NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Well stated.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What’s your main reason for being a theist or an atheist?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- theism and athiesm
Well stated.
If something can't be seen by many people, then this is a sign that it isn't clear.
But if it was clear, they would be able to see it. That's what the word "clear" implies.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is obviously some strange usage of the word "clear" that I wasn't previously aware of.
Since I introduced the word clear into this part of the conversation (#317), I should point out that I was using the word in the ordinary English sense:
clear
1. Easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
1.1 Leaving no doubt; obvious or unambiguous.
1.2 Having or feeling no doubt or confusion.
1.2 Having or feeling no doubt or confusion.
For the further removal of doubt, you can substitute "and" instead of "or" in 1 and 1.1.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Choice? What is this "choice" you speak of? I could no more force myself to believe in something for which there is no solid evidence than I could force myself to believe in Magic Pixies.
It's not a matter of choice, once you learn how to be skeptical with respect to unsupported claims.
As stated elsewhere? If god cared, then god knows what would constitute evidence. And there would be no atheists, anywhere on Earth.
Obviously, either god does not care, or is maliciously evil, or is missing entirely.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
The bible said all those things-- and your religion absolutely depends on the bible.
So.... no.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Fail. It's the opposite of "clear". It is so obscure that only a tiny percentage of humans are convinced by it-- the remainder rejecting it.
A clear message would never suffer such a colossal failure.
I realize that is an argument from popularity-- but-- it's a valid argument: A clear message is easily understood by anyone who can read the language.
Your book? Is the exact opposite of that.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Nope. I have no choice in this matter, because I'm not convinced these horrific and misogynistic "messages" are from any rational god.
Neither am I convinced that god(s) are even possible!
I could no more force belief than you could choose to believe the Smurfs represent real people.
Once again-- the god YOU believe in has failed to 100%, to be rational, reasonable and convincing.
I'd rather buy a car sight unseen from a guy named "Honest Joe's Used Cars"
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
That is nonsense. You are perverting the word "clear".
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
And that should have given you pause... that it's nearly an impossible task to "prove" god.
That everyone does not experience this "god" you speak of, however hard they struggle to find it.
There was a point in my life, where I was going into the ministry-- that's how convinced I was that the god I believed in back then, was real, and "spoke" to me.
Looking back, of course-- hindsight being 20/20 vision-- I recognize it was peer pressure that drove my quest to be a minister: The culture I was raised in, and still involved with, revered preaching as the #1 Thing To Be-- except for women, of course. Women were to make babies first and foremost. So naturally, that's the path I trod.
I was most fortunate, however: The religious university I applied to? Was incredibly inept. Criminally, even-- in that I did not get a reply from them until a couple of weeks before I was due to appear in person! What? I had correctly assumed they were not interested, and had made other arrangements to a State College. Best "mistake" of my life, although I did not know it at the time. Fast-forward 20 years, and I finally recognized that all the god-claims-- ALL -- NO EXCEPTIONS-- were fantasy-delusions.
Had I been so unfortunate as to have gone to religious college? I'd likely have figured this out much sooner--only to be trapped in a career that I would come to loathe-- recognizing I was **lying** to people. The only consolation would have been, I'd not be alone: The Clergy Project was created to help people in that situation.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Naturally! It was plagiarized heavily from the bible of that time and place. Not news.
Still not the same religion, and certainly not the same god-- the definitions are very different in significant ways.
Fail.
False: A Muslim is taught that Jesus was simply a wise human, and not remotely divine. Same for Moses.
That is 100% the opposite of the fundamental principle of Christianity.
Not the same god.
Who is fundamentally, and critically a different god from either. Not the same god.
So? There is a vast gulf between Islam's god, Jewish god and the Christian god.
Fundamental, critical essential traits/claims/attributes are vastly different between these.
In fact? Among the Christian brands of "god"? There is also a great gulf of different attributes!
For example: Is hell real or not? Some christians say emphatic "yes", others say an equally fervent "no"
That is a Critical Fail! The different flavors of "christian" don't even worship the same god!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
BRILLIANT!
And a most Excellent And Apropos reference to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide.
Points! Points, I say!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Bob, you left no room for me to engage in the discussion. You said all that I would have ever said.
I am so very sorry. I will say, however, that I love to read someone else's way of writing. And I'd love to read your particular take on the issues. I like seeing ideas expressed in different ways, as one's culture and background necessarily shades the way we write.
I love, love writing-- I've been writing pages, daily, since 2005, when I began this Quest.
What is the end goal? I've no idea-- but I've discovered that I love writing, and have learned that I like to write as if I was speaking directly, a more colloquial, informal style, rather than a passive, 3rd person literary style.
Here in RF, I've taken a slightly less speaking style, and more of a narrative voice. Mainly due to the mod enforced politeness policy. A policy I rather like, actually-- it forces me to re-write sometimes, which is a Good Thing.
I think that's one of my principle reasons for returning, again and again, to subjects I've written about 1000's of times previously (literally, in some cases).
There is a difference between being detached and completely unhinged.
Basically, my worldview is that sentient beings are vulnerable to delusion, due to the very nature of sentience (having a subjective mind, with delusion being the confusion of the subjective for the objective.) This would include any sentient being, even one that might fit the description of a god. (Which would render a great many notions attached to the concept of god as being unhinged from this simple observation.)
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Jiyo to aise jiyo jaise sab tumhara hai, Maro to aise ki jaise tumhara kuch bhi nahin"
(Live as if it all belongs to you, die as if nothing is yours)
Film: Bahu Beti (Daughter in law, daughter), Lyrics: Sahir Ludhianvi, Music Director: Ravi, Singer: Mohammad Rafi
Last edited:
It is jolly that you like it. But I have a very small point to make.Yeah. How are you so certain that you are biological-chemical processes?
See, the biological-chemical or any other physical processes are explainable in terms of the material ultimates and their properties such as mass, charge, spin etc. But how these physical properties generate self awareness (consciousness) and mental causation?
Last edited:
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Yeah. How are you so certain that you are biological-chemical processes?
See, the biological-chemical or any other physical processes are explainable in terms of the material ultimates and their properties such as mass, charge, spin etc. But how these physical properties genets self awareness (consciousness) and mental causation?
Easy: People with non-fatal brain damage, and Alzheimer's.
These poor unfortunates give is examples-- "experimental" examples, including before and after behaviors.
It is now certain, that if you damage one's brain? One's personality changes in multiple ways.
The more damage? The greater the change.
There is a kind of 'tipping' point, where given enough damage, the personality simply vanishes, and you have diminishing ability, to the point that with enough, the victim shows the same personality as a carrot or shrub.
But wait! There is more: What are people, but a collection of memories? In many ways, you can say that a person's personality is strongly dictated by all the memories they have collected through a life time.
But. Factor in non-fatal brain damage? Memories are lost. Permanently. These memories never return, even after the brain in question has recovered the majority of non-memory brain function.
So. Where is the "soul" in all of that? Clearly, the soul does not preserve memories!
In fact, it appears that the soul-- if it exists-- does absolutely nothing in these cases.
Pretty safe to conclude "soul" is a myth, like all the other myths humans fabricated to "explain" that which was not understood.
Excellent. But all of it and more can be explained more easily and parsimoniously with idealism as the world view.
But you cannot explain how consciousness arises from material ultimates characterised by mass etc..
Goodman John
Active Member
I completely agree that any sort of damage to the brain can cause loss of memory, personality changes, etc- and if extreme enough, it can wipe us out to the point of being a blank slate upstairs.
But then we jump to the soul and you posit that it doesn't 'preserve memories'- fair enough, but what if it does but we just don't know it because of the effects of our brain damage? Even if we are, medically speaking, fully recovered we can't be absolutely sure everything is 100% optimal in there. Maybe it doesn't preserve ALL our memories in full anyway- maybe just pieces of our life experiences.
I am not far enough advanced theologically to hazard a guess as to where the soul resides in our bodies. Certainly it has a connection to our brain, but is it in just one spot or does it perfuse our entire body? Does it reside within us, or does it surround us like an 'aura'? If we could see it, would it be a little light bulb over our head? I honestly don't know. I believe souls exist, but I can't explain them any more than I can quantum physics (I was terrible in math classes back in the day, so there's that).
Personally, I believe in the transmigration of souls- not a reincarnation of an individual person in total, but that a person's soul can move to another body upon the original host body's death (I think it moves into a new baby at conception). If this is indeed the case, and our soul does retain even a hint of our memories, then perhaps this could explain at least some of the cases of where people remember 'past lives' in snatches of memories or even just feelings of 'deja vu'. (Mind, I'm usually pretty skeptical about people's tales of 'past lives' and all that, so even if I'm down with the possibility of it I set a rather high bar for credibility of the person.)
Last edited:
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Emergent properties. Look at bird flocking: we have demonstrated birds do not have telepathy.
Yet, if you watch a flock of birds wheeling in and around objects? It looks like they do have some kind of "mass mind".
But. Game theory studies, demonstrates you can duplicate bird flocking behavior with a very short list of rules used while flying. Each of the birds uses these rules and viola: Flocking.
Similar things explain consciousness. No need to invoke magic.