Stupid douche.
Why do you believe in God?
Posts
Total:
393
-->
@ludofl3x
Guys, can you please start calling each other names, like immediately? BEcause I'm not comfortable with the straight reasonable discussion you're having even though I think you disagree. There needs to be more personal attacks, how else will I decide which argument is better?
I think they've agreed that one can't know the unknowable. I wouldn't argue against that.
@3rutal
Your brain deciphers and extracts identifiable (QUALIA) WORDS from a meaningless smattering of pixels.
However some 'smatterings of pixels' on a screen are just random dots. Only a tiny subset of possible patterns pixels are meaningful words sothere is a diference between words on a screen and random dots on the screen, because your brain can extract meaning from the former but not the latter.
Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS. Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.
The meaning of the dots you are reading is there even if you don't read it - the meaning being the meaning of words I am typing now. Your brain does not paint those dots with their meaning; I put the meaning there - your brain retrieves it.
-->
@Athias
...people still tend to conflate it with "nothingness" and or simply dismiss it as "unimportant" or "irrelevant".It's possible that it's nothing, but it's insignificant because one can't know it.
It is IMpossible that it's nothing, because "nothingness" is logically incoherent. "Nothingness" can only be no-where at no-time.
-->
@disgusted
You believe in gods because you've been indoctrinated in the false belief that when you die you won't be dead, how pathetic.
I believe Athias (Athiest) is simply trying to make an ontological argument for "perception/conception = reality".
-->
@keithprosser
I think they've agreed that one can't know the unknowable. I wouldn't argue against that.
Please demonstrate.
-->
@keithprosser
Your brain projects MEANINGFULNESS (QUALIA) into those WORDS. Like spraying paint onto a blank canvas.The meaning of the dots you are reading is there even if you don't read it - the meaning being the meaning of words I am typing now. Your brain does not paint those dots with their meaning; I put the meaning there - your brain retrieves it.
Now we're making real progress.
Please explain how people can misunderstand each other.
-->
@3RU7AL
Gladly. I hereby demostrate that I wouldn't argue against it by NOT arguing against it!
-->
@Athias
Please rephrase or expand this statement.How does one control for information that is not abstract?
Are you asking how one assimilates raw sensory input that is not yet categorized (pre-Qualia)?
Just think of a newborn baby.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see much of a problem with the process of extracting meaning being less than 100% effective - the problem I see is that if you are projecting (or 'painting') meaning on to the pixels constituting this sentence (for instance) how I could communicate anything at all.
-->
@keithprosser
I don't see much of a problem with the pocess of extractig meaning being less than 100% effective - the problem I see is that if you are projecting (or 'painting') meaning on to the pixels constituting this sentence (for instance) how I could communicate anything at all.
I think you're just saying that because you're bitter and you hate god so much!!!
Clearly there is some basic similarity of experience (necessarily bracketing the limits of our shared language) but there are a great number of personal and regional variations (in dictionary definitions).
But my ability to (spray paint) ascribe motives to your words makes it easy for me to rush to disqualify anything you might say.
Now imagine I replied to you in Chinese!
我想你只是這麼說，因為你很痛苦而且你非常討厭上帝！
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't take much imagination if actually do it!
But - as I understand it - you are suggesting I can 'paint' those pixels with meaning.. so should I think you said 'my hovercraft is full of eels'?
-->
@keithprosser
But - as I understand it - you are suggesting I can 'paint' those pixels with meaning.. so should I think you said 'my hovercraft is full of eels'?
You might believe that I am speaking in some type of "secret code" and imagine any number of possible interpretations based on this unfalsifiable hypothesis.
I've even had more than one person tell me that when I say, "I'm not sure about that, I'll have to think about it" what they hear is, "you're full of sh**!", which is not my intention whatsoever.
Clearly there is some basic similarity of experience (necessarily bracketing the limits of our shared language) but there are a great number of personal and regional variations (in dictionary definitions).
A string of words rarely has a single interpretation. You can sometimes get pretty close if you strictly describe Quanta, but even that's not a sure bet.
I think of it as if each person has their own personal glossary (or dictionary). Most people tend to believe that their own understanding of words and phrases applies equally to everyone (or at least to what they consider "reasonable people"), but in practice this is almost never the case.
-->
@3RU7AL
It is IMpossible that it's nothing, because "nothingness" is logically incoherent. "Nothingness" can only be no-where at no-time.
Yes, but it's also paradoxical in that once you subject it to some logical framework, you are implicitly stating "nothingness" is not "nothing."
I believe Athias (Athiest) is simply trying to make an ontological argument for "perception/conception = reality".
Not necessarily. I'm stating that perception and conception are inseparable from rationalizing existence. And existence we're incapable of knowing (or rationalizing) doesn't matter. And "Athias" is a family name; not homonymous with "Atheist." Research the name and you discover its origin.
Are you asking how one assimilates raw sensory input that is not yet categorized (pre-Qualia)?
What is raw sensory input independent of abstract notion?
Just think of a newborn baby.
What about a newborn baby?
-->
@Athias
Yes, but it's also paradoxical in that once you subject it to some logical framework, you are implicitly stating "nothingness" is not "nothing."
The concept of "nothingness" is logically incoherent. The concept of "nothingness" is an abstract concept (not "nothing").
-->
@Athias
You experience raw sensory input (like an infant) BEFORE you understand the concept of "existence".Not necessarily. I'm stating that perception and conception are inseparable from rationalizing existence. And existence we're incapable of knowing (or rationalizing) doesn't matter.
The map is not the territory.
-->
@3RU7AL
The concept of "nothingness" is logically incoherent. The concept of "nothingness" is an abstract concept (not "nothing").
Were we discussing concepts? Or is there no distinction between the aforestated and this:
It is IMpossible that it's nothing, because "nothingness" is logically incoherent. "Nothingness" can only be no-where at no-time.
?
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree, but I think it is more suprising how well we can communicate given that we must have aquired our vocabulary as kids by hearing words in context and working the meaning out! An interesting case is that in Uganda (where I lived many years) Ugandans speaking English would ask me to 'extend'. Extend what? I wondered, but I soon worked out it meant 'budge up' or 'shift along'. How 'extend' acquired that meaning no-one knows, but even highly educated Ugandans with perfect english use 'extend' in that sense. I've even caught myself using it when I came back to the UK!
I'm very conscious of the problem of mis-communication so I try really hard to use plain,ordinary language.
I think it's always a good idea to ask youself if an argument is over concepts or the words used to describe them.
-->
@Athias
Were we discussing concepts? Or is there no distinction between the aforestated and this:
Do you believe it is possible to describe a concept that is logically incoherent?
-->
@keithprosser
I think it's always a good idea to ask youself if an argument is over concepts or the words used to describe them.
I find that implicit agreement is often false agreement.
Whenever possible I try to make any perceived agreement explicit.
-->
@3RU7AL
You experience raw sensory input (like an infant) BEFORE you understand the concept of "existence".
What about this isn't abstract? You state that an infant experiences raw sensory input before understanding the concept of existence, but how do you discern this independent of your abstracts? Is any of this information indicative of a substance independent of your representation? In order for one to do this one must isolate the abstract and that which isn't abstract; and thus far, you've only attempted to do this by arguing semantics--an abstract. Even when we speak of physical senses and the experience of sensation, what is "sensation" without conceptual contextualization? How does someone know that they're doing something different with vision, audition, gustation, olfaction and somatosensation independent of the abstracts? They don't because sensation (or sensory input) is abstract in and of itself.
The map is not the territory.
This analogy doesn't suffice. Your argument essentially amounts to "your notions of that which you see, isn't the same as that which you see." Except your notions rationalize that which you see.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is possible to describe a concept that is logically incoherent?
Yes, but it would be just logically incoherent and paradoxical (and I haven't denied that.)
-->
@Athias
Yes. I'd describe it as 'logically incoherent'.Do you believe it is possible to describe a concept that is logically incoherent?
Now what did you really mean to ask?
-->
@Athias
You experience raw sensory input (like an infant) BEFORE you understand the concept of "existence".What about this isn't abstract? You state that an infant experiences raw sensory input before understanding the concept of existence, but how do you discern this independent of your abstracts? Is any of this information indicative of a substance independent of your representation? In order for one to do this one must isolate the abstract and that which isn't abstract; and thus far, you've only attempted to do this by arguing semantics--an abstract. Even when we speak of physical senses and the experience of sensation, what is "sensation" without conceptual contextualization? How does someone know that they're doing something different with vision, audition, gustation, olfaction and somatosensation independent of the abstracts? They don't because sensation (or sensory input) is abstract in and of itself.The map is not the territory.This analogy doesn't suffice. Your argument essentially amounts to "your notions of that which you see, isn't the same as that which you see." Except your notions rationalize that which you see.
Our conversation is comprised of abstract concepts.
Do you believe there is an important distinction between REALITY and IMAGINATION?
Please answer "YES" or "NO".
-->
@TheAtheist
In simplest, basic terms, it just "makes sense". I was never an "atheist" per se, but I was at most, "indifferent". Used to be very pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-have-sex-with-whomever-the-hell-you-want. I had a lot of questions about faith, God etc There were times i even angry God (How could a good loving God allow this this and that to happen...etc).
At the same time, certain things started happening in my life which made life very difficult-- and these were all of my doing. During this deepest darkest times I met some amazing people, all of very strong faith, that helped me, they lifted me up. As a I started to come out of this "death spiral".
I had been Catholic all my life, but I was basically a "card-carrying" Catholic. I was often challenged by others-- atheists, Christians who despised Catholics, and just people who were curious. They would ask "Why do you Catholics do this this or that? Why do you belive this this or that?". I was embarrassed. I didn't know the answers...so what did.
As I started to emerge, I really began questioning my own life, my own choices, faith, God etc. A lot of these were some of the same questions I had earlier, but what I started to do was seek out answers. real answers, not just listening to those that have agendas. Many people would often challenge my Catholic faith or ask about it, not because they wanted to know, but rather because they were intent on belittleing, mocking or ridiculing me or the Faith. TO those who would do this, I would be thinking on the inside "Dude, if you are trying to win me over to your side, you're going about it the wrong way."
So I started to learn. I started reading up on the faith, Church history, and really seeking to understand "why". Started reading Aquinas, Augustine, the early Church History, and really learning why we do things as Catholics. And I started to learn. The more I started to learn the more I understood and grew to love it. Like I said, at the same time, I started meeting some amazing people who were much more knowledgeable about the faith than I and I really felt that they cared about me, and truly wanted to help me. After all the questions I've asked, I arrived at the conclusoin "There is just no other way-- there has to be a God", but I continue to ask questions and see answers.
If you are truly interested in learning why people believe in God, I think that's awesome. It's great to ask questions. If you notice, I'll often ask people questions-- lots of questions. That's how you typically arrive at truth-- you ask questions and really be open to the answers. Many times people ask questions, but aren't open to the answers. and if the answers don't satisfy them, they don't believe it.
Anyway, if you are ever interested in learning more about the Catholic faith, or if there are things you don't understand what us Catholics do, i'll be happy to answer or explain. Many people simply do not understand the religion, and may refuse to listen to any attempts to explain.
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
@keithprosser:
Yes. I'd describe it as 'logically incoherent'.Now what did you really mean to ask?
Wrong person.
@3RU7AL
Do you believe there is an important distinction between REALITY and IMAGINATION?
I don't subscribe to notions of "reality" and "imagination." So I won't answer with a simple yes or no. Note that from the very beginning my argument has been that I believe God exists because I can. If I were to address the juxtaposition merely based on that which I presume you intend with the statement, then no, I don't believe there's an important distinction between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary."
-->
@Athias
Thanks, that's what I was looking for....no, I don't believe there's an important distinction between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary."
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH and FALSEHOOD?
-->
@Athias
I think you do, given that you manage to get through each day. When you wake up tommorow, will you eat a real breakfast or make do with imagining having breakfast? If the latter, why not stay in bed and imagine the whole day...?I don't subscribe to notions of "reality" and "imagination."
-->
@3RU7AL
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH and FALSEHOOD?
Rather than lead me through a maze of yet to be contextualized queries, might we skip to the point?
-->
@zedvictor4
Real or not, aren't Gods merely acquired and stored data?
No, that reality exists objectively, it's not stored data.
So therefore theism and atheism are merely individual outputs derived from the same or similar data.
I don't think so, you don't understand how creation is put together, what you really are and how this all can be experiential for you. Oh yeah if you only knew, this is more than data lol. Atheism and Theism have entirely different outputs, because there is a transcendent reality involved that makes Theistic experiences much more dynamic than anything in atheism. This is supposed to be your own cultivation, not belief....this is supposed to be something you really connect with.
As such atheism and theism actually occur as concepts in all databases. The only difference would be how the individual chooses to conclude and then output their conclusion. Eg. I am an atheist or I am a theist. The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of the letter A.
Think again, your atheism controls your output, that means your experiences will be chained to this material world period...if you were to consider Theism or spirituality your output changes considerably at all levels, or at least the potential of it does. Not all Theists know what observation means, they think this is all about beliefs but everyone is at different levels.
After all, a worldview is just an individual conclusion derived from the same or similar acquired and stored data. So primarily the only real difference in worldview all boils down to an extra A.
That extra "A" makes a big difference, of course since you reject it it's no big deal to you. Little do you know the physical body is just one little shell your soul inhabits, you have many more dimensions to the full scope of what you can learn and observe.
Of course, once a conclusion has been reached we can then go on and contrive appropriate accompanying rhetoric relative to a conclusion or worldview. Which once again though, is nothing more than a variation in data processing and output.
If you say so, probably counting out spiritual experiences.
Though we might think to the contrary, the acquisition of narrative and sensory data is all internally brain activated and brain held and so is there ever any real external connection made between ourselves and the greater environment? Our worldview is only a contrivance of stored data and therefore only assumption of an external reality.
Thanks for the opinion, but NDE's, spiritual encounters/experiences occur outside the brain. Do more homework on that one...the brain is nothing more than a component that confines your experience to a physical body.
I think therefore I assume that I probably am. Maybe.
I am, therefore I think. Your awareness comes first, you are what observes both mind and thought.
I also make loads of other assumptions. Which come and go and vary accordingly.
Maybe slow down and start to consider, observe more and less thinking. Thinking, even know a good thing is always a conditioned process, try observing more and being intuitive.
-->
@3RU7AL
Theology is merely data.
As is Dogma.
Both are generated from within the human computer and do not occur externally.