Page 7 of 12 [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next


Can the belief of the existence of a supreme being ever be proved?
Yes 9%  9%  [ 6 ]
No 29%  29%  [ 20 ]
Of course, I am the living proof! 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Only if Invisible Pink Unicorns can also be proved 20%  20%  [ 14 ]
Look around you! the evidence of an intelligent designer 6%  6%  [ 4 ]
God is the universe and the universe is God 10%  10%  [ 7 ]
AG is a strident semi-god 6%  6%  [ 4 ]
I can't say, perhaps tomorrow we can prove it 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
I am not sure 10%  10%  [ 7 ]
All of the above 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
None of the above 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Half of the above 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
other 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
View results 6%  6%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 70

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,173
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

22 Jun 2010, 7:41 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
You have the gist of it, yes.


Is it just planet earth or do other planets have "global consciousness"?


Everything does. Think of something, and somewhere it'll be contributing to the collective.

My believe in nature as a spiritual path is just a way of life for me here on this "plane" if you will and a way for me to connect deeper. My base belief is what I just described, I could follow any religion and still know I was being true to myself because of it. But I find peace in nature.


Except not all religions are the same.



Amber-Miasma
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Scotland

22 Jun 2010, 7:46 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
You have the gist of it, yes.


Is it just planet earth or do other planets have "global consciousness"?


Everything does. Think of something, and somewhere it'll be contributing to the collective.

My believe in nature as a spiritual path is just a way of life for me here on this "plane" if you will and a way for me to connect deeper. My base belief is what I just described, I could follow any religion and still know I was being true to myself because of it. But I find peace in nature.


Except not all religions are the same.


In my eyes through my primary belief they are, all religions beliefs are simply rituals designed to tap into the energy (be that god, sun spirits or trees). Now I'm not saying that's a negative thing to strive towards as it cause bring about great happiness. But I chose a goddess that I can prove to myself exists and actually does things for me (nourishment and enlightenment) and in return I walk softly and respect her other denizens.


_________________
"Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth." - Nietzsche.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Jun 2010, 7:59 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
You have the gist of it, yes.


Is it just planet earth or do other planets have "global consciousness"?


Everything does. Think of something, and somewhere it'll be contributing to the collective.

My believe in nature as a spiritual path is just a way of life for me here on this "plane" if you will and a way for me to connect deeper. My base belief is what I just described, I could follow any religion and still know I was being true to myself because of it. But I find peace in nature.


Except not all religions are the same.


In my eyes through my primary belief they are, all religions beliefs are simply rituals designed to tap into the energy (be that god, sun spirits or trees). Now I'm not saying that's a negative thing to strive towards as it cause bring about great happiness. But I chose a goddess that I can prove to myself exists and actually does things for me (nourishment and enlightenment) and in return I walk softly and respect her other denizens.


If you are in dire need of a god it is a simple matter to make one up. There is, according to most rational observers, nothing in the multiple interactions of natural processes, no bias in favor of life and the way things are going humans are becoming outstandingly successful in destroying the current life favorable environment.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Jun 2010, 7:59 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
Ah I see.

So like, if I wrote "a magical kingdom of unicorn warriors descended from the skies and laid waste to the planet earth" and you read it somewhere you'd be like "meh" even though it COULD be true because you haven't seen it. Where as we both know this is false but it would be major and panic educing if it WERE true. Like a fairy tale basically?


No. Dennett's example sufficies:

"Love is just a word."

A) "Love" is just a word.
Trivally true - begins with L, has four letters. "Cow is just a word, chessburger is just a word".
B) Love is just a word.
False - it's an experience, a relationship, an illusion, but more than a mere word.

"Deepities" are basically when one equivocates between two meanings - one trivally true and the other false but would-be remarkable.



Amber-Miasma
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Scotland

22 Jun 2010, 8:22 pm

So how exactly does this "deepity" disprove my theory? (or did you just bring that up to state a point?)


_________________
"Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth." - Nietzsche.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Jun 2010, 8:30 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
So how exactly does this "deepity" disprove my theory? (or did you just bring that up to state a point?)


My point against your theory is that much of it is ill-constructed and reliant on deepities.



Ergo_Proxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 133

22 Jun 2010, 8:42 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
Nah, they have faith that what they're experiencing isn't real, belief and faith are two completely different concepts. Without belief there is nothing but void.


No they are not. To have faith is, by definition, to believe in something without any substantial evidence whatsoever.

Quote:
I don't know where it comes from, I suppose the concept behind Origin is what we use to describe the very edges of our understanding. Now I know what you're thinking "he's just using this as an excuse to avoid answering", believe me, if I knew the answer then I'd tell you but I don't; I suppose the collective just "is".


Well, yes, you probably are just using this as an excuse to avoid answering me. When making a claim, it is your duty to back it up."I don't know, it just is" is not a counterargument, it is called "dodging" or "handwaving".

Nonetheless, I just showed, in that same post, that the only organisms that can be said to have anything remotely resembling consciousness is anything with a central nervous system. Bacterium and rocks don't have this. So, if everything is one big collective consciousness, then where does it come from? How does a rock (or other inanimate object) have consciousness? I want you to demonstrate to us how this can be, not merely hand-wave it away.

Quote:
We have wars, death, suffering and the like because violence is built into our minds, there have been studies suggesting that we have receptors built into our brain pre-tuned to release gratifying hormones in reaction to violence, much the same way a sex.


And yet in previous posts you claimed that it is we humans, with our big collective consciousness, who make up reality as we go. Don't you think this statement contradicts your claims?

And what about disease? This is completely unrelated to our consciousness. If they are also part of this collective consciousness then why can't we, you know, tell malaria to be gone or something?

The reason I pointed this out is because the existence of wars, disease, famine, etc. directly shows just how ludicrous the claim that the collective consciousness (and the existence of gods/goddesses, etc.) really are.

Quote:
And to be quite perfectly honest, with the best will in the world it would be extremely difficult to forsake all you know, all you feel, and all that's comfortable; I mean, people are typically sh** scared of the unknown when passing into death (I've heard tell of many ardent atheists taking up religion before they pass on), how exactly would they cope with changing their realities? It would be paramount to suicide in most people's minds.


Yes, people are certainly scared of death. But this is irrelevant. As for "ardent atheists" taking up religion before they die, it happens far, far less often then you'd think...

Quote:
I didn't mean as pertaining to religion or belief about the records, I meant as a whole the knowledge and information (yes, lies and half-truths as well :roll: ) of the human race. If you want to bring it up even further; why know the knowledge of everything in our universe? Although the Humanity concept seems more realistic considering as it's the genus and mindset we're all most familiar with.


You are dodging again. Your claim was:

Quote:
Through meditation they say you can learn to sync your mind with it and access the past 300,000 years of human knowledge. Although it would be useless if you developed yourself that far as it would only be relevant to an absolute spec, a nano atom, of all that's out there.


So, why is it that meditation does not impart the knowledge of hunter-gatherers that live way back when, or modern scientific knowledge held by the scientific community. Especially since you say that meditation allows "access the past 300,000 years of human knowledge".

Quote:
Because casual meditation is fine and well but your specific purpose is paramount during a meditation session, you can meditate on anything to gain wisdom from it but it's not like "I'll just cross my legs, close my eyes and BAM! PhD here I come" It's absolutely necessary to fine tune your mind to the concept's "wavelength" if you will.


Read what I said above.

Quote:
It's nothing like reading a book, it's far more fulfilling. Again, this is something you have to learn to do yourself.


I have a better idea. Why don't you show us that this method actually works, and then I might consider it. The burden of proof is on you, not me. This quote reminds me of the crackpot who claims that perpetual motion machines are possible, but refuses to provide details on how to build one and demonstrate.

Quote:
Your next point I shouldn't consider trying to answer, again, it's a matter of belief, I really can't prove it to you as you must experience it yourself.


Because you know I will kick your ass if you try? Like I said before, the onus is on you to prove to us, or at the very least provide a compelling argument, to take your belief seriously. Right now it's looking like complete hogwash. This is a public forum, and your beliefs are equal game for being torn right apart. Why don't you start by actually addressing my questions instead of dodging or handwaving them away.

Quote:
I'm not here to convince you, only to add another avenue to the mix.


Then why are you trying so hard to promote your belief in the first place?


Quote:
Your next quote, I mean really, *read above, repeat till satisfied*.


I did. Now it's your turn. It's time for you to start actually addressing our points, or retract everything you said and admit defeat.


_________________
"Live long and prosper"
--Spock


Amber-Miasma
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Scotland

22 Jun 2010, 9:14 pm

No, It's late, I need to sleep and I've answered all your questions.

I won't retract my statements, I've given all the facts and went into this knowing fully that I wouldn't convince those unwilling to be convinced. Deal with it.

Peace.


_________________
"Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth." - Nietzsche.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Jun 2010, 9:22 pm

Amber-Miasma wrote:
No, It's late, I need to sleep and I've answered all your questions.

I won't retract my statements, I've given all the facts and went into this knowing fully that I wouldn't convince those unwilling to be convinced. Deal with it.

Peace
.


I love the self-righteous arrogance in this statement - "I've went into a debate, given tortured arguments based on horrible misuses of the facts, and have failed to convince anyone. It's your problem! Deal with it!".



jmnixon95
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,931
Location: 미국

22 Jun 2010, 9:57 pm

Only if Invisible Pink Unicorns can also be proved! :D



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 95
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Jun 2010, 10:15 pm

jmnixon95 wrote:
Only if Invisible Pink Unicorns can also be proved! :D


With genetic engineering on the march it's only a matter of time before someone constructs a pink unicorn. People have been trying for thousands of years to construct a believable god and nobody has even slightly approached success.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,658
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

22 Jun 2010, 11:42 pm

If things stayed exactly as they are, not likely. I mean that in the sense that enough people, intelligent and logical even, will find enough trends in nature or will notice that certain things that seem like sure markers get buried on the back burner by society (society has this strange way of rejecting anything that gets too slushy, complex, etc.) and these forms of evidence will be enough to clinch it for them.

On the other hand though its similar to the process of a court and jury; its an educated guess. That's not typically something that can typically form an easy equation, theorem, or postulate, and being that even the facts themselves exist in what a lot of people would call gray area (scientific to theological thought ends up just being beliefs reflected onto reality, the loudest evidences of spiritual activity being buried in mountains or fraud where people can quite often debate whether any of it is legit at all).

I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, this is exactly as he wants things for the time being. As for why, your guess is as good as mine.



Ergo_Proxy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 133

23 Jun 2010, 12:29 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Amber-Miasma wrote:
No, It's late, I need to sleep and I've answered all your questions.

I won't retract my statements, I've given all the facts and went into this knowing fully that I wouldn't convince those unwilling to be convinced. Deal with it.

Peace
.


I love the self-righteous arrogance in this statement - "I've went into a debate, given tortured arguments based on horrible misuses of the facts, and have failed to convince anyone. It's your problem! Deal with it!".


The irony is so delicious, isn't it? Their beliefs rest entirely on being able to keep vague and handwave away anything that might challenge their world view. It all changes when someone actually comes around and calls them out on it. And then when you defeat them, they either whine about it, try to take the moral high ground, or try to pretend that none of it mattered.

Of course he's not going to answer any of my questions, because that would actually force him to re-examine his beliefs. And we can't possibly have that happening!


That said, it was certainly by far the quickest knock-out I've ever had in a debate. It took only 2 posts!

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if there is a God, this is exactly as he wants things for the time being. As for why, your guess is as good as mine.


The problem comes when you claim that said deity is all-good and/or intervenes in daily life; you bring up the unresolvable Problem of Evil. Pretty much, the only solution that theologians (or other religious leaders) have ever come up with is to handwave the obvious logical problems away.


_________________
"Live long and prosper"
--Spock


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

23 Jun 2010, 12:47 am

Ergo_Proxy wrote:

The irony is so delicious, isn't it? Their beliefs rest entirely on being able to keep vague and handwave away anything that might challenge their world view. It all changes when someone actually comes around and calls them out on it. And then when you defeat them, they either whine about it, try to take the moral high ground, or try to pretend that none of it mattered.

Of course he's not going to answer any of my questions, because that would actually force him to re-examine his beliefs. And we can't possibly have that happening!


The funning thing is that I was very patient with them. I asked Amber-Miasma several questions to make sure I wasn't strawmaning their position before dismissing it. Every time I asked a question, it seemed the topic became more obscured.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

23 Jun 2010, 1:06 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Ergo_Proxy wrote:

The irony is so delicious, isn't it? Their beliefs rest entirely on being able to keep vague and handwave away anything that might challenge their world view. It all changes when someone actually comes around and calls them out on it. And then when you defeat them, they either whine about it, try to take the moral high ground, or try to pretend that none of it mattered.

Of course he's not going to answer any of my questions, because that would actually force him to re-examine his beliefs. And we can't possibly have that happening!


The funning thing is that I was very patient with them. I asked Amber-Miasma several questions to make sure I wasn't strawmaning their position before dismissing it. Every time I asked a question, it seemed the topic became more obscured.


Thats what I was getting too from my attempt to suss out some coherency.

Nature can take revenge despite its mindless state
dreams are made corporeal but still cant define my fate.

Thats my summary of the screed.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,173
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

23 Jun 2010, 6:39 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Ergo_Proxy wrote:

The irony is so delicious, isn't it? Their beliefs rest entirely on being able to keep vague and handwave away anything that might challenge their world view. It all changes when someone actually comes around and calls them out on it. And then when you defeat them, they either whine about it, try to take the moral high ground, or try to pretend that none of it mattered.

Of course he's not going to answer any of my questions, because that would actually force him to re-examine his beliefs. And we can't possibly have that happening!


The funning thing is that I was very patient with them. I asked Amber-Miasma several questions to make sure I wasn't strawmaning their position before dismissing it. Every time I asked a question, it seemed the topic became more obscured.


As is typical of postmodern philosophy/religion. Of course I DO believe in the God of the Bible and creation alone is enough to convince me. So the idea of each of us making our own god/goddess is pure nonsense to me. It's a very self-centered view (not "selfish" in the negative sense, just centered on self rather than a kind of universal view, etc.).

The main problem, regardless of whether you're a believer of some kind (Christian or other) or atheist/anti-theist, is such thinking is logically unsound. A statement rejecting absolutes in terms of God, truth, reality, existence, and so forth is itself a statement of what the arguer believes to be absolute. It doesn't matter what she says after that--everything she says will be wrong. Either God exists or He doesn't. Either truth exists or it doesn't. You can make a good logical case either way. But the problem of someone stating that we just make it up as we go puts her feet planted firmly in mid-air.

No wonder we've all had a lot of fun with this one!