Negative Belief and Proof

[Link]

Neither of these are necessary for true belief and peace, friend. Serenity can be found within.

Salam

You know today in Salah, I had a moment, for once, been a long time, I totally forgot about myself when thinking saying verse 1:3. I was immersed in my thought about God's compassion and mercy without any "adoration" of myself. Then Satan quickly ruined that, and got me adoring myself "adoring God", so adoring myself adoring God and made me think about myself and then to "not adore myself", I began to recall sins I've done. I began to struggle between "focusing on God" and "focusing on me", by the end of Salah when saying "peace be upon you O you who is the Prophet", I barely was able to even focus on Mohammad (s).

But I can tell you that without God, I would hate existing.

I think without God, I can't stand myself to be honest. I think anyone who knows me would agree that I'm not that much fun to be with nor interesting nor admirable nor anything really.

The only thing I enjoy these days really is Quran and words of Ahlulbayt (a) (ziyarats, hadiths, Du'as/supplications/prayers they taught, etc).

I don't even enjoy food no matter what. I can go to a super expensive restaurant and won't enjoy it. Fast food same. BBQ homemade food don't enjoy.

Ice-cream I had yesterday just for the sake of my nephew and niece, and I finished it without noticing it's taste.

There's nothing in life for me that gives me peace. I don't enjoy video games anymore nor anything anymore. Without God, there's nothing for me at all.

I'm going to complete my degree (1 year left), but I don't do it to acquire luxury that won't mean anything for me. I do it for the sake of God. God knows my intention is that I offer something, leave something good for his creation, help his creation someway for his sake, so that I return close proximity to God and have a high station in his view, and have a good relationship with him.

Take that away, and I would've long ago committed suicide.

 

[The Hammer]

Salam

You know today in Salah, I had a moment, for once, been a long time, I totally forgot about myself when thinking saying verse 1:3. I was immersed in my thought about God's compassion and mercy without any "adoration" of myself. Then Satan quickly ruined that, and got me adoring myself "adoring God", so adoring myself adoring God and made me think about myself and then to "not adore myself", I began to recall sins I've done. I began to struggle between "focusing on God" and "focusing on me", by the end of Salah when saying "peace be upon you O you who is the Prophet", I barely was able to even focus on Mohammad (s).

But I can tell you that without God, I would hate existing.

I think without God, I can't stand myself to be honest. I think anyone who knows me would agree that I'm not that much fun to be with nor interesting nor admirable nor anything really.

The only thing I enjoy these days really is Quran and words of Ahlulbayt (a) (ziyarats, hadiths, Du'as/supplications/prayers they taught, etc).

I don't even enjoy food no matter what. I can go to a super expensive restaurant and won't enjoy it. Fast food same. BBQ homemade food don't enjoy.

Ice-cream I had yesterday just for the sake of my nephew and niece, and I finished it without noticing it's taste.

There's nothing in life for me that gives me peace. I don't enjoy video games anymore nor anything anymore. Without God, there's nothing for me at all.

I'm going to complete my degree (1 year left), but I don't do it to acquire luxury that won't mean anything for me. I do it for the sake of God. God knows my intention is that I offer something, leave something good for his creation, help his creation someway for his sake, so that I return close proximity to God and have a high station in his view, and have a good relationship with him.

Take that away, and I would've long ago committed suicide.

Quoting this so I can give a better and more detailed response later.

Peace

 

[blü 2]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

Prove, in the sense of 'satisfactorily demonstrate', I take it?

So A thinks X is a real thing or real state of affairs ─ real in the sense of existing in the world external to the self.

and

B has no opinion as to whether X is real or not, or
B thinks X is not real.

In either case it's fair for B to respond to A, "Show me" ─ isn't it?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?

Only if they had a definition of "truth" that set objective standards of what is true, hence can be tested in reality.

I favor the "correspondence" definition of truth: that truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. And I add, outside this sentence there are no absolute truths. The physical sciences proceed by empiricism and induction, so I dare say that they'd agree.

But if A wants to assert that the supernatural is found in the world external to the self (ie is not just a set of concepts and imagined things that have no objective counterpart) then "Show me" seems to me to be a proper and fair response.

would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

I'd say she wouldn't.

But she and I would be inclined to say to the person asserting such a view, "Show me. Give me a satisfactory demonstration that consciousness exists independently of the brain" (or however the assertion is phrased).

Of course, we'd need to agree on a satisfactory definition of 'consciousness' first.

 

[RestlessSoul]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

It takes something fairly seismic, and frequently traumatic, to make a person change their beliefs. The question is, when we abandon one set of beliefs or values, what do we replace them with? Something that works, one would hope. Not always though. In the end, it all comes down to faith; without faith in something, we have nothing of enduring value, and therefore nothing to give away.

 

[Clara Tea]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?

would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

Scientists "are supposed to" observe and test what is really there. Physicists try to create equations to describe the world. Biologists try to spot trends in evolution.

Suppose a biologist suddenly saw God beaming down from heaven with a booming voice (better lay off those shrooms). . . the biologist would have to modify his opinion of how life was created.

Theists already have been confronted with solid proof of the age of the earth, the roundness (not flatness) of the earth, space flight to the moon (which some people deny), and DNA incontravertable evidence that evolution is correct. They have been shown scientific proof (which they didn't look at) that mankind's influence on Global Warming is making it worse, and making storms (like hurricane Katrina) worse. Yet theists would not change their minds (usually). The pope admitted that there is proof of evolution, but claimed that God guilded it.

Theists, confronted with proof that the Shroud of Turin isn't as old as it should be if it was the shroud of Jesus, still insist that it is correct. Confronted with evidence that the flood never existed to the extent that the bible says, continue to assert that it did. Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

Even when proven absolutely wrong, theists will continue to say that they are right, and assert that scientists are out to destroy religion.

Scientists don't have an agenda to destroy religion, though when there is a disagreement, scientists will stand their ground.

Some theists are part of the Cancel Culture (people like Trump and Lindell are not allowed to speak/write their minds, and the right of free speech doesn't exist).

Some theists want to burn books (Harry Potter books, Catcher in the Rye, the Wizard of Oz). Some theists want to end gambling. Some want to stop Gay sex.

Phrased, as you did, it makes it seem silly for someone to fight agaisnt their position. Yet, we should always seek the truth. Does God have something against the truth? "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The New Testament makes it clear that we must read the bible, and if information exists in the bible, we have an obligation to read it.

It makes no sense to have a strong opinion and not try to study the opinion and opposing opinions. We should hear all sides, and make up our minds based on knowledge, facts, and discussions.

There are hundreds (or more) denominations of religions. Could it be that they all are right, or could there be subtle disagreements? If there are disagreements, shouldn't one try to discover who is right and who is wrong?

When it comes to unproven God, and unproven origin of the bible, etc., it is difficult to say that one denomination is right while another is wrong.

Is it possible that God, after separating the races and languages at the Tower of Babel, also gave each race it's own bit of a bible? If so, then the sum total of all biblical knowledge is not in any one denomination (or religion). Rather, the true and total words of God might be found in all religions of all of the people of the world?

 

[Clara Tea]

Prove, in the sense of 'satisfactorily demonstrate', I take it?

So A thinks X is a real thing or real state of affairs ─ real in the sense of existing in the world external to the self.

and

B has no opinion as to whether X is real or not, or
B thinks X is not real.

In either case it's fair for B to respond to A, "Show me" ─ isn't it?
Only if they had a definition of "truth" that set objective standards of what is true, hence can be tested in reality.

I favor the "correspondence" definition of truth: that truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. And I add, outside this sentence there are no absolute truths. The physical sciences proceed by empiricism and induction, so I dare say that they'd agree.

But if A wants to assert that the supernatural is found in the world external to the self (ie is not just a set of concepts and imagined things that have no objective counterpart) then "Show me" seems to me to be a proper and fair response.
I'd say she wouldn't.

But she and I would be inclined to say to the person asserting such a view, "Show me. Give me a satisfactory demonstration that consciousness exists independently of the brain" (or however the assertion is phrased).

Of course, we'd need to agree on a satisfactory definition of 'consciousness' first.

Those who don't know, don't have an obligation to prove. Those who believe that they do know, might be able to prove it.

Lacking proof, it seems silly to believe.

 

[blü 2]

Those who don't know, don't have an obligation to prove. Those who believe that they do know, might be able to prove it.

Lacking proof, it seems silly to believe.

There are alternative views, of course.

If ignorance is bless, 'tis folly to be wise​

springs to mind as an example. It's not my view, but it certainly has its fans.

 

[Clara Tea]

Salam

You know today in Salah, I had a moment, for once, been a long time, I totally forgot about myself when thinking saying verse 1:3. I was immersed in my thought about God's compassion and mercy without any "adoration" of myself. Then Satan quickly ruined that, and got me adoring myself "adoring God", so adoring myself adoring God and made me think about myself and then to "not adore myself", I began to recall sins I've done. I began to struggle between "focusing on God" and "focusing on me", by the end of Salah when saying "peace be upon you O you who is the Prophet", I barely was able to even focus on Mohammad (s).

But I can tell you that without God, I would hate existing.

I think without God, I can't stand myself to be honest. I think anyone who knows me would agree that I'm not that much fun to be with nor interesting nor admirable nor anything really.

The only thing I enjoy these days really is Quran and words of Ahlulbayt (a) (ziyarats, hadiths, Du'as/supplications/prayers they taught, etc).

I don't even enjoy food no matter what. I can go to a super expensive restaurant and won't enjoy it. Fast food same. BBQ homemade food don't enjoy.

Ice-cream I had yesterday just for the sake of my nephew and niece, and I finished it without noticing it's taste.

There's nothing in life for me that gives me peace. I don't enjoy video games anymore nor anything anymore. Without God, there's nothing for me at all.

I'm going to complete my degree (1 year left), but I don't do it to acquire luxury that won't mean anything for me. I do it for the sake of God. God knows my intention is that I offer something, leave something good for his creation, help his creation someway for his sake, so that I return close proximity to God and have a high station in his view, and have a good relationship with him.

Take that away, and I would've long ago committed suicide.

Perhaps God's greatest lesson is to think of others. Starving, homeless, jobless, stranded without a car.

I just gave a stranded Catholic woman a ride home. . became good friends. . . adult daughter (age 60) thought I was stealing her mommy and ordered me to go away. No thanks for rescuing her.

We all need a purpose in life.

A Texas oil man once told me that I'm too lazy to ever work in the oil fields of Texas. That's not true. I'm overweight, and I would make a good cork if I sat on top of a gushing derrick.

Reverend Tex Watson was a member of the infamous and murderous Manson Clan (follower of Charles Manson). Manson suggested that his followers murder, but Manson never murdered anyone himself. Reverend Tex Watson did. Watson, clutching a bible, and declaring himself a changed man, was paroled. He wrote a lengthy explanation of why he murdered innocent people. He said that he was not sure he could live up to the expectations of his parents (they expected him to go to college), so he was frustrated so he murdered. There is no hint that his motives have changed, now that he has become a reverend.

1969, Manson Clan members arrested for Tate and both LaBianca murders.

Stockton, 1972, the Manson Clan shot to death James Craig and Lauren Willette. James later was decapitated and buried. Lame alibi....shot accidentally while demonstrating the dangers of firearms (not true, of course). The real story was that James and Lauren were about to tell the cops about the Manson Clan robberies.

1975, Squeaky Fromme warned a record producer of imminent danger, the next day Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford.

1979 Fromme attacked fellow prison inmate with a hammer (arrested again).

1987 Fromme broke out of prison (captured 2 days later).

2008 Fromme granted parole, but had to serve extra time for prison break. Once released, moved in with boyfriend in house decorated with skulls.

How does "thinking about yourself" compare with the murders and robberies of the Manson Clan?

You are being too hard on yourself.

Yet, you can see that murderers and robbers don't consider others. They are focused on their own selfish needs and desires.

 

[Clara Tea]

There are alternative views, of course.

If ignorance is bless, 'tis folly to be wise​

springs to mind as an example. It's not my view, but it certainly has its fans.

Bliss (not bless). By Thomas Gray, Ode On A Distant Prospect At Eton College.

 

[Clara Tea]

Faith is unreliable and should not be promoted. And religious belief IS superstitious. You're trying to down sell the very thing that motivated believers.


Regardless how you try to frame and redefine faith it is still just an emotional approach to ideas that are not rational. It is self-justified, irrational belief.


Really, prove it. You can't. This is an arrogant claim that you know you can't defend.


No facts here. Just fiction.


Then if there is none of this how can you arrogantly claim "God exists."?


Yet you can't demonstrate how any god is self-evidence. You just make the claim. You offer no explanation or facts. So we throw it out.


So not being a theist is a waste of time? How is not believing some set of absurd and implausible ideas a waste of time? You're only showing your disdain and intolerance for freedom of thought and reason, and that is the liability of your religious belief.

Buddhism is belief in a wise man, not God. The wisdom is irrefutable, though anything can be debated. So, we don't need to know if Buddha ever existed, we merely need to know the wise things that he said. Even if he never said them, someone did, and they are wise words.

 

[blü 2]

Bliss (not bless). By Thomas Gray, Ode On A Distant Prospect At Eton College.

Oops! What could I have been thinking?

 

[Balthazzar]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the negatives motivate more desire for the positives. Motivation I guess. They change over time, often enough to understand the societal and environmental aspects of how we view things. Periods, or timeliness, from decades to centuries to millennia, things change as we change collectively. It's a balancing act sometimes and typically the best guides are reflected in each individual and logic.

 

[Ella S.]

I try my best to seek out solid arguments for positions which contradict my own, because I care more about knowing what's true than being right.

"Consciousness" is a vague term. It refers to many things that are almost certainly products of the brain like wakefulness and metacognition, but I also see people saying that the universe itself is conscious or that sleeping people are conscious or rocks are conscious. People talk about the "hard problem of consciousness," but I genuinely don't understand what the alleged problem is supposed to be.

I don't think we're using the term to refer to the same concept, but any time I ask someone what they're talking about they end up describing some form of wakefulness or metacognition, so I'm honestly completely lost in those conversations. How is "consciousness" immaterial, at least in a way different from something like an orbit or a soundwave in that it's an abstraction of physical processes?

 

[rational experiences]

Two humans exist. One.

One species.

One species on one planet as a two of.

Aren't theists. Aren't scientists. Live naturally. Innate survival. Human. Advice with the taught meaning about their survival. Human.

Natural family human sciences.

Human conscious claim I'm dominion owner on earth. I act differently from all other beings.

Natural sciences. Observed.

No human owns any legal argument against that position.

As legal was human chosen as a concept to stop human lying.

Therefore it is legal.

Now if you ask a human how is your human thought any other concept?

A human.
A healthy human.
Living exactly as a natural science. Human observation in total life support?

Legal.

Then a very basic human question. Why did you become a theist. Who told stories only first. Then wrote your human believed scientific concepts calculus?

As you are the only human type going against natural human science.

Therefore the next question.

What were you making science a subject for anyway?

Real reason the machines position only.

Therefore theists throw out any pre belief story. As you are proven wrong.

You are human as both earth as rock exists. You own bones like rock. Heavens mass is stable fixed first.

Now does stable mean Jesus?

A big no.

It means all natural mass types exist. You live as a human. You understood ice mass kept heated changing positions stable. Ice.

The answer.

Then ask a question...for what human living reason do you a human say you own an instant human presence by stories only first?

Answer is you don't.

Are you conscious?

Yes.

Do you lose your healthy cell instantly given a new human cell?

Yes.

Is it human owned human biology human body self change exact? Human total presence present?

Yes.

It's not science.

Legal. Position theists are liars.

Proven.

If any natural body didn't exist you'd own no human chosen subject to discuss as stories.

Legal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

could, or would, a being prove what they don't believe exists? would there be any motivation to even try?

would a fundamental spiritualist have any motivation to believe in evolution; if they believe literally in their religious book?


would a fundamental materialist have any motivation in the idea of consiousness as something more than a brain?

The quote Dr House: You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.


Your use of the world "fundamental" reveals that you are talking about dogmatic beliefs. Those are unquestionable by definition. Such beliefs are irrational and intellectually dishonest.

People don't come to such beliefs while caring about evidence.
Whatever motivates them to hold such beliefs will be something other then evidence.

You can't force someone to care about evidence.
If someone decides to believe something and not actually care about being rationally justified in that belief, not actually care about holding true or false beliefs, then there is not much you can say to them to make them believe otherwise.

Closed minded folks are closed minded.
It's up to them to decide to start caring about rational justification and intellectual honesty.


Personally, I prefer to minimize believing false things.
So I will walk a path which will do exactly that.
That path, is the path of evidence, rational reasoning, intellectual honesty and the courage to face the truth regardless of it being uncomfortable or not.