Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#241
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,091
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
All you have done when responding is contrive and then output data.

Re-sequence and add or replace a few verbs here and there and the output would seem be a whole lot different, when in fact it would be virtually the same.

I did slow down and consider and realised. Perhaps you should try it, as it is you who is currently the master of over-think.

Though:
"The brain is nothing more than a component that confines your experience to a physical body".

Yep, you said it. 

So without that component what are you going to do?


#242
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
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?
You've managed to utterly shatter my preconceptions.

I'm simply trying to get my bearings.

Please answer the question with a simple "YES" or "NO".
#243
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Theology is merely data.As is Dogma.Both are generated from within the human computer and do not occur externally.
Certainly THEOLOGY and DOGMA are Qualia (generated from and exclusively processed by "the human computer").

My only point is that THEOLOGY and DOGMA are foisted upon you by some other person or group of people.

Do you believe in "other people" or do you at least have some colloquial (or minimum practical) understanding of the concept?
#244
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I don't subscribe to notions of "reality" and "imagination."
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...?
Great idea.
#245
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@TheAtheist
Predestination. I had no choice. 
#246
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Does this mean you don't believe in free will? 
#247
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Lets see some truth, provide evidence for these claims.
Adam and Eve

400yrs of Hebrew slavery in Egypt.

4million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs.
#248
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists are always literalist. LOL
#249
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You've managed to utterly shatter my preconceptions.

I'm simply trying to get my bearings.

Please answer the question with a simple "YES" or "NO".

I don't believe that at all, especially given your response to keithprosser's statement. And since this isn't an "AMA" thread, I'm not inclined to answer your questions without context. This mouse has rejected your cheese, so skip to the point.

#250
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@disgusted
Um.  Perhaps you can just state what you want in sentences and not sentence framents.  What is the claim of Adam and Eve that you are wanting me to provide?  What is the claim of the 400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt?  What is the claim about 4 Million people and livestock wandering in the wilderness for 40 years?

Do you want me to provide evidence that those things occurred or existed?

Before I begin, let me ask you a few questions:

1.  By referencing "Adam and Eve", I'm assuming you are referring to the 2nd Creation in Genesis, correct?
2.  What type of literature is Genesis (i.e. is it letter, a poem, a history, a parable, etc)?  How do you interpret Genesis?    Are you taking it literally?
     a.  My faith doesn't believe that "Genesis" was meant to be a scientific treatise on how the world and creatures came to be.  It is a text filled with stories, accounts, etc to convey certain truths, ideas, .  Think of it like this.  I'm sure you're familiar with the author Aesop and his stories (fables), right?  Have you ever read his story of "The Ant and Grasshopper"?  That story has a talking Ant and a talking grasshopper.  What is the purpose of his story?  To convey a simple idea, a truth if you will-- that it one should prepare while one has the chance-- if you to succeed tomorrow (future) start working now (today).  It would be silly to discard the moral in the story simply because one doesn't believe in talking ants or grasshoppers.  If you are expecting to find evidence of a talking ant and talking grasshopper, chances are high you won't find it.  But if it's that part of the story that you are focused on, then you are missing the point of the story.  The talking ants and grasshoppers 
     b.  So now, what is the purpose or intent of the Adam and Eve account?   Pretty simple actually.  It's to convey a simple truth that (a) humans had not always existed, (b) humans were created (by God) , (c) they were given the ability to make choices (free will) and (d) we are often tempted to make the "wrong" choice, etc.  If you get stuck on the story because it used a talking animal as part of the story, etc, then you are missing the point.

4.  400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt
     a.  What texts/passages are you referencing specifically (I think I know, but I want to make sure you and I are referencing the same thing)

5.  4 million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs.
    a.  What texts/passages are you referencing specifically?





#251
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH (LOGICAL COHERENCE) and FALSEHOOD (LOGICAL INCOHERENCE)?

If you don't recognize a bright line between REALITY and IMAGINATION, then how can you determine COHERENCE from INCOHERENCE?

It's like we've been having an argument on television.

I produce a television program that tries to explain the difference between television and not-television.

Then you produce a television program in response basically saying that you can't understand what I'm saying because everything that I've communicated to you was ON TELEVISION.  So even the stuff I present as examples of not-television are ON TELEVISION rendering them incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

Certainly LANGUAGE ITSELF is ABSTRACT.

HOweVeR, that does not mean it is wholly incapable of describing ACTUAL REALITY.
#252
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH (LOGICAL COHERENCE) and FALSEHOOD (LOGICAL INCOHERENCE)?

If you don't recognize a bright line between REALITY and IMAGINATION, then how can you determine COHERENCE from INCOHERENCE?

It's like we've been having an argument on television.

I produce a television program that tries to explain the difference between television and not-television.

Then you produce a television program in response basically saying that you can't understand what I'm saying because everything that I've communicated to you was ON TELEVISION.  So even the stuff I present as examples of not-television are ON TELEVISION rendering them incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

Certainly LANGUAGE ITSELF is ABSTRACT.

HOweVeR, that does not mean it is wholly incapable of describing ACTUAL REALITY.
So we now get to your point. In the context of abstract logic, yes there's a difference. In the context of existence, no there's no difference, because both truth and falsehood exist. Furthermore, your argument operates on a non sequitur. Your analogy doesn't suffice and demonstrates your lack of understanding of my argument. So consider these my closing remarks as we've now come full-circle: everything you experience is inextricably tied to the abstracts you ascribe them. In order to substantiate your posit of an "actual reality" you must be able to control for the portion of your experience which is independent from abstracts. That is, you separate it, you isolate it, and you observe its behavior. That means no Science, no Math, no Language, no Logic, no Sensations, no Thought--because as soon as you think about it, you're subjecting it to the "bias" of your imagination/abstraction. What is it you'll experience then? "Something" you're able to neither communicate nor rationalize. (And I put scare quotes around "something" because it is rational.) Hence, it would be epistemologically insignificant. You're unwittingly stating that there's a significant difference between abstracts and an experience rationalized by abstracts. I am here to tell you: no there isn't.

The irony is that abstracts dictate your distinctions: "reality" vs. "imaginary" (scientific veracity -- concept); "truth" vs. "falsehood" (logic -- concept.)
#253
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
In the context of [ABSTRACT] (non)existence, no there's no difference, because both truth and falsehood [ABSTRACTLY] (non)exist.

In the context of ACTUAL existence, there is a very important difference, because REALITY is always necessarily TRUE.
#254
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, your argument operates on a non sequitur.
Naked assertion.

Your analogy doesn't suffice and demonstrates your lack of understanding of my argument.
Naked assertion.
#255
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
There's nothing more for me to say. At this point, it's just redundant. And redundancy is regressive. Enjoy your day.
#256
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So consider these my closing remarks
Empty promises.

as we've now come full-circle: everything you [COMMUNICATE ABOUT YOUR] experience is inextricably tied to the abstracts you ascribe them.
Your pre-cognitive (infantile) raw sensory input is REAL.

Sand and volcanic dust are not CONCRETE.  They are prerequisites to CONCRETE, but they are distinguishable each one from the other.

In order to substantiate your posit of an "actual reality" you must be able to control for the portion of your experience which is independent from abstracts.
Ok,

That is, you separate it, you isolate it, and you observe its behavior.
Kinda like drawing a distinction.

That means no Science, no Math, no Language, no Logic, no Sensations, no Thought--because as soon as you think about it, you're subjecting it to the "bias" of your imagination/abstraction.
Like a cave-man.  Or an infant.

What is it you'll experience then? "Something" you're able to neither communicate nor rationalize.
Just because data may seem initially incomprehensible (to an infant), that does not mean it is fundamentally incomprehensible for all time.

Hence, it would be epistemologically insignificant.
I strongly disagree.  Primary experience is fundamental.  Distinguishing REALITY from IMAGINATION is critical to our very survival.

You're unwittingly stating that there's a significant difference between abstracts and an experience rationalized by abstracts. I am here to tell you: no there isn't.
Pre-cognitive sensory input =/= post-cognitive comprehension.

The irony is that abstracts dictate your distinctions: "reality" vs. "imaginary" (scientific veracity -- concept); "truth" vs. "falsehood" (logic -- concept.) 
That is due to our medium of exchange, namely LANGUAGE which is necessarily ABSTRACT.
#257
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Does this mean you don't believe in free will? 
Yes I believe in free will.  Whatever that means. 

you might as well ask - and then perhaps I will elaborate. 

#258
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,091
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Other people is just a source of data input.
It's the brain that does the inputting, not the other people.

So, we have a sensory appreciation of an environment which includes other people. We conclude that what we appreciate is the reality of our environment. Though the information/imagery/conclusion occurs within the brain and so we can only assume that what we see or hear or feel is actually the same as the external reality.

#259
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
If being totally disingenuous is your only response, you have provided the answers you are so afraid of. Did you notice I asked for truth?
#260
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
witchy
meaningless drivel. hubble, bubble.
#261
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Bigot says what?

#262
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you believe there is an important distinction between deciding for yourself what is right and true (Gnostic) (AND) following some pre-existing set of commands (Theism)?
#263
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
No, that's where you're wrong. All religions are gnostic and scripture-based in their own way. If Islam was not 'gnostic' as you put it, everyone would be using the ISIS-chosen lines on top of the Saudi-Sharia-Law ones too yeah? The only reason there's decent, peaceful Muslims is they are not following the dogmatic teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith.

Similarly with Christianity and Judaism, they evolve with time but with Islam it is actually impossible to be pleasant and peaceful to non-believers and sinners if you're going to properly follow the scripture.
#264
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
All you have done when responding is contrive and then output data.
Okay, sure, have a point you would like to make?
Re-sequence and add or replace a few verbs here and there and the output would seem be a whole lot different, when in fact it would be virtually the same.
Lol it's called a discussion, either you want one or you don't, which is it?
I did slow down and consider and realised. Perhaps you should try it, as it is you who is currently the master of over-think.
No, master at observation, perception but thanks.
Though:
"The brain is nothing more than a component that confines your experience to a physical body".
Yep, you said it.
So without that component what are you going to do?
Exist either way, just like electricity exists apart from components so does consciousness and so does energy. In fact the nature of consciousness and the soul are much like both.

#265
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
No, that's where you're wrong. All religions are gnostic and scripture-based in their own way. If Islam was not 'gnostic' as you put it, everyone would be using the ISIS-chosen lines on top of the Saudi-Sharia-Law ones too yeah? The only reason there's decent, peaceful Muslims is they are not following the dogmatic teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith.Similarly with Christianity and Judaism, they evolve with time but with Islam it is actually impossible to be pleasant and peaceful to non-believers and sinners if you're going to properly follow the scripture.
Certainly Dogmatic religions evolve.  Otherwise we would never have Vatican 2. [LINK]

HOWeVer, these Dogmatic religions still teach that only certain very special people (prophets, priests, ordained) can properly interpret the will of god(s).

Gnostics, on the other hand, believe that the only "spiritual authority" is discovered by each individual by a "direct personal experience of the divine."
#266
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
So Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Dogmatic whereas Protestants are Gnostic, if we take Christianity?
#267
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
So Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Dogmatic whereas Protestants are Gnostic, if we take Christianity?
Protestants are Dogmatic.  They believe The Bible is divinely inspired and that god(s) don't talk to humans directly (no new prophets).

They also rely pretty heavily on tradition.
#268
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Re-sequence and add or replace a few verbs here and there and the output would seem be a whole lot different, when in fact it would be virtually the same.

Not so, we are talking about experiences that correlate with that nature, it's not just words. If you want to experience something outside the physical/material immediate perception you have to correlate/connect with that nature (output). 

#269
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Though:
"The brain is nothing more than a component that confines your experience to a physical body".
Yep, you said it.
So without that component what are you going to do?
I have a bit of time so I'll elaborate for the heck of it.
WITH, that component (brain) your immediate experience will be narrowed down to what you perceive through the physical senses and this is what creates the illusion that this life is all you are currently aware of. When you entered the womb your souls experiences developed with the development of the material body including the brain, but since you are also a soul your experiences don't have to be confined to a physical body, you possess the ability to transcend the physical senses and as a matter of fact when you exit the material body you will anyways.

The brain, along with neuron firing and the nervous system do not create your consciousness lol, this is the single most ridiculous assumption that man faces. You are first a conscious being that observes through the physical body and senses, this is what confines you to this world....in order for the soul to experience this material universe it must have a physical/material shell/vehicle. When you leave this world you will be present in what people call a spirit body, this is the subtle body but not the soul itself. Most people don't know you can leave the subtle body or spirit body, this is when the real fun begins! the Creator is far more creative and dynamic then anyone on this planet could ever dream of.

Creation consists of multiverses, these "multiverses" correlate with each form the soul is covered in. As you leave each world, your soul is present within the corresponding universe. There's not just two places (heaven or hell) when you leave the physical body, there's a whole universe stocked full of planets, galaxies and solar systems. Oh yeah baby, we're talking about endless experiences and lives the soul get to live out.
The only catch is that when the soul leaves the full conscious state of the Creator it's then subject to the laws of creation, Karma, cause and effect, sowing and reaping ect ect...so it's not just fun and games at all times. The souls purpose is to learn about itself and improve through interaction within duality and creation.

When the soul leaves the "Godhead" it must be covered or sheathed to be separate from the infinite. The soul is covered through layers, this includes the individual mind, emotions and eventually a physical layer/body. Check out this chart below and this will give you a good idea what I mean. This is the only thing I've seen that expresses visually exactly how creation is put together from the Creator down to the individual soul and physical universe. The middle area is pure consciousness which funnels down from pure awareness through duality and the lowest parts of creation. The pure conscious state of the Creator has access through all channels of awareness, it encompasses and pervades every part of existence. In other words there is nothing that exists without the awareness of God. Ignore the face in the middle lol. 

The middle area is the current of consciousness which takes on forms and observes throughout every part of the creates worlds just like energy and electricity, it is both form and formless. 

Of course energy works the same way as consciousness, study the nature of energy and have the keys to how consciousness operates. Energy exists because conscious activity exists, it's first awareness, then energy (which this activity produces and why energy exists at all), then the manipulation of energy to create form...this is the order of our existence not the other way around.
The evidence all points in that direction of course, which is why energy acts as if it had intelligence and why the evidence of NDE's, spiritual experiences and religion all observe that nature and reveal this reality for what it is. You are going nowhere Zed, you have a long, long journey before you. Enjoy!

#270
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,091
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
We are discussing, though perhaps you don't like the discussion. Maybe because you are unable to truly dismiss what I say.

Once again your response is all very nice and spiritual but you cannot get away from the reality that all your responses are brain generated and derived from brain stored data, especially with particular regard to the contrived spiritual stuff, data output with no direct connection to non-narrative sensory input. That is to say that you made things up in your own head probably using data that was originally made up in someone else's head. A biblical myth or tale, or a second hand account of a supposed NDE for example, which you have taken on board and decided to attribute credibility and spirituality too. Nonetheless It all eventually boils down to individual, internal data processing, decision making and data output..
The exact same data is also available in my brain, but I choose to process, conclude and output in a slightly different way. 

And functioning systems and processes require energy and energy requires a functioning system. A dead system will just break down into it's component parts and obviously cease to function, notwithstanding the essence of a part, of course. 

You might think that you're going somewhere. You might think that you are already somewhere. But they are only your thoughts. LOL.

I decided to output an LOL too. LOL.