Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[PureX]

*smiles* Who is doing the flapping?

Let's go back to what I said...



The observer is conscious, and in being conscious is consciousness. The observer needs only to observe, to be aware. No thought is required to observe. The observer exists before a thought, and remains after a thought.

Can you observe your thoughts? Who is it that is doing the observing? Who is it that exists before thought? Who is it that thinks? Who is it that is aware?

Cognition requires organization, and that intellectual organization is by definition, "thought". So I don't think we can separate thought from observation, or awareness. Just as I don't think consciousness would matter to anyone, in any way, if it were not also thoughtful.

I see humanity (and possibly all sentient life forms) as a manifestation of existential/universal self-awareness. Existence becomes aware that it exists, through us. The universe is experiencing itself, through us. We are each individual bits of a universal self-consciousness, contributing our own tiny but unique perspective to the whole. This requires us to not just 'see' what is, but to consider what it is that we are seeing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain



What I have is subjective evidence based on my experiences. In my attempt to help you to learn and understand, you ever so arrogantly call my generous efforts "word salad" and dismiss them. Again, I can help you if you set aside your bias.

So called "subjective evidence" is of very little value. It would help if you did not make false accusations against others. You appear to only be trying to justify wishful thinking. No actual evidence was presented.

Reliable evidence exists regardless of who observes it. "Subjective evidence" is extremely close to being an oxymoron.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You were. You made a series of unsupported statements and came to a unjustified conclusion.



Flapping and nonsense again.



Please. If you want to claim to have evidence or a reason to believe in what you believe you might want to back up a bit. In using the scientific method a hypothesis can be formed and it can be tested. That was done by the Harvard researchers in the article that I linked. They can claim to have evidence. You on the other hand only appear to be playing word games.

Yes, Harvard researchers did a few tests on 36 patients 12 of which were comatose, and looked at some scans of 45 coma patients, and claim to have come up with a few results that support their hypothesis. This is hardly strong and conclusive evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Word games? I asked several questions. You answered exactly ZERO. Clearly, you have no desire to set aside your biases, open your mind, and expand upon what you think you know. Your loss, not mine. I see no reason to continue this discourse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God does not operate as humans do by applying logic to a problem He is trying to solve. God chooses His Method based upon many factors, not just how many people will believe in Him. There are other reasons to use Messengers, not the least of which there is an important message God wants to make available to everyone, and a Messenger is the only way to accomplish that.

How so? It seems to me that using “messengers” would interfere with clear communication. Have you ever heard of broken telephone?

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is a false accusation. There was no assumption. Your post was unsupported nonsense. It earned the dismissal given to it. I am far from close minded. If you can support your claims my mind can be changed.

Call it what you will. My attempts fell on deaf ears. If no internet article can be cited to support an idea, the idea is nonsense to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, Harvard researchers did a few tests on 36 patients 12 of which were comatose, and looked at some scans of 45 coma patients, and claim to have come up with a few results that support their hypothesis. This is hardly strong and conclusive evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Word games? I asked several questions. You answered exactly ZERO. Clearly, you have no desire to set aside your biases, open your mind, and expand upon what you think you know. Your loss, not mine. I see no reason to continue this discourse.

That is only one of many examples. One is not going to find large scale tests of this sort. But in test after test one always finds only physical evidence for thought and nothing else. Though you may be able to find something that contradicts my claim. Those tests are far more than what you have supplied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Call it what you will. My attempts fell on deaf ears. If no internet article can be cited to support an idea, the idea is nonsense to you.

Please, you failed. All I ask for is reasonable evidence. And it is hypocritical to complain about a lack of internet articles that support you. This debate is occurring on the internet so that is where the supporting evidence needs t come from. This is rather basic logic. We can't go to a university library together. We cannot do experiments together. All we can do is to access the internet and that is a vast resource.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is only one of many examples. One is not going to find large scale tests of this sort. But in test after test one always finds only physical evidence for thought and nothing else. Though you may be able to find something that contradicts my claim. Those tests are far more than what you have supplied.

I've already said that 'thought' and 'consciousness' are two entirely different things. This posts is further evidence that you are simply not paying attention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've already said that 'thought' and 'consciousness' are two entirely different things. This posts is further evidence that you are simply not paying attention.

That is merely an unjustified claim on your part. Perhaps it would help if you tried to define your terms properly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We cannot do experiments together.

False. This is what I was attempting to accomplish in the previous posts which you so quickly dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. This is what I was attempting to accomplish in the previous posts which you so quickly dismissed as nonsense.

How would we do meaningful experiments together?

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is merely an unjustified claim on your part. Perhaps it would help if you tried to define your terms properly.

Again, this was done in my previous posts. You quick dismissal of these as nonsense is affecting your failure to pay attention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, this was done in my previous posts. You quick dismissal of these as nonsense is affecting your failure to pay attention.

Nope, you did no such thing. There was merely hand waving and unjustified claims.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Subduction Zone, this discourse has deteriorated to ad nauseum on both of our parts. I think it's best at this point for both of us to take the high road and simply take our leave here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone, this discourse has deteriorated to ad nauseum on both of our parts. I think it's best at this point for both of us to take the high road and simply take our leave here.

Why not take a reasoned approach to this. You may have a justified belief, but you have skipped all sorts of steps in your presentation. As a result it was exactly what I called it. For example by "consciousness" you seem to mean self awareness, though I could be wrong in that assumption. Self awareness is a trait that does not appear out of nothing. Other animals besides man appear to be self aware too, just to a lesser degree than we are. Again that would indicate that it is an evolved trait and not an external one.

 

[Shad]

God does not operate as humans do by applying logic to a problem He is trying to solve. God chooses His Method based upon many factors, not just how many people will believe in Him. There are other reasons to use Messengers, not the least of which there is an important message God wants to make available to everyone, and a Messenger is the only way to accomplish that.

There are more and better ways than a single messenger. Sorry but you are repeating dogma.

I never said that the God’s Goal was to get the message out to all of humanity right away. I said that God using a Messenger makes it possible to get the message out to all of humanity, and people will come to accept that message over a period of time.

The text you reference contained the goal otherwise the text wouldn't exist.

Given the history of religion, this method has been slow to get believers in the new religion right after it was revealed and for a long time afterward, but it has accomplished its purpose of getting people to believe in God, since 93% of people in the world believe in God. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. So obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

Again you are talking dogma. People having a general belief in God does not mean every belief is due to a messenger of God as a true messenger. Obvious a number of religions do not accept your messenger, Islams, Jesus, etc, etc.

If God had never used Messengers, hardly anyone would believe in God because the main reason people believe in God is because of one of those Messengers. Only about 9% of people in the world believe in God for some other reason.

Again you are talking dogma. Primitive belief systems started well before any history record of a specific figure.

You are certainly right that the Messenger method has a poor track record when it comes to the next Messenger, but the reason for that is because people of the older religions cling tenaciously to their older Messengers and religious traditions, thus every new Messenger is always rejected when He appears and for a long time afterwards. This is mostly the fault of the religious leaders of the older religions who attempt to keep their flocks in tow because they are not willing to relinquish authority and power. Another reason for the rejection of the new Messenger is that the followers of the older religion do recognize the fulfillment of prophecies by the new Messenger since they misinterpret prophecies in their scriptures.

Or it could be due to people not believing the claims of the next messenger, people do not believe X is a messenger at all but a fraud.

If communication is not verbal or text, what would it be?

If I started spouting verses from a religion I do not know that would be a form of communication from God to me. However in general communication between humans can include sign language, emotions, facial expressions, body language, etc.

Why would it be left up to me how an omnipotent God chose to communicate?

No no. "It's up to you" was about "another subject I can explain later if you are interested." I was saying it is your choice to explain not your choice regarding God's method of communication

 

[ChristineM]

Are you the citation police? Your tactics on this forum are getting old. Just because someone suggests something that goes against your worldview doesn't mean you have the right to bully them into citing references that supports what they suggest.

Where consciousness originates is an ongoing debate. The suggestion that it originates in brain is nothing more than a hypothesis in the scientific community. Attempting to bully some who suggest otherwise into posting citations amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Are you bullying?

I am not the one making the statement of where consciousness originates, i simply asked for evidence of the claim. If people can make up any bull and not be challenged then what is the point of debate?

 

[ChristineM]

'Consciousness' is not 'mental ability' nor is it 'thought.' Consciousness is your existence before (or more accurately, behind) thought or the ability to perform mental processes. You are here before a thought arrives, and you are here after a thought has departed.

I am not my thoughts. I am not my body. I am not my mind. I simply am.

Consciousness :

1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
2. a person's awareness or perception of something.

Both are directly associated with the brain/mental ability

 

[ChristineM]

"Rather strong evidence?" Please share.

Are you the citation police? Your tactics on this forum are getting old. Just because someone suggests something that goes against your worldview doesn't mean you have the right to bully them into citing references that supports what they suggest.

Interesting

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, it's usually based on a perceived lack of logical reasoning, and the lack of resonant experience. "Belief" is just a vague notion we wallow in until the real reasons become articulated.

Reword it any way you'd like, but the reality remains that this lack of logical reasoning results in a LACK OF BELIEF.