Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Darth Dane · 05-12-2003, 02:03 AM

Id.s:

Yes, meaning comes from us, we give meaning to the thoughts that arise in our minds.
According to physics, we cannot create something out of nothing right?
Well, can we create thoughts out of nothing?

If we can't, then our thoughts are "predetermined", or to say that we call in certain thought patterns depending on circumstances(ask and you shall be given). If they are not predetermined, but are still created before we "think" them, where is this pool of thoughts?

If we can create thoughts out of nothing, what does this tells us about the Idea of God? That it is only an idea? It only exist in peoples minds? Is this existance in our minds, physically based, thought based or divinely based(that is to say that there is a spiritual side)?

If I have an experience, then I look for the relevant material, like studies on the physical brain and studies of the spiritual practices.

These two explanation models offer different solutions.

Physical: It is based on chemicals in the brain, these chemicals provoke certain thought patterns etc.(close enough...)

Spiritual: It is because you have conciousness, which science can't explain yet, this conciousness is connected to your spiritual self, which directs your thoughts and actions according to your preference (ask and you shall be given) There is a "science" called Yoga, that explains why and how you can get into control of this conciousness.

I stand now in teh middle of two fairly explainable ways to understand my experience. How am I to determine if one is true and teh other is not? I am part of teh problem, I have conciousness, and conciousness, according to Einstein will influence any experiment looked upon.
So using conciousness to look at conciousness will influence how we see it!

As long as we can't determine conciousness, at least with the formal modern "science", what good is that science to explain the phenomena of conciousness?

If we can't explain conciousness, how are we to definately determine if our Self is physical based and not spirtual based?

If we can't explain conciousness, how can I rule out any of the two possibilities as an explanation model, so I use both!

If we can't use either as an explanation model, how should we perceive Reality?

DD - Love Spliff

Albert Cipriani · 05-12-2003, 12:43 PM

Dear Darth,
You say,

Quote:

According to physics, we cannot create something out of nothing right? Well, can we create thoughts out of nothing? If we can't, then our thoughts are predetermined.

Not so fast. You�re confusing thoughts (which I can accept as predetermined) from our valuation of those thoughts.

For example, I step in dog shit and you step in dog shit. We are struck with the same thought, namely: �Yuk!� You hold the thought, valuing it above all other thoughts and proceed to curse up a storm of verbal shit. I, on the other foot, choose to devalue that thought for I remember my bible: he who is angry is in danger of hell fire. And, naturally enough, other thoughts proceed to fill my vacuum of thought.

Ergo, tho thoughts may be predetermined, our valuation of them is not. It is by way of how we value our thoughts that we determine who we are and what we will become and, ultimately, what place we are designed for � heaven or hell. � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional

Darth Dane · 05-13-2003, 02:17 AM

Not so fast. You�re confusing thoughts (which I can accept as predetermined) from our valuation of those thoughts.

Is our valuation of thoughts then free of physical interference?
You seem to say that thoughts are phsyical dependant, yet our valuation is not! That means we have a non physical attribute to our being, namely our "valuation" skill.

For example, I step in dog shit and you step in dog shit. We are struck with the same thought, namely: �Yuk!� You hold the thought, valuing it above all other thoughts and proceed to curse up a storm of verbal shit. I, on the other foot, choose to devalue that thought for I remember my bible: he who is angry is in danger of hell fire. And, naturally enough, other thoughts proceed to fill my vacuum of thought.

So we can determine how we should react to a given situation, our reaction causes chemical processes in our body, like when getting aroused,.... we can react to a car-crash by getting aroused, there was a movie on this called "crash". If this is teh case then we can determine our reaction, our reaction will cause signals to the brain to which we value it. BUt we started ourselves how to value it, what the reaction should be and so on.
So our thoughts can be predetrmined, unless we choose to react and value differently. Get my idea here?

Ergo, tho thoughts may be predetermined, our valuation of them is not.

As said above, our valuation of our thoughts will cause a physical chemical response, to which our brain reacts and "thinks", and this we value, and then again and again.

DD - Love Spliff

Cojana · 05-13-2003, 05:02 PM

your analogy stepping on shit,are not a good example as to how two minds react to the same incdident,except for your inetial reaction, 'oh,shit',..the difference could better be evakuated,if both parties would be plunging down a steep hill,this metaphor would instill someone with whom they are by thier reaction to inpending death,w2e all have an inner self, trauma useally brings the other forth,

NonHomogenized · 05-14-2003, 03:56 AM

Most convincing argument for nonexistence of god:

"Define 'god'."

id.s · 05-14-2003, 07:06 AM

I wrote this yesterday. IDs--Which came first - "I think-therefore I am" or "I am-Therefore I think". What you are saying is "Do chemical reactions caused by emotion cause certain thoughts or do certain thoughts cause emotions and chemical reactions�. When we come to the table with our stock of knowledge we also bring our biases and differences. Call this the "essence" of who you are. If someone makes our thoughts seem trivial or unimportant we get angry and then it becomes a "War" of "Wills (words)". Again you are not seeing the whole picture. We spent most of our history functioning under our own watchful inner eye, trying to survive. You have found your fight /flight mechanism. Congratulations, it's called the limbic system. Now If you can learn to control these emotions that lead to anger, fear, hate etc. and tell Us how to do this, Maybe we'll have a condition where people love each other despite their ideological and genetic differences (worldwide- .001% DNA difference !). Any offers- D.D?, - to be the next new messiah? Better watch out. We have a penchant for making examples of those that tell US how to live or force US to live a certain way. Welcome to a world that sees you as an investment made. If I told you that your schooling and family values were an integral part of your conditioning, would it surprise you? The reality is, after carefully watching the Masses through the millennia and statistically analyzing our every need, "THEY" (Imagine who and why) know how you think. A Banking system of learning requires the use of investments, withdrawal, loans, credit and refusal. You must co-operate and show growth in a single direction or you WILL be exorcized from the game. It's a game of "love, hate the whole damn thing" and armed with the problems of a fear filled instinct that only understands that in a great big universe, we are ALL alone. That is why, people all over the world �believe�- even though they know it can�t be true. This allows them to IGNORE the reality of human suffering, thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for why and what they feel, think and do. In the bipolar/dichotomous, micro/ macro world of the psyche/cosmos the trick seems to be in what Socrates posed a few centuries ago- "KNOW THYSELF". First, learn the reason WHY triggers stimulate aggression inside you, THEN try to understand yourself by �self locating� your personal baggage, biases, mores and needs so you can begin to grasp a bigger picture to try and make sense of the unknown and not yet thought of.. As I said before, if you could figure out how and why the brain works the way it does, this information would probably even solve the mysteries that keep us from growing as a species and beyond. :banghead:

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 05-14-2003, 07:07 PM

Wyz_sub10,

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Ummm....I believe grandfather was your choice of example, not mine. (Maybe your robot voice is deceiving you) What exactly is "atheistic reasoning"? I hear that a lot, but I have no idea what it means...

'Athiestic reasoning' refers to the steadfast adherence to only believe that for which there is objective proof. Of course this immediately causes problems for those who use it...as there is no objective proof for themselves, their consciousness or even logic or thought for that matter.

What I am pointing out is that IF one applied 'atheistic reasoning' to other areas of their lives...they couldn't believe in things like 'milk at store', 'she thinks I'm hot' and 'my great grandfather existed'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

SOMMS: Of course this wouldn't prove anything. This just shows you dug somebody up and that body happened to have similar DNA. There may be some probablility that your related...but there's also a probablity that the tests were inconclusive...and your just interpreting things the way you want to.

Wyz_sub10: Wow. That is the worst hand-waving response I've seen in a while. What if we did 1,000 tests? What about the DNA + dental records? What if you picked the geneticist to do the interpretation? What if (assuming you�re an honest man and had the proper training) you did it yourself?

You missed the point here...doing 1,000 tests (or 10000000 tests for that matter) would only have a bearing on the confidence of our hypothesis. This is in no way proof of the hypothesis. For me to believe in your great grandfather Wyz...I require proof...not your wishful speculation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

It is also interesting that you treat this evidence as a separate issue from everything listed below. You should realize that this evidence would be used to corroborate other evidence. It's the accumulation of all these bodies that reduces the uncertainty and increases the likelihood of my claim.

Ahh...I see...like that fact that 80% of the people on the planet believe in God, nothing begins to exist without cause, and my personal relationship with God increases the likelihood of my claim?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

SOMMS: Ahh...yes. You (a bonafide biased grandfather believer) are going to produce 'documentation' that 'proves' your Gods...oops...sorry...your grandfathers existence? Sorry but I find this overly biased. OF COURSE you are going to produce documentation of you grandfather...you BELIEVE he exists...this is not scientifically unbiased.

Wyz_sub10: What on earth are you talking about? Spare me "amateur comedy night" and address the points. What is biased about this? Who said that I had to produce the evidence? You could do it. A neutral third party could do it.

What is biased? For Heaven sakes Wyz...YOU believe in your great grandfather...this obviously means you will attempt to produce evidence for silly little delusion! This is biased. A neutral third party could do it??? This just proves my point. A neutral third party hasn't done this. If your great grandfather existed then certainly by now there would be some proof of it. As for me...I have no reason to even look for evidence of your great grandfather...it is only your personal self delusion that propogates
your belief in him.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

One piece of evidence that corroborates with others thereby reducing the uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of my claim.

Again...like the fact that 80% of the people on the planet believe in God, nothing begins to exist without cause, and my personal relationship with God increases the likelihood of my claim?

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

BTW, if I had no such grandfather, who would this be an �imposter� of? Just a guy? What if I had 100 photos � with different people I knew, in different places I lived, at different moments of my life? We could create an endless web of corroboration, but at what point is enough evidence enough?

My dear Wyz_sub10...you are merely prolonging your delusion. I required cold hard facts to believe. And the fact is...photos of some guy (even 100 of them) don't prove someone is your great grandfather. In this day and age anything can be fabricated...have you even heard of Photoshop? I can provide you with 'proof' that it was Sasquatch who killed JFK by order of aliens...in minutes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

SOMMS: First hand testimony? Ha. Your just spouting first hand testimony from people who blindly believe in your grandfather. They could be just making it up to support their dilusion!

Wyz_sub10: Why would a bank teller, for instance, have a delusion about my grandfather? What is �blind belief� in a person, anyway? What about is doctor? School teachers? Bus driver, who has never known him by name?

Because perhaps bank teller can't deal with the pyschological trauma of living in a world in which 'your great grandfather' doesn't exist...so a bank teller may lie to themselves to help them deal with the world. Perhaps you are paying them or scaring them into 'great grandfather belief'. There are inumerable reasons why a bank teller might lie about the existence of your great grandfather...regardless...a bank tellers testimony is not proof. I require proof of your great grandfather before I believe.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Also, this is one piece of evidence that corroborates with others thereby reducing the uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of my claim.

Uh huh...just like the fact that 80% of the people on the planet believe in God, nothing begins to exist without cause, and my personal relationship with God increases the likelihood of my claim

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Well, you could do further test between multiple signed documents. You can assume his employers have some bizarre motive for forging documents (remember, I need not be involved in you research). You could check a variety of facts to see if the �Joe Smith� at the factory is the �Joe Smith� in question.

What if 'Joe Smith' is cunning? What if you duplicated the variety of facts in question. Seriously...there is no way employment records could act as 'proof for existence'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Also, this is one piece of evidence that corroborates with others thereby reducing the uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of my claim.

Just like the fact that 80% of the people on the planet believe in God, nothing begins to exist without cause, and my personal relationship with God increases the likelihood of my claim

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Where did you �address� this? You haven�t addressed a thing, except to conclude that everyone possibly involved, even in the most obscure way, with my grandfather�s life is delusional, lying, or has some secret to protect.

This is beyond silly in terms of a response.

Thank you! Finally it comes out. Yes this is in fact quite silly. This is exactly how the theist feels when conversing with atheist who keeps demanding objective proof before they will believe in God.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

You seem to forget that this is one piece of evidence that corroborates with others thereby reducing the uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of my claim.

Just like the fact that 80% of the people on the planet believe in God, nothing begins to exist without cause, and my personal relationship with God increases the likelihood of my claim.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Incidentally, SOMMS, if you apply your own rigor to your own beliefs, you must conclude you are delusion or the victim of a mass conspiracy. After all, if my evidence � all far more tangible than yours � is preposterous in your eyes, where does that leave yours?

You missed the point Wyz_sub10...I am illustrating how hypocritical your position is...not mine. And thank you for agreeing. I am only illustrating that if you truly applied the same rigor to the rest of your life as you do to God...you wouldn't believe in anything.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

chopboy · 05-15-2003, 07:01 AM

SOMMS are you serious 80% of the worlds population believe in the same god you do. or are you trying to say that 80% of the worlds population believe in a god? can you provide a reference to these figures i would be interested to see them?

as to the subject of the thread.

gods nonexistance??? i was chatting to the car gods just the other day, they said if i was really good i would get a shiney new turbo...
but seriously, and i think it has been said previously,weren't the gods/ god just a convenient way to reign in an unhappy and poorly treated populace. peasents weren't the most fortunate class though the most numerous. unlike my kind and benevolent gods

the christian church didn't offer material goods to make the lower classes happy. an endevour that would quickly have sent them broke and subsequently forgotten, they offered people something that no one else could, something that cost the church nothing to provide, and something that could not be proven to be false. not then, some say not now. and that way they let society progress.

but if you want to know what proved gods non-existance to me, ask a typical christian what they believe in. typically they say god. but ask them what they know? if god was real they wouldn't have to believe, they would know wouldn't they? for me there is a significant diference.

chopboy.

TomboyMom · 05-15-2003, 08:35 AM

God is defined as a being which cannot be perceived with any sense. Not being able to be perceived with any sense is the same as not existing. Therefore God by definition does not exist.

[I feel like I just opened Fibber, McGee and Molly's closet, and all of Albert Cipriani's and other's arguments are going to fall on my head now.]

Rene

Wyrdsmyth · 05-15-2003, 12:03 PM

You're sitting on it.

The human tailbone.

05-13-2003, 05:02 PM	#94
Cojana Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Reseda, California Posts: 651	Gods existence your analogy stepping on shit,are not a good example as to how two minds react to the same incdident,except for your inetial reaction, 'oh,shit',..the difference could better be evakuated,if both parties would be plunging down a steep hill,this metaphor would instill someone with whom they are by thier reaction to inpending death,w2e all have an inner self, trauma useally brings the other forth,

05-14-2003, 07:06 AM	#96
id.s Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: VICTORIA B. C. CANADA Posts: 206	D.D. I wrote this yesterday. IDs--Which came first - "I think-therefore I am" or "I am-Therefore I think". What you are saying is "Do chemical reactions caused by emotion cause certain thoughts or do certain thoughts cause emotions and chemical reactions�. When we come to the table with our stock of knowledge we also bring our biases and differences. Call this the "essence" of who you are. If someone makes our thoughts seem trivial or unimportant we get angry and then it becomes a "War" of "Wills (words)". Again you are not seeing the whole picture. We spent most of our history functioning under our own watchful inner eye, trying to survive. You have found your fight /flight mechanism. Congratulations, it's called the limbic system. Now If you can learn to control these emotions that lead to anger, fear, hate etc. and tell Us how to do this, Maybe we'll have a condition where people love each other despite their ideological and genetic differences (worldwide- .001% DNA difference !). Any offers- D.D?, - to be the next new messiah? Better watch out. We have a penchant for making examples of those that tell US how to live or force US to live a certain way. Welcome to a world that sees you as an investment made. If I told you that your schooling and family values were an integral part of your conditioning, would it surprise you? The reality is, after carefully watching the Masses through the millennia and statistically analyzing our every need, "THEY" (Imagine who and why) know how you think. A Banking system of learning requires the use of investments, withdrawal, loans, credit and refusal. You must co-operate and show growth in a single direction or you WILL be exorcized from the game. It's a game of "love, hate the whole damn thing" and armed with the problems of a fear filled instinct that only understands that in a great big universe, we are ALL alone. That is why, people all over the world �believe�- even though they know it can�t be true. This allows them to IGNORE the reality of human suffering, thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for why and what they feel, think and do. In the bipolar/dichotomous, micro/ macro world of the psyche/cosmos the trick seems to be in what Socrates posed a few centuries ago- "KNOW THYSELF". First, learn the reason WHY triggers stimulate aggression inside you, THEN try to understand yourself by �self locating� your personal baggage, biases, mores and needs so you can begin to grasp a bigger picture to try and make sense of the unknown and not yet thought of.. As I said before, if you could figure out how and why the brain works the way it does, this information would probably even solve the mysteries that keep us from growing as a species and beyond. :banghead:

05-15-2003, 08:35 AM	#99
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	hard to pick just one God is defined as a being which cannot be perceived with any sense. Not being able to be perceived with any sense is the same as not existing. Therefore God by definition does not exist. [I feel like I just opened Fibber, McGee and Molly's closet, and all of Albert Cipriani's and other's arguments are going to fall on my head now.] Rene

05-15-2003, 12:03 PM	#100
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	The most convincing argument for God's nonexistence?? You're sitting on it. The human tailbone.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2003, 02:03 AM	#91
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Id.s: Yes, meaning comes from us, we give meaning to the thoughts that arise in our minds. According to physics, we cannot create something out of nothing right? Well, can we create thoughts out of nothing? If we can't, then our thoughts are "predetermined", or to say that we call in certain thought patterns depending on circumstances(ask and you shall be given). If they are not predetermined, but are still created before we "think" them, where is this pool of thoughts? If we can create thoughts out of nothing, what does this tells us about the Idea of God? That it is only an idea? It only exist in peoples minds? Is this existance in our minds, physically based, thought based or divinely based(that is to say that there is a spiritual side)? If I have an experience, then I look for the relevant material, like studies on the physical brain and studies of the spiritual practices. These two explanation models offer different solutions. Physical: It is based on chemicals in the brain, these chemicals provoke certain thought patterns etc.(close enough...) Spiritual: It is because you have conciousness, which science can't explain yet, this conciousness is connected to your spiritual self, which directs your thoughts and actions according to your preference (ask and you shall be given) There is a "science" called Yoga, that explains why and how you can get into control of this conciousness. I stand now in teh middle of two fairly explainable ways to understand my experience. How am I to determine if one is true and teh other is not? I am part of teh problem, I have conciousness, and conciousness, according to Einstein will influence any experiment looked upon. So using conciousness to look at conciousness will influence how we see it! As long as we can't determine conciousness, at least with the formal modern "science", what good is that science to explain the phenomena of conciousness? If we can't explain conciousness, how are we to definately determine if our Self is physical based and not spirtual based? If we can't explain conciousness, how can I rule out any of the two possibilities as an explanation model, so I use both! If we can't use either as an explanation model, how should we perceive Reality? DD - Love Spliff

05-13-2003, 02:17 AM	#93
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Not so fast. You�re confusing thoughts (which I can accept as predetermined) from our valuation of those thoughts. Is our valuation of thoughts then free of physical interference? You seem to say that thoughts are phsyical dependant, yet our valuation is not! That means we have a non physical attribute to our being, namely our "valuation" skill. For example, I step in dog shit and you step in dog shit. We are struck with the same thought, namely: �Yuk!� You hold the thought, valuing it above all other thoughts and proceed to curse up a storm of verbal shit. I, on the other foot, choose to devalue that thought for I remember my bible: he who is angry is in danger of hell fire. And, naturally enough, other thoughts proceed to fill my vacuum of thought. So we can determine how we should react to a given situation, our reaction causes chemical processes in our body, like when getting aroused,.... we can react to a car-crash by getting aroused, there was a movie on this called "crash". If this is teh case then we can determine our reaction, our reaction will cause signals to the brain to which we value it. BUt we started ourselves how to value it, what the reaction should be and so on. So our thoughts can be predetrmined, unless we choose to react and value differently. Get my idea here? Ergo, tho thoughts may be predetermined, our valuation of them is not. As said above, our valuation of our thoughts will cause a physical chemical response, to which our brain reacts and "thinks", and this we value, and then again and again. DD - Love Spliff

05-14-2003, 03:56 AM	#95
NonHomogenized Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: no longer at IIDB Posts: 1,644	Most convincing argument for nonexistence of god: "Define 'god'."

05-15-2003, 07:01 AM	#98
chopboy Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia, tas. Posts: 19	SOMMS are you serious 80% of the worlds population believe in the same god you do. or are you trying to say that 80% of the worlds population believe in a god? can you provide a reference to these figures i would be interested to see them? as to the subject of the thread. gods nonexistance??? i was chatting to the car gods just the other day, they said if i was really good i would get a shiney new turbo... but seriously, and i think it has been said previously,weren't the gods/ god just a convenient way to reign in an unhappy and poorly treated populace. peasents weren't the most fortunate class though the most numerous. unlike my kind and benevolent gods the christian church didn't offer material goods to make the lower classes happy. an endevour that would quickly have sent them broke and subsequently forgotten, they offered people something that no one else could, something that cost the church nothing to provide, and something that could not be proven to be false. not then, some say not now. and that way they let society progress. but if you want to know what proved gods non-existance to me, ask a typical christian what they believe in. typically they say god. but ask them what they know? if god was real they wouldn't have to believe, they would know wouldn't they? for me there is a significant diference. chopboy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.