not switched places with my 107.9 radio station.  Not tuned to the right frequency... if that's how consciousness' work....

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:If we've

blacklight915 wrote:

If we've talked before, I don't remember it. What you mentioned would certainly be a great start--can you point me to this information?

There are thousands of stories out there like this... though it might not give you 100% results on the specific scenario I mentioned, you should find quite a few amidst the stories if you google "near death experiences".  Though you are googling "near death" look for the stories that talk about dying then coming back.   If you're not finding anything, let me know.  I'll try to find something specific.  I'll be surprised if you don't... I checked it myself

blacklight915 wrote:

Hmm, these are some very good points. What would be your response to Vastet's points, caposkia?

the post I just put up before this one addresses Vastet's directly.

 

EDIT:

caposkia wrote:

depends on the angle

What angle do you see it from?

The Christ follower's angle.  "I could never accept atheism" sounds backwards to you, but makes sense to us, whereas an atheist would not see their stance as a following (typically) and therefore would see it as backwards.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No I'm not,

Vastet wrote:
No I'm not, I'm asking for evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain or some other physical form. And if you're suggesting that it can, your links fail to provide evidence. "Is a rose conscious? what about an earth worm? a dolphin? now a human?" Forget wikipedia, this is beyond scientific understanding and therefore not to be found in its pages even as source material. What isn't beyond understanding is that there has never been observed a consciousness without physical form, and never been evidence to suggest the contrary, let alone prove it. Whether or not a rose or dolphin is conscious is beyond our capability to determine at this time. Hell, I've yet to see undeniable evidence that humans are conscious. There are quite a few of them that I'm not so sure about.

Ok, should have read this first.  I see what you were asking when you said "wherever".  Here's the problem... well, with both of our conclusions solely based on tangible evidence.  You have concluded that a consciousness exists because of a brain.  I have yet to see undeniable evidence that this is true.  

However, I have concluded that consciousness exists outside of a physical brain.  You have yet to see undeniable evidence that this is true.  

The thing is, as long as we're looking for an alternative physical manifestation of consciousness to prove that consciousness can exist outside the brain, we're going to believe that consciousness does not exist outside the brain... consider for a moment our lives the way they are... if there is a world outside the physical, we're stuck in the physical.  In order to see that there is a consciousness outside the physical brain, we'd need to visit this outside world.  Let's compare that to a person who refuses to leave their home. Whenever they turn on the radio, they hear music.  They're convinced that somehow, that music is being created within their radio.  How do you explain an external source or the possibility of that music actually being played miles away, then being broken down into radio waves which then are compiled in the radio and transmitted into electrical currents that ultimately play the music?  Unless you can show them those sources exist AND that the music they're hearing actually comes from some place else, they will never see music beyond the very thing that they can experience it from.  They would have to be willing to not only accept the technology behind radios, but understand that those "radio stations" you speak of actually exist.  If they refuse to accept their existence without physically going to one, you're SOL in proving it to them because you already know they will never leave their house.  

In our case, it's not necessarily refusal to leave, rather we have no way of getting there that we know of without dying.  too risky.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:What proof do

caposkia wrote:
What proof do you have that consciousness originates in the brain?

About 100 years of psychology and a good 10,000 years of history proves consciousness arises in the brain, and can be manipulated by manipulating the brain.

caposkia wrote:
A receiver and transmitter if you will.  Do you have evidence that consciousness originates and "has arisen from" the brain?  Just because that's the only place we humans detect it doesn't mean it had to originate there.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Phineas-Gage-Neurosciences-Most-Famous-Patient.html

caposkia wrote:
What is wherever, or where?

I don't know, I'm not the one proposing consciousness can exist without a brain. Ask the guy who is.

caposkia wrote:
 Are you suggesting I show you another source that can manifest consciousness besides a brain?

That'd be a start.

As to the rest of your paragraph, you're just making shit up to back up the shit that was already made up. Now you not only...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...expect me to believe

...expect me to believe consciousness can exist without physical form, you also expect me to believe that the most complex computer known to exist is nothing more than a transmitter and receiver array. Assuming that ridiculous notion was true, then why isn't a dogs brain also a transmitter and receiver array?

caposkia wrote:
of course... can someone be posessed?  Sure, it's written in scripture many times.  

All religious claims of possession can be directly tied to mental instability; either in the patient or in the patients caregivers. You have no evidence of possession.

caposkia wrote:
If I had to guess, I would say it's the same reason why my 92.9 radio station has not switched places with my 107.9 radio station.  Not tuned to the right frequency... if that's how consciousness' work....

That'd require infinite frequencies. The very reason you don't get 98 while at 104 is because we discovered there's a limit in frequency range and distance. In point of fact, there are dozens of 92.8's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So if your analogy is to be

So if your analogy is to be applied, people should be flipping consciousness's all the time.

Your second post does a good job explaining why some people can delude themselves into believing this, mostly because some people are exceptionally gullible, but it does not explain why I should believe it.

Psychology may still be in its infancy, and it may still get as much or more wrong than it gets right, but it has a success rate. It works.
The religious version has no success rate. It doesn't work. At all. EVER.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: About 100

Vastet wrote:
 About 100 years of psychology and a good 10,000 years of history proves consciousness arises in the brain, and can be manipulated by manipulating the brain.

do you have sources?  I'm not aware of any studies prior to the 20th century that really dives into the study of the brainwaves and how it works.

Vastet wrote:
 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Phineas-Gage-Neurosciences-Most-Famous-Patient.html

This link proves that learned behavior from life experiences can be forgotten due to trauma.  It is pretty clear that learned behavior is stored and reconstructed by the brain.  This does not discuss the origin of consciousness.  If again the brain works like a receiver, then more like a computer it is logical to conclude that damage to the receiver would result in skewed outcomes... in this case, a completely different person. 

Vastet wrote:

What is wherever, or where?

You are the one requesting a "wherever" source though... pretty vague.  If you're looking for a specific means by which to detect consciousness, I'm open to suggestions.

Vastet wrote:

 That'd be a start. As to the rest of your paragraph, you're just making shit up to back up the shit that was already made up. Now you not only...

What exactly was I making up?  ...and how can I back up something made up?  

A statement like that makes me wonder whether you really are interested in the conversation or just looking for excuses to prove me wrong.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:...expect me to

Vastet wrote:
...expect me to believe consciousness can exist without physical form, you also expect me to believe that the most complex computer known to exist is nothing more than a transmitter and receiver array. Assuming that ridiculous notion was true, then why isn't a dogs brain also a transmitter and receiver array?

expect you to believe?  Why would I expect you to believe anything.  I'm just making conversation.  You claim consciousness originates in the brain.  I was curious on why you believed that.  Nothing more at this point... in the process, I figured it'd be pertinent to make it clear as to what I believe.  That in no way is me expecting you to believe anything.  

Were you "expecting" me to believe you?

Also, is a dogs brain not also a transmitter and receiver array?  Are you suggesting that a dogs brain works differently as far as specifically consciousness is concerned than a humans brain?  Besides the obvious behavioral differences, how does the dogs brain emit/manifest consciousness differently?

Vastet wrote:

 All religious claims of possession can be directly tied to mental instability; either in the patient or in the patients caregivers. You have no evidence of possession.

As far as evidence is concerned, possession would of course tie to mental instability... Be it that all the studies determining mental instability were not considering the possession possibility, it's likely that the results were bias.  Of course I understand that you can't accept that possession is a possibility and I'm sure many of them running the mental tests wouldn't either.  

On the other side of the fence, religious extremists would ignore the mental instability side of it just as the other side did with possession and automatically assume possession without consideration to mental instability.  

To say however that we have no evidence is a bit skewed.  Consider one of the most famous stories, "the Exorcism of Emily Rose" though a movie and book, it is based on actual events and it was audio recorded.  You should watch it and consider everything being talked about in the court room.  They were able to tie it to mental instabilities, but the other side was also able to tie it into classic possession scenarios.  If your bias to the scientific side, the scientific side had the better case, however if you're bias to the spiritual side, the spiritual side had the better case.  

Point and case, evidence is in the eye of the beholder.  What do you accept as "evidence"?  Better question, what would you accept as evidence for possession? Please consider that question seriously.  I'm not trying to blow smoke up your ass here.  I want a legitimate conversation on the topic.  

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
That'd require infinite frequencies. The very reason you don't get 98 while at 104 is because we discovered there's a limit in frequency range and distance. In point of fact, there are dozens of 92.8's.

Right, but let's consider theoretical science for a moment.  To really dive into sci-fi for a moment, Star trek, though obviously sci-fi worked hard to base everything off of scientific theory in some way.  Point and case here, they also became aware of other wavelengths beyond our typical radio waves that could be used for faster communication over longer distances.  Is it not possible to have other wavelengths with... well... not infinite frequencies, but maybe a much larger number of frequencies than we can fathom at this point in science?

Also, if there is a God, why wouldn't God reuse frequencies when someone dies?  Again, we're assuming that if the brain is a receiver that this is how consciousness works.  I believe the "frequency" angle is really a super simplified way of explaining the idea and that it's likely much more complicated than that.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So if your

Vastet wrote:
So if your analogy is to be applied, people should be flipping consciousness's all the time.

why?  I can drive from work to home without changing the station on my radio and I never lose the station.  Considering consciousness, if souls are as we understand them to be, it'd be like the radio station is tagging along for the ride.  You'd never lose it.

Vastet wrote:

Your second post does a good job explaining why some people can delude themselves into believing this, mostly because some people are exceptionally gullible, but it does not explain why I should believe it.

I understand that.  I again was not trying to explain why you should believe it... just as I'm sure you're not trying to explain why I should believe your perspective.  You did send me a link, but again you have not directly addressed "consciousness" only learned behaviors.  I need a reference that specifically talks about consciousness being created in the brain and the study behind that.

Vastet wrote:

Psychology may still be in its infancy, and it may still get as much or more wrong than it gets right, but it has a success rate. It works. The religious version has no success rate. It doesn't work. At all. EVER.

Based on what?  I'm honestly curious.  that was not meant to be sarcastic or snide.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:do you have

caposkia wrote:
do you have sources?  I'm not aware of any studies prior to the 20th century that really dives into the study of the brainwaves and how it works.

So now you're saying consciousness is in brain waves?

caposkia wrote:
This link proves that learned behavior from life experiences can be forgotten due to trauma.

No it's much more than that. His personality changed. Crossed wires results in incomplete information coming through a transmitter, not completely different information.

caposkia wrote:
If again the brain works like a receiver, then more like a computer it is logical to conclude that damage to the receiver would result in skewed outcomes... in this case, a completely different person.

No, as above, information would be garbled, not altered.

Your analogy simply fails.

caposkia wrote:
You are the one requesting a "wherever" source though... pretty vague.

You're the one suggesting magical consciousness transmissions. I'm asking for details.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:What

caposkia wrote:
What exac~snip

The '...' was a not so subtle hint that I wasn't finished. Since you couldn't be bothered to read my response properly, I'm not going to read yours at all until you have read it properly.

caposkia wrote:
As far as evidence is concerned, possession would of course tie to mental instability... Be it that all the studies determining mental instability were not considering the possession possibility, it's likely that the results were bias.  Of course I understand that you can't accept that possession is a possibility and I'm sure many of them running the mental tests wouldn't either.  

That isn't bias. Why do all the pharmaceutical drugs available for mental patients work if science is wrong? You're simply making shit up, as I said before. Suggesting the complexity of a human brain amounts to nothing more than a transmitter for some unseeable consciousness is absolutely ridiculous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Point and

caposkia wrote:
Point and case, evidence is in the eye of the beholder.  What do you accept as "evidence"?  Better question, what would you accept as evidence for possession? Please consider that question seriously.  I'm not trying to blow smoke up your ass here.  I want a legitimate conversation on the topic.  

I'm not sure. I don't even understand the point of the concept. Or much of the concept itself. It doesn't make sense.

caposkia wrote:
why?  I can drive from work to home without changing the station on my radio and I never lose the station.

Then you don't drive very far.

caposkia wrote:
Considering consciousness, if souls are as we understand them to be, it'd be like the radio station is tagging along for the ride.  You'd never lose it.

Define soul, because I have no idea what that is.

caposkia wrote:
I need a reference that specifically talks about consciousness being created in the brain and the study behind that.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're talking...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...about the same thing when

...about the same thing when we say consciousness.

Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS

1
a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause

caposkia wrote:
Based on what?  I'm honestly curious.  that was not meant to be sarcastic or snide.

Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have millennia of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Based on all of

Vastet wrote:
Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have Milena of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:The Christ

caposkia wrote:

The Christ follower's angle. "I could never accept atheism" sounds backwards to you, but makes sense to us, whereas an atheist would not see their stance as a following (typically) and therefore would see it as backwards.

Will you explain to me how and why you think atheism is a following? Because I just really don't see how it is...

 

caposkia wrote:

if souls are as we understand them to be

Exactly what group of people is this "we" referring to? More importantly, what do they understand souls to be?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

If they were provided with an accurate description, I don't see why not.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have Milena of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

 

Probably. Most people know what snow is, even if they haven't seen it. It's everywhere, as mountains are everywhere.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: So now you're

Vastet wrote:
 So now you're saying consciousness is in brain waves?

i was assuming that is how we are determining that consciousness is derived or created from the brain... was I mistaken?

Vastet wrote:

 No it's much more than that. His personality changed. Crossed wires results in incomplete information coming through a transmitter, not completely different information.

How much of a persons "personality" is learned and how much of it is innate... or how much of it are you born with?

...also, could; "incomplete information coming through a transmitter" which first has to process the information more like a computer result in completely different information?  

Vastet wrote:

 No, as above, information would be garbled, not altered. Your analogy simply fails.

That may be so... if the brain works solely as a receiver/transmitter and has no processing or reconstructing of the information what so ever... I believe through studies of the brain we can both agree this is not the case.  

Vastet wrote:

You're the one suggesting magical consciousness transmissions. I'm asking for details.

You suggested magic... I never suggested that.  I've only said my perception is that the brain works like a transmitter in the way that it is receiving information from a soul or spirit and transmitting it into personality and actions.  I have yet to defend that position... rather I am asking you to defend your claim that the brain creates all of that information.  

It sounds like you're starting to reach for excuses.  i'm simply trying to understand your belief and why.  I appreciate your link.  I have given my 2 cents as to why it fails.  If you can't accept that.  I'm sorry.  I can't buy it from that link... I need more.  I need a direct study... kind of like what you're likely looking for from me.  If there is no direct study as to the creation of consciousness in the brain, something close to that will do.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The '...' was a

Vastet wrote:

The '...' was a not so subtle hint that I wasn't finished. Since you couldn't be bothered to read my response properly, I'm not going to read yours at all until you have read it properly.

good deal boss... seeing as I intentionally responded to that part alone... then responded to the rest of it in the next post because I intended to respond individually to the beginning and then the rest.  

I have to ask though... on the 2nd part, what do you feel I missed so that I can respond to it directly and not play a guessing game as to what you were looking for.  My response to the rest of your "..." was not short.

Vastet wrote:

 That isn't bias. Why do all the pharmaceutical drugs available for mental patients work if science is wrong? You're simply making shit up, as I said before. Suggesting the complexity of a human brain amounts to nothing more than a transmitter for some unseeable consciousness is absolutely ridiculous.

apparently according to you it works becasue I'm "simply making shit up".  on the other hand, that is explained in the court room of Emily Rose.  Probably better than I could explain it.  The drugs sedate parts of the brain so that certain unwanted information is quelched and other information is let out.  It's like putting a firewall on your computer.  

You say it works, but is it fixing the problem or does one have to keep taking the medication for it to work?  

Also, let's not lose focus here.  I'm not asserting that all mental illness is possession and/or all possession is mental illness.  I'm also not asserting that possession and mental illness can or cannot go hand in hand.  Each case would have to be investigated by itself.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'm not sure.

Vastet wrote:
I'm not sure. I don't even understand the point of the concept. Or much of the concept itself. It doesn't make sense.

Thank you for an honest answer here.  Lack of understanding is 90% of the difficulty of discussing the topic in the first place.  The point is simple.  non-believers accept 100% that there are no other possibilities beyond what we can see... (generally speaking)  Christians or others of spiritual understanding believe 100% the opposite (many possibilities beyond what we can see).  Both can't be right.  I'm determined to find clear answers if at all possible and I do that by discussing with people who oppose my understanding who are willing to try and figure it out with me.  

Ultimately it was a good discussion if we can both agree to either one side or the other... or that there's not enough information to conclude on either side based on this topic alone.   All in all, regardless of what I accept as true right now.  I try to keep as open of a mind as possible with all new information brought my way.  If it's worth investigating, I study it.  If not, we move on.

Vastet wrote:
 

 Then you don't drive very far.

typical Boston commute... about 25 miles or so.

Vastet wrote:

 Define soul, because I have no idea what that is.

The 1st dicitonary definition says:  the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part.

For the sake of our discussion, simply i see it as the "consciousness" of one particular person that resides within the body.

Vastet wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder if we're talking...

mmm... talking, chatting, discussing.  You've given me a link... and a lot of thoughts, but no direct study... is there one? 

I feel like we've at least leveled in this post... am i wrong?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:...about the

Vastet wrote:
...about the same thing when we say consciousness. Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause

I believe we can both agree from this that the 2 word answer is "being aware".

Vastet wrote:

 Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have millennia of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

I don't mean this to be snide again.  I'm only asking;  How can you say no religion has been able to "prove" its claims when you yourself admitted to not knowing what you'd even be looking for as far as proof?  

Regardless, I agree that we have mellenia of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out... we dont' I think have a definitive answer to either side's claims at this point in the way of empirical evidence that can be backed up with the scientific method.  We just don't have that kind of understanding of the human brain.  Not to say that there is no proof.  There are stories of "proof" from all over the world defending the spiritual understanding from all points of history.  The difficulty here is whether anyone would accept those stories as proof or just.. well... stories.... and why... but that's for another thread.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Will you

blacklight915 wrote:

Will you explain to me how and why you think atheism is a following? Because I just really don't see how it is...

The definition of "religion" is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.....

2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

With that said, Atheism... specifically is a following by definition.  It is a set of beliefs (specifically the belief 'against theism' that there is a divine spiritual god running things) concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. If not God, then random occurance of events that just happened to create life.  If it wasn't concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it would not be 'atheism'.  

concerning definition 2, the beliefs of an atheist specifically is generally agreed upon by a number of persons.

Just to be clear, atheism does not define all non-believers, there are many categories for those who reject God or a god as a creator of the universe.  Just as there are many categories of those who accept God or a god as the creator of the universe.  

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Exactly what group of people is this "we" referring to? More importantly, what do they understand souls to be?

"we" are believers or Christ followers.

A soul I defined in a previous post... I think the last one or the one before it from this one.  But it's generally a distinct entity separate from the body.  the more detailed definition is in the other post.   sorry, it's getting late. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have Milena of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

 

If he/she has a freezer that is not self defrosting they could likely deduce an idea of snow in a painting....that would be interesting to see


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:non-believers

caposkia wrote:

non-believers accept 100% that there are no other possibilities beyond what we can see... (generally speaking)

Well, maybe I'm weird for a non-believer, because the above is definitely NOT my position.

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm determined to find clear answers if at all possible and I do that by discussing with people who oppose my understanding who are willing to try and figure it out with me.

We don't, I think, have a definitive answer to either side's claims at this point in the way of empirical evidence that can be backed up with the scientific method. We just don't have that kind of understanding of the human brain.

Based on the second line, I don't think it is possible yet to find clear answers...

 

caposkia wrote:

With that said, Atheism... specifically is a following by definition.  It is a set of beliefs (specifically the belief 'against theism' that there is a divine spiritual god running things) concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. If not God, then random occurance of events that just happened to create life.  If it wasn't concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it would not be 'atheism'.

If that's what atheism means, then I'm not an atheist.

 

caposkia wrote:

Just to be clear, atheism does not define all non-believers, there are many categories for those who reject God or a god as a creator of the universe.  Just as there are many categories of those who accept God or a god as the creator of the universe.

The word "theist" accurately describes everyone who believes in at least one deity. The word "atheist" accurately describes everyone else. There are definitely many categories and qualifiers for both, however.

 

caposkia wrote:

A soul I defined in a previous post... I think the last one or the one before it from this one.  But it's generally a distinct entity separate from the body.  the more detailed definition is in the other post.

Yes, I found it, thank you. Unfortunately, I've always had difficulty understanding abstract concepts. So, I'll probably need to read through it a couple times before I really understand.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:To say

caposkia wrote:
To say however that we have no evidence is a bit skewed.

 

No, it is not. To say there's no evidence for demonic possession is 100% accurate.

 

caposkia wrote:
Consider one of the most famous stories, "the Exorcism of Emily Rose" though a movie and book, it is based on actual events and it was audio recorded.  You should watch it and consider everything being talked about in the court room.

 

Yes, when you're responsible for the death and delusions of a clinically depressed, epileptic young woman, then I'm sure a whole lot of stuff will come up in the courtroom. Anything to get out of that kind of responsibility. 


 

Audio recorded ? Yes, like the BBC "news program" that documented a similar case, climaxing in the presenter being "possessed" live on tv. All the audio you want. And pictures too ! Wait, what, it was a hoax ? Awww...

 

caposkia wrote:
What do you accept as "evidence"?  Better question, what would you accept as evidence for possession?
 

 

Easy. Get me one of those demon things.

Here's a picture :

http://images.wikia.com/monsterhunter/images/7/72/Demon-lord.jpg

A smaller one will do.

Then you will harness all it's "demonic energy" (This is a thing. Ask anyone who believes in them), and use it to power a generator.

 

Think about it, finally we'll be able to use those "demons" for something else, besides giving us an excuse to murder and torture children and the mentally ill, just to give our "faith" something to hold on to.  


 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have Milena of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

 

If he/she has a freezer that is not self defrosting they could likely deduce an idea of snow in a painting....that would be interesting to see

I didn't reply to his post yet, but here is my view on the grand scale of things, per all the posts I see going back and forth.

 

1 - All religions are either ALL WRONG or they are ALL correct that there is a creator (except that the creator has never visited humans).

2 - There are no demons and no possessions. "Demons" have existed in only our minds because there was a time when we didn't understand sickness.

3 - There is no hell, for the same reason there are no demons. Hell and demons are things which we create out of fear and ignorance.

4 - If the Universe is made of matter and energy, then there was a phase with no matter and energy.

5 - If there is a Universe and it is expanding, then there is an exterior to the Universe.

6 - If there is an exterior to the Universe then there must be different levels of existence.

7 - If there are different levels of existence then there must be a point where they wrap.

8 - If there is life, then there is non-life, which does not mean death in the traditional sense.

9 - If there is non-life there must be a different level of consciousness.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, I've been

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

watching this thread --- should I get involved here or not?

S0----Let the fist's fly. Be careful.

Christianity, doesn't have much to do with stars in the sky---but-

Are Atheists doing them selves a disservice by Attacking JC.

I would say so but then they don't understand the fella.

OK--shoot your arrows.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
...... Problems and any inherent contradictions ?

Re :: Problems ? Any Problems and any inherent contradictions ?!? Bill Wiese's descriptions of Hell..

Look at the section that starts in the middle of the page under this:

Bill Wiese confirms there is absolutely no water in Hell. I knew that Hell's location is in the centre of the earth. That's where it's at, in the centre of the earth. I understood that I was about 3700 miles deep in the earth. We know that the earth's diameter is 8000 miles. Half way would be about 4000. I was about 3700 miles down. In Ephesians 4:9 it says that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth. That's were Hell is right now. Later Hell and Death will be cast into the Lake of Fire and then cast into Outer Darkness. Bill Wiese's description of Demons in Hell I was along side this pit of fire and I saw all these demons all lined up along the walls, all sizes and shapes of every kind, deformed, ugly creatures, you can imagine. They were twisted, deformed creatures, huge ones, small ones. There were giant spiders, huge spiders this big. (5 feet tall) Rats, snakes and worms, because the Bible talks about worms that cover thee (Isaiah 14:11). There are all kinds of abominable creatures everywhere and they seemed to be chained to the walls. I wondered "Why are these things chained to the walls". I didn't understand that, but there's a scripture on that in Jude 1:6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" And so maybe that's what I saw, I don't know, but that is what it appeared to be. I was glad because I didn't want them to get to me. They all hated me with a passion! That was another thing I didn't understand, they weren't just creatures, they had hatred towards mankind. So I was glad they were chained to the walls. I began to ascend up this pit in this tunnel, and to leave the flames. Soon it got darker, but I could see all these demons along the walls and they had such awesome power. I thought, "Who could fight off these creatures off" .. Bill Wiese confirms there is No Hope in Hell

. . .

http://www.askthebible.com/hell25mins.htm

p.s. -- This is from a transcript from one of audio tapes by Gary Greenwald (of Orange County California).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have Milena of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Can a person who has never seen snow, paint snow?

 

If he/she has a freezer that is not self defrosting they could likely deduce an idea of snow in a painting....that would be interesting to see

Holy frostman Batman, I haven't seen you around in a long time. Still clinging to your invisible friend?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Re ::

danatemporary wrote:
Re :: Problems ? Any Problems and any inherent contradictions ?!? Bill Wiese's descriptions of Hell.. Look at the section that starts in the middle of the page under this: Bill Wiese confirms there is absolutely no water in Hell. I knew that Hell's location is in the centre of the earth. That's where it'

Well too bad for him because there is an ocean of water down near the core of the Earth.

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

 

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Are Atheists

Old Seer wrote:

Are Atheists doing them selves a disservice by Attacking JC.

I would say so but then they don't understand the fella.

OK--shoot your arrows.    Smiling

Ok, I'll start with one. From Matthew 6:25

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink;

 

Isn't this a reckless thing to be telling to superstitious people in the first century? It's probably very dangerous to their health wouldn't you agree?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Is this fellow saying

danatemporary wrote:
Re :: Problems ? Any Problems and any inherent contradictions ?!? Bill Wiese's descriptions of Hell.. Look at the section that starts in the middle of the page under this: Bill Wiese confirms there is absolutely no water in Hell. I knew that Hell's location is in the centre of the earth. That's where it's at, in the centre of the earth. I understood that I was about 3700 miles deep in the earth. We know that the earth's diameter is 8000 miles. Half way would be about 4000. I was about 3700 miles down. In Ephesians 4:9 it says that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth. That's were Hell is right now. Later Hell and Death will be cast into the Lake of Fire and then cast into Outer Darkness. Bill Wiese's description of Demons in Hell I was along side this pit of fire and I saw all these demons all lined up along the walls, all sizes and shapes of every kind, deformed, ugly creatures, you can imagine. They were twisted, deformed creatures, huge ones, small ones. There were giant spiders, huge spiders this big. (5 feet tall) Rats, snakes and worms, because the Bible talks about worms that cover thee (Isaiah 14:11). There are all kinds of abominable creatures everywhere and they seemed to be chained to the walls. I wondered "Why are these things chained to the walls". I didn't understand that, but there's a scripture on that in Jude 1:6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" And so maybe that's what I saw, I don't know, but that is what it appeared to be. I was glad because I didn't want them to get to me. They all hated me with a passion! That was another thing I didn't understand, they weren't just creatures, they had hatred towards mankind. So I was glad they were chained to the walls. I began to ascend up this pit in this tunnel, and to leave the flames. Soon it got darker, but I could see all these demons along the walls and they had such awesome power. I thought, "Who could fight off these creatures off" .. Bill Wiese confirms there is No Hope in Hell . . . http://www.askthebible.com/hell25mins.htm p.s. -- This is from a transcript from one of audio tapes by Gary Greenwald (of Orange County California)

This is something that happened to him. Holy smokes, I'm gonna run right out, jump into a snowdrift and repent. I don't know for what but I'll do it anyways just to be safe. Pascal might have something going there for himself.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you're thinking what

Jabberwocky wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Are Atheists doing them selves a disservice by Attacking JC.

I would say so but then they don't understand the fella.

OK--shoot your arrows.    Smiling

Ok, I'll start with one. From Matthew 6:25

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink;

 

Isn't this a reckless thing to be telling to superstitious people in the first century? It's probably very dangerous to their health wouldn't you agree?

what you're thinking it says, and if you were right, sure.

Here's a better one from the OT- And the little child shall sit next to the lion----etc---. ???

I argued with a Jehovah's witness about 10 year ago telling him the way he's thinking that lion would have a tasty meal.

Ok so what do we got here--- I do this every day. I don't worry about my life as to big worries and all that. It's fairly well taken care of. That's a result of all of us having the intellect to figure out how to work together and secure our needs. So, as long has we have that beat why worry about life. I don't take note as to what to eat or if there,s food or not, we've taken care of that too. Clothes---heck, that's taken care of too. What's he's getting at is ---the pursuit of affluence which brings about the suffering of the masses to meet requirements that aren't needed. He's suggesting moderation. Do I say thanks when I have a meal---up--- but I thank all of you out there that have spent your day doing all that's necessary to see that we all have what's necessary. And-if you got a few bucks to buy some chow---thank yourself too because you labored for it too. Don't thank the predator class, they live off the labor of the masses.

You'll see he's alluding to being childlike. Did you worry about such things when you were a child---so why worry now. The production lines are still operating.

What about the lion idea. We live in a predatory system. If you go the creation you'll encounter the "creeping thing" That's "catlike--a creeper-predator". Those of creation we childlike and weren't predators--that had a handle on themselves and weren't harmful to each other. So they could inwardly sit down next to the lion and and be in control of it/themselves. If you go to the time of Nimrod you can read----As it has been said as Nimrod a mighty hunter before the lord.  Hunter is the same as "predator". He's instituting civilization where the predator rules. Didn't I say "the predator class"- the leaders of religion, finance, government, industry. As Nimrod, they became as Nimrod, the same today when one strives to be like those who lead. They have everyone trying to be one of them. So, now you can relax, everything is taken care of.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wrong meaning but I'll roll with it . . .

re:: Always dress for the occasion

Quote:
"This is something that happened to him. Holy smokes, I'm gonna run right out, jump in a snowdrift and repent.".

I would suggest layers of Aluminized cloth, with materials like Nomex and other highly FR synthetic fabrics; dress in many layers of these materials. Best to stipulate in your will, you are buried with them.

After you've read the entire link. Suffer my little indulgence; no anyone should enjoy this one , I dare say.
Link
http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm

p.s. -- The "[ ]", anything within the brackets, only conveys too much of a meddling, meddling presenter.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Cap: I had 4 pages of

@ Cap:

I had 4 pages of responses typed out when my system froze. I'll get to it later.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Got handed a book

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Always dress for the occasion
Quote:
"This is something that happened to him. Holy smokes, I'm gonna run right out, jump in a snowdrift and repent.".
I would suggest layers of Aluminized cloth, with materials like Nomex and other highly FR synthetic fabrics; dress in many layers of these materials. Best to stipulate in your will, you are buried with them. After you've read the entire link. Suffer my little indulgence; no anyone should enjoy this one , I dare say. Link http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm p.s. -- The "[ ]", anything within the brackets, only conveys too much of a meddling, meddling presenter.

Wrutten by a Mary White. The whole planet is supposed to break out in flames to sterilize it for the return of the raptured few. It seemed to me she was already in some kind of rapture. I can see where that can be seen from the bible , but the book has nothing to do with a planet burning. The universe already has enough of those. I couldn't sustain any more reading and the book disappeared into it's own fiery demise.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Got handed a book

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Always dress for the occasion
Quote:
"This is something that happened to him. Holy smokes, I'm gonna run right out, jump in a snowdrift and repent.".
I would suggest layers of Aluminized cloth, with materials like Nomex and other highly FR synthetic fabrics; dress in many layers of these materials. Best to stipulate in your will, you are buried with them. After you've read the entire link. Suffer my little indulgence; no anyone should enjoy this one , I dare say. Link http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm p.s. -- The "[ ]", anything within the brackets, only conveys too much of a meddling, meddling presenter.

Wrutten by a Mary White. The whole planet is supposed to break out in flames to sterilize it for the return of the raptured few. It seemed to me she was already in some kind of rapture. I can see where that can be seen from the bible , but the book has nothing to do with a planet burning. The universe already has enough of those. I couldn't sustain any more reading and the book disappeared into it's own fiery demise.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Well,

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, maybe I'm weird for a non-believer, because the above is definitely NOT my position.

It's why I said "generally speaking".  I know that doesn't apply to all.  what do you believe?

blacklight915 wrote:

If that's what atheism means, then I'm not an atheist.

Likely not.  There are so many categories for non-believers just as there are for believers.  Atheism is a very specific group of people.  

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Yes, I found it, thank you. Unfortunately, I've always had difficulty understanding abstract concepts. So, I'll probably need to read through it a couple times before I really understand.

Understood


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:No, it is

Anonymouse wrote:

No, it is not. To say there's no evidence for demonic possession is 100% accurate.

That sounds opinionated to me... I know many who would claim the complete opposite (100% false vs. accurate).  Tell me then.  How do I know who to believe?  Some claimed mental illnesses is congruent with demonic posession descriptions.  Why should I believe one over the other?  How did you conclude?  I seriously want to know

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes, when you're responsible for the death and delusions of a clinically depressed, epileptic young woman, then I'm sure a whole lot of stuff will come up in the courtroom. Anything to get out of that kind of responsibility. 

ah, so it was all excuses.  I see...

Anonymouse wrote:

Audio recorded ? Yes, like the BBC "news program" that documented a similar case, climaxing in the presenter being "possessed" live on tv. All the audio you want. And pictures too ! Wait, what, it was a hoax ? Awww...

Ah, so everything hoaxed could never actually happen... It's all getting clearer now.

Anonymouse wrote:

Easy. Get me one of those demon things.

Get you one of those demon things?... Right.  Find a cult.  You might get lucky Eye-wink 

Anonymouse wrote:

Then you will harness all it's "demonic energy" (This is a thing. Ask anyone who believes in them), and use it to power a generator.

The Matrix IV... Coming soon to a theatre near you! thisfilmhasnotyetbeenrated.

Anonymouse wrote:

Think about it, finally we'll be able to use those "demons" for something else, besides giving us an excuse to murder and torture children and the mentally ill, just to give our "faith" something to hold on to.  

good luck with that


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Holy frostman

Brian37 wrote:

Holy frostman Batman, I haven't seen you around in a long time. Still clinging to your invisible friend?

AH!!! BRIAN!!!  I was wondering when you'd chime in.  I knew you were following this thread.  How've you been?!  

I've been around.  Doing well here.  The Lord is with me strong my friend Smiling)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:@ Cap: I had 4

Vastet wrote:
@ Cap: I had 4 pages of responses typed out when my system froze. I'll get to it later.

wow dude, sorry to hear that.  It's happened to me.  I learned to put my longer responses in a word processor and save before posting.  It's frustrating, take your time.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That sounds

caposkia wrote:
That sounds opinionated to me... I know many who would claim the complete opposite (100% false vs. accurate).  Tell me then.  How do I know who to believe?
 

Ask them to produce the proof. They will fail to do so. Still not sure ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Some claimed mental illnesses is congruent with demonic posession descriptions.  Why should I believe one over the other?  How did you conclude?  I seriously want to know
 

 

Because there is no proof. Not a shred. 


 

caposkia wrote:
ah, so it was all excuses.  I see...

 

Yes.  Not sure how a head-scratching smiley is going to change that. 

You see ? I'm not so sure you do. You might try checking out the german movie version of those events. It has more facts, less spectacle, which leaves less room for fantasy.

 

caposkia wrote:
Ah, so everything hoaxed could never actually happen... It's all getting clearer now.

As I already explained, hoaxes are all there is in the demon possession game. All of it is fantasy.

But sure, I didn't need that example to explain that audio is no proof of "demonic possession".  It does, however, show how eager people are to be fooled. It would seem this sort of thing is considered entertaining. 

Not so much when you're the victim.

 

caposkia wrote:

Get you one of those demon things?... Right.  Find a cult.  You might get lucky Eye-wink 


 

The Matrix IV... Coming soon to a theatre near you! thisfilmhasnotyetbeenrated.


 

good luck with that

 

 

You asked what I would accept as evidence. I just told you. 

 

It would seem you find the idea of a demon-powered generator completely ludicrous.

 

On the other hand, one of those demons possessing a young, epileptic german girl, who then uses her to transmit a conference call between Kain, Lucifer, Judas and Hitler (who taught the first three to speak german, apparently ) ...that is something you consider to be worthy of serious consideration ?

 

How does that work ? I seriously want to know. 


 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's why I

caposkia wrote:

It's why I said "generally speaking".  I know that doesn't apply to all.  what do you believe?

I believe talking about "possibilities beyond what we can see" is pointless unless it's at least theoretically possible to know whether or not said possibilities actually exist.

 

caposkia wrote:

Likely not.  There are so many categories for non-believers just as there are for believers.  Atheism is a very specific group of people.

Um, I'm pretty sure 'atheist', 'non-theist', and 'non-believer' all describe the exact same group of people...   Other people commenting in this thread, can I have your input on this?

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Other

blacklight915 wrote:
Other people commenting in this thread, can I have your input on this?
 

 

Try not to get bogged down in a discussion about labels. Big waste of time. You know where you stand and why. That's all that matters.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:caposkia

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
That sounds opinionated to me... I know many who would claim the complete opposite (100% false vs. accurate).  Tell me then.  How do I know who to believe?
 

Ask them to produce the proof. They will fail to do so. Still not sure ? 

yes, because both sides have failed to do so by your standards.  Does proving mental disabilities exist somehow disprove demonic possession?  Or does demonic possession somehow disprove that mental disabilities exist?  I think not, but what do you have that I haven't seen yet.  This is the best I've seen so far from an empirical standard

Anonymouse wrote:

Because there is no proof. Not a shred. 

Alright... if that's true, then I must ask.  If.... only if demons were real and could possess people, what would the evidence be for this?

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes.  Not sure how a head-scratching smiley is going to change that. 

Doesn't change that, but your conclusion of "it's all excuses" doesn't change my mind either.   Hence the head scratching.  I need more than, it's just excuses mainly because that happens on both sides in the story.

Anonymouse wrote:

You see ? I'm not so sure you do. You might try checking out the german movie version of those events. It has more facts, less spectacle, which leaves less room for fantasy.

What's it called and is it in English?

Anonymouse wrote:

As I already explained, hoaxes are all there is in the demon possession game. All of it is fantasy.

Right, with such a conclusive statement, you must have the study to support this claim.... and a few hoaxes among the millions of claimed possessions does not nullify every possession claim, otherwise, terrorist attacks are also just hoaxes.  

Anonymouse wrote:

But sure, I didn't need that example to explain that audio is no proof of "demonic possession".  It does, however, show how eager people are to be fooled. It would seem this sort of thing is considered entertaining. 

Not so much when you're the victim.

Entertainment?  sure, that's why they made it into a movie.  but I agree with you, not so much when you're the victim.  

Anonymouse wrote:

 

You asked what I would accept as evidence. I just told you. 

right... and I told you how to get one of those demon things.... join a cult and you might get lucky.  Sadly that is the most likely way to "get one of those demon things"

Anonymouse wrote:

It would seem you find the idea of a demon-powered generator completely ludicrous.

Be it that no one in the history of all religion has cared to "capture a demon" let alone try to somehow tap into the spirit to make power that can be used in the physical world.  It's only as ludicrous I guess as the Matrix movie actually was.... though a little more complicated than plugging a human in.  

Anonymouse wrote:

 

On the other hand, one of those demons possessing a young, epileptic german girl, who then uses her to transmit a conference call between Kain, Lucifer, Judas and Hitler (who taught the first three to speak german, apparently ) ...that is something you consider to be worthy of serious consideration ?

Hitler was in it too???  Didn't hear that version yet.  Though the details behind the story that I have heard thus far are consistent with demonic interactions.  Though all the names I heard were not of any but other fallen angels, not former humans.   If Judas and Hitler were in fact part of the so called conference call, then I would cast doubt on this particular incident.  

Anonymouse wrote:

 

How does that work ? I seriously want to know. 

What, more than one demon talking out of one being?  To understand how that works, you'd have to understand how more than one spirit can dwell within a physical body.  That's a bit complicated and I'm not sure I could fully explain it... only that spirits are not like people and physical size does not seem to be a limitation for spirits.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I

blacklight915 wrote:

I believe talking about "possibilities beyond what we can see" is pointless unless it's at least theoretically possible to know whether or not said possibilities actually exist.

If it wasn't at least theoretically possible, then there'd be nothing for Christians to follow. 

Um, I'm pretty sure 'atheist', 'non-theist', and 'non-believer' all describe the exact same group of people...   Other people commenting in this thread, can I have your input on this?

They do, they're just narrow to broad categories... just like 'Christian', 'believer' and 'baptist' all describe the exact same group of people.  Does that mean all Christians are baptists?  no, though all Christians do fall under the same category as 'believer' though believer is a little more broad and could include those who just believe in a spiritual existence and not necessarily the Christian God.  

all atheists are non-theists and non-believers, but not all atheists are agnostic.  Agnostics are still however, non-believers.  Their reasons for not believing differ however just as a baptists reason for believing is going to be different than a Catholic which would be different than a Muslim.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:They do,

caposkia wrote:

They do, they're just narrow to broad categories... just like 'Christian', 'believer' and 'baptist' all describe the exact same group of people.  Does that mean all Christians are baptists?  no, though all Christians do fall under the same category as 'believer' though believer is a little more broad and could include those who just believe in a spiritual existence and not necessarily the Christian God.

As you've just illustrated, 'Christian', 'believer' and 'baptist' do NOT describe the exact same group of people--if not all Christians are baptists, then the groups described by these two words are not exactly the same. The words 'atheist' and 'non-theist' have identical definitions, and both accurately describe everyone who is not a theist.

 

caposkia wrote:

all atheists are non-theists and non-believers, but not all atheists are agnostic.  Agnostics are still however, non-believers.

I'm pretty sure you can be an agnostic theist...  If I remember correctly, it describes someone who lacks knowledge of, but not belief in, a god.

 

caposkia wrote:

If it wasn't at least theoretically possible, then there'd be nothing for Christians to follow.

Okay, so...do you know of replicable tests I can perform that will at least get me closer to finding out whether or not God is real?

 

caposkia wrote:

What, more than one demon talking out of one being?  To understand how that works, you'd have to understand how more than one spirit can dwell within a physical body.  That's a bit complicated and I'm not sure I could fully explain it... only that spirits are not like people and physical size does not seem to be a limitation for spirits.

Okay, what the heck is a spirit? And how in the world do you determine whether or not they exist as something other than a concept people invented?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yes, because

caposkia wrote:
yes, because both sides have failed to do so by your standards.  Does proving mental disabilities exist somehow disprove demonic possession?  Or does demonic possession somehow disprove that mental disabilities exist?  I think not, but what do you have that I haven't seen yet.  This is the best I've seen so far from an empirical standard

Well, if we're comparing "standards", by your standard, you could be possessed by a demon right now. Heck, by your standard, you could be possessed by mickey mouse.

Your "standard" is in fact, completely useless. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Alright... if that's true, then I must ask.  If.... only if demons were real and could possess people, what would the evidence be for this?

You already asked me what I would consider proof for this ridiculous claim, and I already answered.

 

caposkia wrote:
Doesn't change that, but your conclusion of "it's all excuses" doesn't change my mind either.   Hence the head scratching.  I need more than, it's just excuses mainly because that happens on both sides in the story.

Uhm, no, the other side didn't keep a terribly sick girl from getting the medical attention she needed. They didn't make her kneel until she broke her knees. The "other side" didn't do anything that needed an excuse. I think your mind needs to examine the facts in this case, and maybe spend a little less time fantasizing about mythical creatures. 


 

caposkia wrote:
What's it called and is it in English?

Requiem. No idea if there's a subbed version. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Right, with such a conclusive statement, you must have the study to support this claim....

Do I need a study to prove you're not possessed by mickey mouse ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
and a few hoaxes among the millions of claimed possessions does not nullify every possession claim

What makes them all hoaxes is the fact that there is no proof for any of them. Not for a single one.

 

caposkia wrote:
, otherwise, terrorist attacks are also just hoaxes.  

Terrorists aren't supernatural beings. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Entertainment?  sure, that's why they made it into a movie.  but I agree with you, not so much when you're the victim.  

I'm glad we agree there's always a victim in those cases.

Oh wait, you mean victim of the big, bad invisible demon, right ? Not victim of religious delusions ? Okay, moving on then.

 

caposkia wrote:
right... and I told you how to get one of those demon things.... join a cult and you might get lucky.  Sadly that is the most likely way to "get one of those demon things" 

See, that's one of the problems with these ridiculous claims. How am I even supposed to tell if you're being serious ? I mean, you heard somewhere that's where demons hang out, and you just believe it ? You can't possibly be that gullible. You wouldn't be able to survive if you were. So why are you trying to convince me that you are ? 

You seriously believe a cult member can get me one of those creatures ? Okay, find one and make him bring one of those things. Or check it out yourself. Let me guess, you don't really want to ? 


 


 

caposkia wrote:
Be it that no one in the history of all religion has cared to "capture a demon" let alone try to somehow tap into the spirit to make power that can be used in the physical world. 

Even if you somehow knew the "history of all religion", that still depends on which religion you decide to take seriously. 

And what about Solomon and his demon posse ? Does he get to be in your history of all religion ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 It's only as ludicrous I guess as the Matrix movie actually was.... though a little more complicated than plugging a human in.  

Ah, I see. The fantasy in the matrix movie was ludicrous, but the fantasy in an exorcism movie...


 

caposkia wrote:
Hitler was in it too???  Didn't hear that version yet.  

Please don't tell me your only research for a case you pushed forward as proof, was watching the hollywood movie. You're going to give me a headache. 

Yes, Hitler. Who do you think taught the other three to speak German ? Eva Braun maybe ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Though the details behind the story that I have heard thus far are consistent with demonic interactions.

The script of the Smurfs sequel is consistent with smurfic interactions. Both sentences are equally meaningless. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Though all the names I heard were not of any but other fallen angels, not former humans.   If Judas and Hitler were in fact part of the so called conference call, then I would cast doubt on this particular incident.
 

???

That's what it takes for you to dismiss demonic claims as bullshit ? They got the bullshit recipe wrong, so now there's doubt ?? 

Look, this girl was basically tortured to death. Don't treat this as a discussion about the rules in a dungeons and dragons game. I mean, who cares about who those particular christians thought would speak to them from hell ? What the heck does it even matter ? For pete's sake, they made her kneel until her knees broke ! Oh, if only someone had told them Judas and Hitler turning up made the whole "possession" thing a bit fishy. If only they'd know, they would have brought her to the hospital just in time. Yeah, sure. 

And no, I'm not trying to accuse you of not caring about the victim here. I'm trying to point out that the way you're looking at this is completely ridiculous. Making up rules for fantasy doesn't make it real. It just makes it pathetic. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
What, more than one demon talking out of one being?
 

No, I meant why do you accept one type of fantasy, but dismiss another ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
To understand how that works, you'd have to understand how more than one spirit can dwell within a physical body.  That's a bit complicated and I'm not sure I could fully explain it...

No worries. Here's the "demon" entry on the dungeons and dragons wiki. That should cover it :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

No good ? Wrong type of bullshit ? Not "complicated" enough ? 

Okay, how about this then :

http://www.islamawareness.net/Jinn/

What, wrong bullshit again ? Oh man...

 

caposkia wrote:
only that spirits are not like people and physical size does not seem to be a limitation for spirits.  

And Smurfs are three apples high and totally magical ! 

But don't try to find their village ! Only the cult members can find it. No, really.

 


 

 


 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:
wow dude, sorry to hear that. It's happened to me. I learned to put my longer responses in a word processor and save before posting. It's frustrating, take your time.

Yeah it sucks. Been quite awhile since it happened. Guess I had too many things going on my PS3.
It'll probably be another couple days. Whenever I lose that much writing one of two things happen: I get frustrated and it fuels me to rewrite it then and there; or I get apathetic for a few days and need to "recharge" by discussing other subjects. I will get back to it, but number 2 hit me this time around. Fortunately I don't think you're going anywhere any time soon. You've been here longer than most. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:As

blacklight915 wrote:

As you've just illustrated, 'Christian', 'believer' and 'baptist' do NOT describe the exact same group of people--if not all Christians are baptists, then the groups described by these two words are not exactly the same. The words 'atheist' and 'non-theist' have identical definitions, and both accurately describe everyone who is not a theist.

I don't want to tangent on this too much more here, but the basic idea is that both do have identical definitions in regards to their position on God... however, "nontheism is a term that covers both a range of religious and nonreligous attitudes characterized by the absence of--or the rejection of theism or any belief in a personal god or gods." (reference.com)  Just like theism covers a range of beliefs that would accept the existence of a personal god, but not necessarily Christian.  Atheism does fall under the category of non-theism, but so does agnostic, Buddhism,  and even some forms of Christianity due to the variation of the term 'god'.   I don't know much about that sect of Christians, so don't ask.

my basic point is that religion applies to both sides of the fence here.  To be an atheist, you are still adhering to a specific belief system.  In the case of atheism; that a god or gods could not possibly have created the universe.  

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm pretty sure you can be an agnostic theist...  If I remember correctly, it describes someone who lacks knowledge of, but not belief in, a god.

It could cross over.   It's not necessarily lacking the knowledge, but rather claiming that the knowledge is unobtainable.  some would say it's lack.  

blacklight915 wrote:
 

Okay, so...do you know of replicable tests I can perform that will at least get me closer to finding out whether or not God is real?

The only one I'm aware of is from your heart truly seeking out this God of the bible and living your life according to His Law (NT not OT).  All that I'm aware of who have honestly taken the time and fully sought out this god from their heart has been united with this God.  

If you yourself don't want to be the subject of the experiment.  I guess the next step would be to investigate all the claimed 'god sightings' from around the world and test for consistency and accuracy.  That would be a decades long study most likely.  There'd be centuries of data to go through and categorize.    

You could also look further into those "near death experience" stories and check for consistency.  

Many people when they ask that are looking for 'magic' to happen every time they pray or for God to *poof* in front of them... to them I ask.  If you were checking to see if I was actually human by testing whether I'd make the same choice each time you asked for it, I'd likely care less to make the choice in your favor as well.  We cannot empirically test choice because choice changes.  

all in all, in my experience one has to want to find God.  

Also, are replicable tests the only way of finding out truth?

blacklight915 wrote:

Okay, what the heck is a spirit? And how in the world do you determine whether or not they exist as something other than a concept people invented?

a spirit by direct definition would be the same as a soul or basically the consciousness of a person.  Literally it is an external consciousness that mediates between body and soul.  

How to determine whether or not they exist... by a physical means?... that's something people have been trying to figure out for years.  Some who call themselves ghost hunters look for evp's or electronic disturbances.  Whether what they find are spirits or external stimuli is up for debate.  The problem with "studying" spirits is you can't sample a spirit, put it on a petri dish and study it under a microscope.  It'd be like trying to study a peice of light from the air.  In fact, that might be a place to start.  Consider how you might study a peice of light or a photon and possibly we might be able to manipulate it to study external consciousness.