High Ideologue

Dictionary.com gives a definition of the adjective 'valid' as containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I am arguing that agnostic theism is the only valid position to take. Maybe you suffer from a reading comprehension problem. To clarify for you, I understand the universe to be evidence. From this evidence it is possible to make a valid logical inductive inference that leads to the conclusion that a divine eternal essence of self and world exists in addition to the fractal infernal temporal essence of self and world that is our seed bodies and physical universe. The inference is inductive and can only be said to have a certain probability of being true. It is also possible to interpret universe as evidence that leads by valid logical inductive inference to the conclusion that what we see is what we get: the physical universe exists and nothing else with the exception of dark matter and dark energy and these we can only perceive through their influence upon light matter and light energy.

Yes, knowing my reasons implies that I know myself!
Many prophets and philosophers have often said to examine your own nature. For example Socrates said "Know thy self." And Jesus also said "for those who know the world but are lacking knowledge in themselves are utterly lacking." Those were just a few. Not that you would have any respect for either of these historical figures.

Right, myself and those who agree with me.

You need to go back and read through what some of the other infidels posted in this thread. There was a lot of talk about my being ignorant of a scientific convention know as 'Occam's Razor' and suggestions that the only rational approach to building a model of self and world was to use Occam's Razor to cut away myth and fantasy from truth and knowledge. This approach of course leads one to an embrace of metaphysical naturalism.

I gave you the universe as evidence for my belief in an infinite, divine, eternal one. However, I also recognize and acknowledge that the valid logical inferences I use to make my conclusions are inductive. Maybe the problem here is that you expect the divine to do something to manifest itself to you that is undeniable: like sending a prophetic being of light to speak to you that descends from heaven on nothing more that a cloud. I have heard of many theories as to why the divine does not reveal itself to us in a way that is undeniable. Some say the divine is a good one at battle here on earth with an evil one and is so disgusted with our transgressions against laws that the good one will only manifest self to messengers deemed worthy of receiving communications. Some say that messengers of their good one have a pure heart, a foretold birth place and time, or some other quality. Some say that there must be a sign, a miracle or some other miraculous abilities. Some say in frustration that if the spirit won't answer in a way that is undeniable then the spirit does not exist and they won't believe. For me, the happiest possibility is that the spirit does not come down to earth and try to micromanage the affairs of mankind by making revelations to messengers and establishing laws, systems of reward and punishment, and standards of conduct. Rather, the spirit creates the universe, sends souls to guide the conscious minds of seed bodies, and loves and frees each soul to make up mind about self and world by not making undeniable revelations. Out of this love and freedom comes the entertainment we derive from a global culture where it is possible for a diversity of unique valid points of view to coexist.

Metaphysical naturalism has to prove that can offer a valid explanation for what we sense and perceive around us, and I think that it has done so. However, just because I can interpret our universe as evidence in support of metaphysical naturalism does not mean that I will. I will interpret our universe as evidence of a divine eternal essence of self and world because I can and because doing so produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable.

I suspect that this is the case. I believe that you love your fellow agnostic atheists. I suspect that you are a member of a community of faithful believers lead by ideological authorities that propagate agnostic atheism. Now what happens if a member suddenly rejects an ideology embraced by a community of faithful believers? Does their status within the community of faithful believers change? If the deviant member is vocal enough about their rejection of the ideology embraced by their community of faithful believers might the deviant member be ridiculed, mocked, and even ostracized? It could be very costly in terms of relationships, status, career, and even livelihood to suddenly reject an ideology that one has built their lives around.

Like the words soul and spirit, the word spiritual has many definitions. The definition that fits best with my previous reference to spiritual leadership is of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. In my way of thinking, the soul is responsible the will of self. So what I mean by 'spiritual leadership' is leadership of the soul or will of self. I asked you whether you were confusing a scientific convention known as Occam's Razor with spiritual leadership. There is good reason for scientists to want to use Occam's Razor to cut myth and fantasy anyway from truth and knowledge. For one thing, scientific method can not be applied to testing mythological theories. Like all of us, scientists only have a limited amount of energy, space and time. Scientists have decided amongst themselves that it is most efficient for them to devote their energy, space and time to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. In my mind, this scientific convention is not the best tool to use in building a model of self and world that best produces health and happiness. Yet those who write for others to read that Occam's Razor is the best tool to use in building a model of self and world are leading the will of others to build a model of self and world that will offer no balance to the powerful emotional responses of sad sorrow, mad fear, and bad anger produced by the discovery of impending disease and death. They confuse a scientific convention known as Occam's Razor with spiritual leadership.

I believe in dialogue with those who disagree with my point of view. I believe I can more about the world I live in from them. I believe those who disagree can find flaws in my ideas that I haven't noticed. In pointing these flaws out to me, others give me the opportunity to change and converge upon my better self. I am not self satisfied. I want to grow. Communication is required to grow, to learn, to entertain, and to lead.

I am not the one crying and no holes have been poked.

I never said all atheists are evangelical. No that is not the heart of the matter. I will say this however, there seem to be some atheists who take glee in the emotion pain they at times cause by ridiculing theists.

I am rather enjoying our dialogue and your inability to invalidate my arguments. I am sorry if you are feeling that you are enduring something bitter. I will respond to the remainder of your rather long post at another time as what you have written requires more time and energy then I have available to me at this time.

beyelzu

high idealogue, are you sure you arent trying to get people to join your cult. i asked before but you never answered.

ps. i am a metaphysical naturalist. and i would rather know the truth than be happy. so looks like i really cant accept your reasoning.

High Ideologue

Theists and atheists both have to prove that their points of view can offer a valid explanation for our universal existence.

Why don't you give yourself a break? You are the one in control! Unless of course it is my mind that you are trying to control. If so, then you will experience anger caused by trying to control something that you can not.

Alright let us make a comparison between Christians and High Ideologues.

Now there is a number, diversity and variety of Christians only limited by the creative abilties and powers of imagination of our global culture. As such, it is difficult to make generalizations that apply to all. The sacred text of Christians is proclaimed by many ideological authorities to be a perfect declaration of the discovery, word, will and laws of their good one at battle with their evil one here on Earth. The sacred text of High Ideologues is proclaimed to be a declaration of a model of self and world that best produces happiness and health that converges upon perfection. Do you understand the difference? Our document can be edit, rewritten, reinterpreted and changed. Their document can only be reinterpreted. As a result of this difference some christian literalists react to suggestions that passages of the Bible are contradictory with great hostility because of their cherished belief that the Bible is already perfect. I, on the other hand would be pleased to receive a valid report of any contradictions that might be found within the House of Ideology Manifesto because to receive this report would give me an opportunity to change and converge upon a more perfect House of Ideology Manifesto.

I see your point about the Holy Spirit. Communities of faithful believers self organize around a belief in the power of the Holy Spirit to infuse self with understanding of spiritual matters pertaining to Christianity. For those who wish to enjoy high status within such a community of faithful believers, there is a strong motivation to demonstrate an understanding. As such there may be those who think they understand and those who don't think they understand yet have learned how to appear to understand coexisting within the same communities of faithful believers. Same principle may apply to prayer. Since prayer to a high power is supposed to work, there should be a strong incentive to agree that prayer works in the minds of those wish to achieve and maintain high status within a community of faithful believers. As such there may be those who think they understand that prayer works for them and those who don't think they understand that prayer works for them yet have learned how to appear to understand that prayer works for them coexisting within the same communities of faithful believers.

In the Chapter 50 of the House of Ideology Manifesto I wrote the following about prayer.

Perhaps part of an answer is that from a belief in a conflict between a good one and an evil one comes possibility that self can bargain, plead, pray, appease, gain favor of, control, sacrifice to and otherwise influence will of good one. In ancient times, faithful believers would pray with one another to their good one for a bountiful harvest, a mild winter, rain during a drought, a good growing season, and for protection from volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, blizzards, plagues, famine, infertility, disease, death, chaos and other bad things that were believed to be work of their evil one. Ideological authorities propagating myth and fantasy about a divided spiritual realm proclaim to communities of faithful believers that their good one answers prayers according to his judgment of character and value of each individual. An individual is of good character and a valuable prospect for residence in good ones’ perfect place if studying word of good one and living in obedience to will of good one and evil if ignoring word of good one and living in disobedience to will of good one. Good one answers prayers of good and protects good from evil one. Good one ignores prayers of evil and thereby punishes them indirectly by allowing evil one to inflict suffering sorrow, and torment upon them. Or conversely good one may test loyalty of good and choose not to answer prayers of good. And evil one may also choose to test loyalty of good by not tormenting evil and seemingly allowing evil to go unpunished. Under these conditions, ideological authorities could conveniently explain to communities of faithful believers any outcome to any prayer as being an answer from their good one in either affirmative or as a trial by their good one that demands loyalty and obedience to law.

That said, I think prayer can be a useful way for members of communities of faithful believers to focus their minds on finding solutions to their problems and the problems of others.

As far as what I wrote earlier about how one must be both willing and able to perceive my ideas. There are a lot of conditions that could render one unable and or unwilling to understand. Lack of familiarity with my ideas and a habit of thinking in another way might lead intelligent individuals to experience cognitive disequilibrium. A desire to avoid cognitive disequilibrium caused by learning something new could lead some to flee from opportunities to learn about my ideas. Some may not be unable and or willing to understand because ideological authorities leading communities of faithful believers have warned these individuals to flee from opportunities to learn about my ideas. There could be organic problems with the seed body that prevent understanding from occuring. In writing that one must be both willing and able to perceive my ideas, I did not imply anything about the Holy Spirit. In these cases, your comparison between Christians and High Ideologues is a poor one.

Yes I value your opinions. No I am not threatened by these opinions. They are yours and not mine.

I don't understand what you are asking me here. Could you elaborate?

A lot of people responded to my posts. Some were overly emotional in the response and or engaged in name calling of other forms of verbal abusive. I tend to ignore these kinds of posts. Some have mischaracterized my point of view in their own posts. Sometimes I will respond to these post by pointing this out and leave it at that. Others I haven't gotten to yet as I only have a limited amount of energy and time to devote to responding to the posts of others. I chose to answer your post because I thought your tone was respectful, and your questions sincere and well thought out.

I suspect that you do have an emotional attachment to agnostic atheism. As I wrote before, I believe that you love your fellow agnostic atheists. I suspect that you are a member of a community of faithful believers lead by ideological authorities that propagate agnostic atheism. Now what happens if a member suddenly rejects an ideology embraced by a community of faithful believers? Does their status within the community of faithful believers change? If the deviant member is vocal enough about their rejection of the ideology embraced by their community of faithful believers might the deviant member be ridiculed, mocked, and even ostracized? It could be very costly in terms of relationships, status, career, and even livelihood to suddenly reject an ideology that one has built their lives around.

Again you are mischaractizing my position. To clarify, I recognize that there are a number, diversity and variety of interpretations of universe as evidence that are valid possibilities. The number, diversity and variety of possible unique valid possibilities is only limited by the collective creative abilities and powers of imagination of our global culture. My interpretation is the correct one for me and those who agree with me because for us our interpretation best produces happiness. From a place of happiness we find ourselves in the best position to apply our understandings of truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery to the task of best producing health.

It is really hard to get inside the mind of others and gage whether or not their understanding of a wonder in nature is greater or lesser than your own. I am surprised that you would imply that you have the ability to do so.

Perchance

Here we go again...

Because of quotes like the following:

People who disagree with you suffer from "problems," or, like Arrowman, are somehow pretending to omniscience (something you say of me later in the post). These are ad hominems. Since you are attacking the personal characteristics of those people who don't accept your position, this suggests to me that you feel it is the only valid one, and people 'without problems' would accept it.

You still haven't revealed why you interpret the universe this why (other than for your own personal health and happiness). Science looks around at the universe and comes up with theories to explain it. But what theories explain a divine eternal essence?

Then I don't see why you really have a problem with this.

Perhaps. But do you also know why you believe? That seems to move you out of agnosticism and into theism. After all, you know enough about the DEE to say it is divine and eternal, so this is not pure agnosticism.

Again with the ad hominem. Are you omniscient now?

Well, let me predict what your answer will be:

"I can logically infer that you are pretending to be omniscient from your answers, but I can pretend knowledge of you that I don't have simply because I want to."

Something along those lines?

All right.

And to other scientific theories. To suggest that Occam's Razor is somehow a religious tool to convert people to metaphysical naturalism is laughable.

I would expect it to do something undeniable to me, at least. If it does something undeniable to another person, then it might convert that person, but what good would it do me?

And other people keep themselves in a state of waiting. I have. The spirit hasn't shown up. This doesn't draw a final conclusion in the way that theism tries to. It leaves the door open, with the understanding that as long as I haven't seen a shred of evidence that something exists, I am justified in believing that it doesn't exist. If I see a shred of evidence of the divine that I cannot dismiss as something else, then I would be willing to accept it.

But if something fits into a natural framework and I can understand it that way, why assign it to a divine cause simply because I hope for the divine?

And from it comes religious war, and suffering that seems to have no purpose.

I have heard people claim that suffering is perfectly fine because it teaches people what happiness is. I have noticed:

1) Few of these people suffer traumatic losses themselves- nothing comparable to what people go through in other countries.

2) They don't take into account that not all suffering teaches a "lesson." People go into comas, people die, people endure losses that have no purpose. Things just happening explains it. But a divine essence doesn't.

That the divine essence doesn't come down and micromanage affairs is just another way to give credit to the divine for the good things and keep it from blame for the bad.

The problem is that you're then turning around and setting this up on the same level as metaphysical naturalism. Earlier you were talking about inductive logic. This doesn't sound as though you apply that logic all the time.

You know where one is?

Can you tell me? I'd really like to join them. Just which one do you think I'm living in, anyway?

I would really like to join one. I'm tired of being surrounded by theists all the time. But, alas, I hardly think one exists. There are simply not enough people who call themselves agnostic atheists.

Where were you saying this one was? Are you omniscient?

You don't understand that atheism isn't a religion, do you?

I think this is a pretty damn good reason. If one supernatural theory were accepted, it would throw the door open to all of them. People couldn't just accept the theories they liked; they would have to accept the existence of other gods, sprites, faeries, unicorns...

Allow me to emphasize something here:

In your mind.

That does not make it so.

High Ideologue, I'm going to be honest with you:

This sounds as though you believe that people can be programmed like robots, and led around by what someone else writes. This simply isn't true. What someone else writes is always going to have to interact with what was previously there. And if metaphysical naturalism really is so powerful that it can convert people just with a sweep, I think there would be a lot more atheists.

And still you're confusing the personal with the realities of other people. It might be the case for you or someone like you that reading about metaphysical naturalism makes you unhappy. But you keep saying things like "the will of others" implies that you think everyone else is like you. This simply isn't true, either.

And it implies that you think people who are atheists or write about Occam's Razor have some kind of evil motive. Why?

But so far, there hasn't seemed to be a whole lot of communication. That's why I was wondering. You insulted one other poster to the point where he left. How does that help?

How do you know?

So what? I've never heard of a creed of atheism that says, "All atheists must never do such and such." Atheists are people, and people mess up. I think religions that insist their followers should be superhuman have less of an excuse.

The first part of the first sentence contradicts the second part. This doesn't seem to be a dialogue for you so much as a pissing contest at times. I don't understand.

-Perchance.

Perchance

No. Not weak atheists. They simply say, "I don't believe in gods," which is a negative assertion. They don't have the burden of proof resting on them. If the person is a strong atheist and says, "I have proof that God doesn't exist," then that does rest on them.

You are very strangely convinced that the control of your mind is important to other people. Why?

They both sound flawed to me. Christianity promises health and happiness, too, and like yours promises that it can't be found outside the fold. But the mere existence of happy people who are neither Christians nor High Ideologues invalidates this argument.

But, so far, you haven't found any?

You haven't tried to answer the objections of a number of posters. And when people make arguments that you answer, you claim that they are "invalid."

Tell me: how does one invalidate an emotional argument?

You misunderstand my point here. These are arguments that people within the communities use to those outside them, and the same one I see you using. "Unless you have my mindset, you won't see the universe the same way I do, but you'll never see the universe the same way I do unless you have my mindset."

However, most of the time it seems to be used as a substitute for action, especially when people can't do anything else: "We are not doctors, and we can't help this person who has cancer, so let's pray for him." Yet they have no trouble in claiming the credit when the person gets better.

You seem to have the same problem with metaphysical naturalism.

Do you really believe there are a bunch of people out there familiar enough with your ideas to "have warned these individuals to flee?"

I'm really puzzled as to where you're getting this.

Or your ideas could simply be wrong.

Personal attacks suggest that you see me as a threat of some kind. And given that you believe people are writing about Occam's Razor in an attempt to lure others away from your ideas, and that religious leaders are warning their congregations to flee, you seem to see threats around you.

You seemed to be saying that a theist or agnostic theist who believes for emotional reasons could be deconverted by rational debate. But rationality usually shatters on emotion- especially if someone makes the committment to belief that is usual, and it becomes an integral part of his identity. I don't think that emotional believers can be deconverted by rational arguments.

Okay.

1) Atheism is not a religion.

2) I am not part of such a community.

3) I believe you are allowing your experiences with religion to shape your perceptions of nonreligious people. While this may be understandable, it is not helping you understand atheists.

There is no community to kick me out. I am not part of a cult. If you're talking about II (and if you've been here for a while and still not picked up on all the members not being agnostic atheists, that's very strange), then I would not be kicked out if I became a theist. There are definitely things and relationships that would be changed, but no one would come knocking on my door with a truncheon.

Here's the emotional reasons and the scientifically reproducible discovery again.

What are these discoveries that support your position? Scientific, not emotional.

You've implied throughout your posts that you understand me:

1) I supposedly have a reading comprehension problem.
2) I am supposedly trying to steal your happiness.
3) I am supposedly part of a community that will ostracize me or do something even more drastic if I change my beliefs.

Your understanding of claims of omniscience seems to flow only one way.

-Perchance.

Eudaimonist

Not speaking of anyone in particular, but if someone's standard of truth isn't reality, but instead is psychological well-being, such a person metaphorically worships the Great Placebo. The problem with worshipping the Great Placebo is that some other people will be honest and say: "That's just a sugar pill." And so worshippers of the Great Placebo will only achieve the psychological effects they desire if they avoid people who point this out. That seems like the best strategy to me, if the goal of psychological well-being is taken as a given.

High Ideologue

Mythical theories that scientist can neither prove or disprove.

Yes I know why and have already expounded upon the reasons why in earlier posts.

I don't even know you outside of our dialogue is this thread. I have no idea whether or not you have any respect for the ideas of Socrates or Jesus. I only made the remark 'Not that you would have any respect for these historical figures' to indicate that I wasn't presuming you did. There was no implication that I had omniscient powers to discern whether or not you do. Once again you make a point that is not well taken.

In previous posts, I have layed out my reasons. I am not going to repeat ad infinitum. Either display some reading comprehension abilities and come up with something else to ask about or I will begin to ignore your repetitive questioning. Repetitive questioning is a interrogation technique that is verbally abusive and I already wrote about how I don't respond to verbally abusive posts.


What do you suggest is the solution to the problem?

Yes, I have heard others give this explanation for the purpose of suffering before too. But this is not a part of my belief system.

Oh really? You statement that a divine essence doesn't explain why people endure losses implies again that you claim a omnipotent powers to make observation and interpret evidence, make logical inferences, and draw conclusions.

I quote from the index page of this website. 'Welcome! The Secular Web is an online community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding and tolerance.'

That the Secular Web calls itself a communities of nonbelievers does not mean the community doesn't believe in something as we find out when we continue to read from the introduction on the index page of this web site: 'Our goal is to defend and promote a non-theistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself.' A non-theistic worldview is the belief that the community of faithful believers you have already joined is promoting.

In an earlier post you mentioned the II Library. This library contains the writings of ideological authorities leading your community of faithful believers to embrace atheism.

I don't think you understand and or are willing acknowledge that communities of faithful believers that self organize around metaphysical naturalism have many features in common with communities of faithful believers that self organize around religious belief systems.

High Ideologue

I am not at all convinced that the control of my mind is important to you. I merely suggested the possibility that if it is important to you then you are likely to become frustrated and perhaps angry at not being able to control something that you can not.

You need to go back earlier posts where in I thanked others for their help and sited certain examples of how they helped me. What you haven't done is invalidate the inductive logic of my argument.

An emotional argument can be invalidated if it is possible to point out that it's conclusions are in conflict with truth and knowledge based on scientifically reproducible discovery. So far, you have not pointed out any such conflict. Instead you have commented on how hard it is to prove a negative.

If ideological authorities leading communities of faithful believers self organizing around agnostic atheism warn their members against considering the arguments of agnostic theists as a class, and individuals lump me into that catagory then yes I really do believe that there are a bunch of people out there that would flee from any discussion of my ideas.

I already answered this question. The answer is a short one so I will give it to you again. The universe may be interpreted as evidence in support of my model of self and world. The logical inference made in support of my arguments are inductive as are those made in support of your arguments in favor of metaphysical naturalism.

beyelzu

high idealogue. i have made fun of you twice because i find your logic laughable.

however, hopefully, you will respond to this assertion.

Emotion is not a tool to understand the world, neither is mythology. Only logic and reason can be used to understand reality


what do you think about the above statement. i consider it to be true. but reading your posts makes me believe that you would consider both sentences false. do you?

beyelzu

high idealogue. i have made fun of you twice because i find your logic laughable.

however, hopefully, you will respond to this assertion.

Emotion is not a tool to understand the world, neither is mythology. Only logic and reason can be used to understand reality


what do you think about the above statement. i consider it to be true. but reading your posts makes me believe that you would consider both sentences false. do you?