|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Posted on: March 13, 2008 - 1:03am
   Offline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Remember, "reality" doesn't care if "you respected yourself or not." In the vast scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You're introducing the concept of what's usually called a soul?
I don't have one. What's it like?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
*tear* I love you guys. *sniff*
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I actually did get that from your other posts. I do not find agreement with your position however. I'm still one that claims lack of knowledge of the Universe. It may be you are absolutely right, or even those who practice one of the other thousands of religions. I don't do mystic, spiritual, or non-physical. It may be that we are all inter-connected by universal consciouness, though I don't feel it, touch it or experience it. It may be I'm just blind to it or it may be that it only is shown to those who are mystic.
If it works for you and you don't build altars to sacrifice virgins, crash planes into buildings, or declare it to be required for all citizens of your country, then I have no issue with you. You are aware of what you are doing and have justified your position to yourself. You can't claim that, you didn't know, because you have demonstrated knowledge of opposing viewpoints. I absolutely don't agree with you, but you are entitled to believe what you'd like. Your original request for help was BS, but I'll let that go.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I have no clue either. Maybe it's all sparky and such.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Naked assertion.
In the vast scheme of things the only thing that matters is rather 'you' respected your life or not. The universe being indifferent is a non issue. Also, you managed to ignore the fact that he stated:
"At least 'I' can respect 'myself' knowing that 'I' face the good and the bad without resorting to comforting myths as a shield and pacifier."
As you can see he was referring to how he felt about himself. Your quip about the universe not caring is out of place and doesn't properly associate itself with his post.
They itch. (I traded mine for a laptop.
)
As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch
Whether a particular belief is rational or not doesn't change the fact that rational thought entails belief. Every logical argument begins with a premise or an assumption (i.e. a belief).
Why is it irrational?
I believe the atheistic worldview is irrational because it views life as being ultimately absurd. An absurd view of life is an irrational worldview.
Perhaps, you're right. It's not a belief arrived at rationally. It's probably a spiritual intuition borne out of an inner sensing or "knowing." I believe they call this faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I didn't realize that science discovered the chemical composition for conscious-awareness.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You have already demonstrated your unwillingness to accept the evidence of QM.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It's not a comphrension problem, but an attitude problem. A materialistic bias will influence how one interprets the evidence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Thank you for finally admitting your faith is irrational.
Now why again were you claiming that it was atheism that had to be an irrational belief?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
What's at issue here is not whether the working assumption of materialism is practical, but whether it is ultimately true.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The fact is that the mind/body issue is still hotly debated in academia.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The experience of "sat chit ananda" or "nondual awareness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
In the interest of economy, I shall handle your two previous responses in tandem:
I'm afraid you have not. Your first two (2) attempts at explanation were nothing more than single-sentence replies, namely:
Neither of these statements bear any logical connectivity to your purported conclusion, and hence both statements fail to:
Proceeding,
With deepest apologies, I must yet again point out that what "seems" to you "more reasonable" does not qualify as a rational explanation, particularly when you do not provide the premises upon which it "seems more reasonable". So like the aforementioned single-sentence replies, this one likewise does not:
Very well. However, that does not change the fact that you can have one without the other (i.e., rationality and belief). Therefore, your previous statement (to which I was responding):
remains insufficient to:
If you require assistance on forming a rational proof, I for one would be happy to help, as I am sure others would. However, were you to seek assistance, it might serve to indicate that you had not actually rationally deduced your pantheistic belief as you previously claimed, which would thence indicate that you have in fact been prevaricating this entire time. Please advise.
Surely you know that presupposition is irrational, as it has no premises on which to rely. You cannot soundly presuppose that pantheism is true any more than I can soundly presuppose that it is false. You effectively conceded this yourself in the above quote, as you independently distinguished between "logical conclusion" and "basic presupposition".
These are two naked assertions in succession. To avoid distraction, I will leave the first one be. For you to assert that "An absurd view of life is an irrational worldview", you would be obliged to prove that life is in fact non-absurd. It would be fitting for you to do so now, if you at all intend to:
on this sixth (6th) occasion of my asking. Having albeit briefly intimated the mechanics of rational proof, and having offered further assistance should this have been inadequate, I do not expect to see our fruitful discussion scuttled by yet another single-statement non-sequitur.
So now on post #270, at long last, I perceive a tentative disavowal of the claim made on post #50, that your pantheistic belief was rationally based, even as you spent the better part of this post contending that it was. Which would strongly that you have indeed been tergiversatory this whole while in articulating the basis for your beliefs. To think that you have been knowingly duplicit would be so insulting as to put my humours in painful imbalance. I will therefore close my eyes to this apparent effrontery for the moment, and leave it to be amended, by the honest Paisely, the rational Paisely, the Paisely who through 200+ posts has demonstrated nothing but integrity and consistency.
However, if you have hereby unequivocally acknowledged that your belief is not rational ( "It's not a belief arrived at rationally" ), we can safely conclude our exercises, and consider your belief in god "fixed".
There are no theists on operating tables.
I don't have a proof.
This is not self-evident to me.
At the very least, I would say that God is consciously-aware. This is self-evident to me.
I'm fully aware that not all atheists subscribe to materialism. However, I don't know of any viable metaphysical system other than materialism that doesn't entail some kind of God-concept.
If an atheist believes that life has an ultimate purpose, then I consider this a teleological argument for the existence of God.
In the atheistic worldview, whether an atheist experiences all he can experience is meaningless in the vast scheme of things. The universe could care less (metaphorically speaking).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You two should debate more often.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I agree. I accept that I am insignificant in the "vast scheme of things". Even among my own species, which now number over 6 billion, I am insignificant beyond the small sphere of my personal influence. Since that is an issue that is beyond my control why should it bother me ?
I accept that I will die and be forgotten. The same is true of every generation that is born and then passes away into obscurity, never to return. The process is beyond my control.
The universe is cruel and indifferent....so, what should I do throw a temper tantrum ? Hire an attorney and file a lawsuit ?
Or better yet, perhaps to elevate my sense of self-worth I will do as so many others have done and simply tap into my imagination and invent a god to jealously fawn over me.
"Our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness." Vladimir Nabokov ( 1899-1977) Russian-American novelist
"Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen." Michel de Montaigne ( 1533-1592)
There appears to be a higher self and a lower self. The higher self is eternal; the lower self is temporal. Whether there is only one soul or many is the difference between pantheism and panentheism. On this point, I'm somewhat agnostic.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I 'm not admitting this.
It appears that you are conflating the ideas of the nonrational with the irrational; they're not the same. Faith is nonrational because it is not derived by logical analysis but by an intuitive spiritual sense.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No. I'm not implying observation or consciousness is some supernal magnum atque magnificum, if that's what you mean. It is just a relational state.
possibly.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Agreed.
I disagree.
Yes, I have. And this is why I can say that Harris was promoting mysticism (primarily Buddhist mysticism).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
full of bull feces.
What? How else does one determine the presence of inner experience? What brand new method have you come up with?
Pure exaggeration. Just like global warming is "hotly debated"? Where there are three guys doing a lecture circuit? Dualism is ridiculous.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It hasn't. The evidence comes from logic applied to the observation of brain injury and psychadelic chemical influence. The logical statement is thus:
a. Consciousness is observed to be affected to the extent that the physical states are interacting - in the case of injury, as long as the injury has an affect on the physical brain the affect to consciousness is observable (eg permanent change in the physical state of the brain correlates directly to observable permanent conscious alteration)
b. sample groups within a range of specific physical manifestations are observably affected within a like range of manifestations of consciousness (eg Observable loss of long term memory consistent with physical affect on a portion of the hippocampal region)
therefore c: The physical state and the mental state are inseparable. (neutral monists can concur to this point).
then d: The physical cause precedes, in biological time, the mental state.
and e: biological time ---- insert your reason ----
therefore f: material monism is correct.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I didn't realize you came up with evidence for a non-physical mind thingy. Why would the default presumption be to go with dualism, when dualism presupposes a special extra variable called "mind" seperate from "body"?
Just because you want to have a soul doesn't mean that you have any measurable evidence for one. You can want it as hard as you like, it doesn't make it true. I have some evidence, and you have none.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Just curse the nonexistent God and die? Sounds like a good purpose to me.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived." This is not to say that it is irrational. I distinguish between the terms irrational and nonrational. The nonrational is that which is not derived through rational means. Faith most-likely stems from spiritual intuition, not logical analysis. This view is called "fideism."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I would like you to argue against the poster of post #22:
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
So your putting forth blind faith and backing it with invincible ignorance while attempting to peg atheistic materialism as irrational? Boy, if that's not a solid plan I don't know what is......
As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch
Ah, but what happened to:
As I said in the initial reply to that: This is an internal purpose, one that arises from within. And yet you seem to consider it significant enough to establish that 'life has a purpose'... except, apparently, to atheists, despite the fact that atheists here are the ones maintaining that the find purpose in their own lives.
If commonality of one internal purpose is enough for you to say 'how can anyone say that life doesn't have a purpose?', then how is it that you dismiss the general category of internally-arising purpose as a view that life is 'meaningless and absurd'?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
That's pretty much it. Anyone for seconds?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I suspect that we have vastly different definitions of pantheism, panentheism, and faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Please state whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or theist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I would argue that determinism is implicit in the worldview of atheistic materialism. Therefore, how is it that you are able to freely create "your own rules" when every thought and belief you have is completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise?
What is imaginary is your belief in self-autonomy. You cannot rationally justify the belief that you create your own rules - not unless you presuppose that you're a "god" exercising libertarian free will. In this case, you're not really an atheist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Probably?" Are you therefore admitting you're not even certain where your "basic belief" is derived from?
Very well. What, pray tell, is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational?
"Most-likely"?
With all due respect, recall the first time I asked you to:
If anything, on the first occasion of my asking, this would have been the time for you to have said that your belief was in fact nonrational. Instead, you actually attempted to rationally defend your belief -- albeit with half-hearted and insufficient explanations. Only after this attempt foundered did you coin this new "nonrational" term. And even so, you betray a certain level of uncertainty, having to cushion your statements with "probably" and "most likely".
We've quite clearly established you have no sound reasons for your belief, other than your own desire subjective to cling to them.
Your belief in god has been fixed. Thank you and come again.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Wow, Paisley for a person who is all about absolute truth your response clearly indicates that you completely failed to grasp the meaning of my post.
I agree that life is ultimately meaningless beyond thought. And since there is no mind to value or appreciate your existence eternally, then your life is ultimately meaningless and absurd.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I like that.
I'm an atheist and a 'compatibilist'. As a matter of fact, I would argue that free-will can't function without determinism as it wouldn't be free-will, it would be random.
Easy, see above....
Naked assertion. That aside.... Instead of trying to force-feed absurd positions down someones throat, why don't you ask them where they stand on a particular subject? As it stands, your not doing yourself any favors by knocking over all those straw-men. I mean, your so busy arguing with your own assertions that you miss any points worth considering, which in turn, has left you failing to produce any worth while points per your own position.
Good... We agree here, but judging from bellow...... It's going to be short lived...
Again, it doesn't matter that the universe doesn't care, not even a little. People have placed value on their own lives and as such, anything beyond that is a non-issue. Your desperately trying to attach arbitrary value to the idea that life is somehow more meaningful when that value is eternal rather than adopted and fleeting in nature. The fact is, this is a matter of personal hang up and has nothing to do with a position being absurd.
I.E. You can call life absurd all you want, what this doesn't do however is reflect an absurdity on the behalf of a position that realizes that life, and the value placed on it, only exist finitely.
As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch
Hey Paisley , I've forgotten where this thread was heading, but think you might also enjoy this current one.
"Proof that god exists"
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/12675#comment-147397
I gotta run now , But I'll be back , defeating the "god of abe" is important work .....
, go go warrior typers ..... fight for truth ! 
I Gawed command it.
Atheism Books.
Contrast can be seen as a mechanism unto itself.
Whereas - In material monism it might be generally said that duality is seen as a relic of time dependent differentiation, like a box with two (or more) distinct coloured sands shaken up and blended to a random arrangement. This mixed arrangement of the sands on the whole varies the sample in local areas. Clusters of specific arrangements appear starkly different to other clusters in the population, but essentially they are not remarkable, they have merely emerged to their present state through the conglomerate mechanisms of the sifting process. So duality is a resultant property, then, not a fundamental one. - In neutral monism duality is not a relic of a time dependent process, duality is the process and differentiation is the relic, the cat paradox suggests just this quality to be true, moreover, note that the consistent method for handling this particular quality does away with time dependency as a rule.
So I would say I agree, it is within us to naturally think in dualistic terms because we are in need of the emergent property of a dualistic process (differentiation) in order to exist in the way which we do. For the main example, why we have a cat paradox is by the discovery that underlying reality doesn't differentiate between *is and is not* this is no paradox at all if we understand that this duality of existence is a process by which differentiation of states is possible. Thus existence, in our capacity, requires the duality, while reality confirms to us at it's most basic level that it doesn't.
Well, to begin, Einstein's relativity was heavily informed by the work of Ernst Mach, a neutral monist (that all neutral monists would do well to get acquainted with), who once said: "Physics is experience, arranged in economical order."
RQM is essentially an extension of the same schema coming from Mach and Einstein (and Liebniz incidentally - the three have more in common than having famously taken a bite out of Newton) over the Quantum theory. To a significant extent neutral monist philosophy is the birthplace of relational physics, I'd say they are very compatible.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Two points:
1) Belief in God does not preclude one from doing science.
2) All metaphysical positions entail belief(s).
If life is ultimately meaningless, then it is ultimately absurd.
I not saying that your personal life is meaningless per se. (I believe everyone's life has ultimate meaning and value.) But I do believe that atheism presents a worldview that, when logically analyzed, portrays life as ultimately meaningless and absurd. Nothing said here in this thread or elsewhere leads me to believe otherwise.
I'm talking about contemplative practice or meditation, not necessarily introspection. But now I digress. The question was concerning faith and rationality.
To "truly wish" entails hope. In order to work for the greater good, I must have "hope" that it is achievable. If I did not, then it would be an exercise in futility.
In other words, it will take faith, hope, and vision. Right?
Faith is in one sense blind (it doesn't know all things)....but in another sense it is vision itself.
I call this the law of cause and effect (a.k.a. karma). Faith does not prevent me from understanding this.
I feel like senator Obama here. But this isn't hope.
Belief and reason, rationality and intuition...mutually entail each other.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I believe you mean that when YOU logically analyze the atheistic worldview, you see something that is ultimately meaningless and absurd. That last part is your jugement, and it's based on nothing but your own imagination. Even those people here who have told you that life has meaning for them - even those who have told you that life has meaning ultimately for them - you ignore. So for you, the fearsome position of godlessness presents meaningless because you yourself would lack meaning without a god. That's not the case for everyone.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Of course not. Experimental method is designed to protect itself from belief.
Metaphysics really isn't all that impressive, though, is it?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is not exactly clear to me. For materialism to be true, each mental event must correspond to a physical event. For example, if the cause of pain is the firing of c-fibres, then the firing of c-fibres (physical event) must be identical to pain (mental event). If there were any time delay between the firing and the pain, then this theory would be invalidated.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You're assuming an ultimate is actual, an ultimate is available, and an ultimate is relevant. (And this is all regarding an incoherent idea.) There's the possibility all these notions are false. Even then, none of it necessitates even the most watered down conception of a god -- whatever that would even be, since the whole game is just a crude, irrational anthropomorphism.
You either missing that point in your reply, or deliberately evading it.
Which still leaves you conclusion an argument from ignorance.
Indeed magilum , ignorance is all "godly", now what ? , dogma to fill in gaps ?
sheezzzz ..... what a scary joke religious people are , so godless they are .....
WTF = GOD ..... 
Okay I argee, god is WOW ! Then came religion dogma , and atheist Jesus said fuck that ..... so that jesus philosophy and message of "ONE" was promtly killled. That message would crush the church/gov masters .....
"Why" is the "Answer" ....... so Why Ask ?
umm , I will have to re-write this , ME GOD, as you .....
Atheism Books.