[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< A great many things are beyond my understanding; except for one thing.
Me.[/quote]Especially you.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I remember that you were still looking about a word that described your philosophy, does scientism or hard scientism describe your position?[/quote]
I was actually looking for a word to describe my theory of the origins of human morality. I found it; Evolutionary Morality.
I am definitely an atheist.
Scientism is a pejorative term. I don’t mind carrying the label, as I am definitely one that would say that science trumps all other philosophies. However, I don’t agree that that makes me ideologically driven (as the term implies.) I’m simply following rational principles in a search for knowledge.
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat:
[quote]Your rejection of duelism is not in question here. It’s what you can prove. What you cannot prove is that you exist. You cannot prove you’re not an illusion to my mind a hallucination. Hell, I cannot prove I am not dreamed up by something else. It could all be one giant illusion. You believe you are a physical entity, I believe you are to, but you cannot prove that anything exits beyond your perceptions. I think I made you up, prove me wrong.
Every thing is a mental state, if your not dead, your brain is in a state. Your state is your paradigm for perception. You perception is your reality, and you cannot be sure your reality is more real than anybody else. Again, we verify by consensus [/quote]
Ofcourse i can prove i exist; it just depends on what you accept as evidence. If we verify by consensus then what are your parameters for establishing the truth?
Put a person, who sees others who are not there, in a room with a [infrared] camera, and you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that there are no others present in the room. That person will not believe the footage ofcourse, but that’s not the point.
If you fall, you fall to the ground. That’s a real world consequence of being alive. No mental states necessary; if you fall, you fall to the ground.
Again, so what? This proves nothing.
[/quote]
It proves that deductive truths exist with out the necessity for man to exist.
[quote]
[quote][Right. So why do you separate thought, or objects in thought, from the whole: the brain/body?]
Because it tells you why. If you don’t try to break things apart you’ll never know why. You can drive a car even though you don’t know how it works, but you don’t know shit about cars unless you start looking at the pieces.[/quote]
You may not have broken it down far enough pat, and you may have looked at the pieces with preconceived notions.
Ego, the idea of self, and everything that we believe makes us a person; that is a product of thought. The whole construct of self is a mirage that exists only in thought. And because you did not look close enough you failed to see it’s illusory nature.
Instead you’ve opted to believe this mirage is probably godgiven.
When my body dies the man that existed nowhere else but in thought, dies too.
The end. [/quote]
Where you high when you wrote this? I will try to decipher…
The self is a the paradigm by which we intemperate and process information. There is no way to avoid perception, period. What matters in the end is that facts are facts and truth is truth. Whether you have thoughts or not are irrelevant to facts or truths. They will be facts or truths whether you alive, dead, never existed or exist in another dimension. Truths are not subject to anything, they will be true in this world, alternate universes, the center of a black hole, 25 different dimensions, etc.
And if you were high I don’t care, it was just a rather incoherent way of saying that my belief in an Uncaused-cause is false because I realize in thought. My thoughts may die, but the truths they contain will still be true.
Pat:
They are only deductive truths because we perceive them as such. You’re putting the cart before the horse here.
[quote] [You may not have broken it down far enough pat, and you may have looked at the pieces with preconceived notions.
Ego, the idea of self, and everything that we believe makes us a person; that is a product of thought. The whole construct of self is a mirage that exists only in thought. And because you did not look close enough you failed to see it’s illusory nature.
Instead you’ve opted to believe this mirage is probably godgiven.
When my body dies the man that existed nowhere else but in thought, dies too.
The end.]
Where you high when you wrote this? I will try to decipher…
The self is a the paradigm by which we intemperate and process information. There is no way to avoid perception, period. What matters in the end is that facts are facts and truth is truth. Whether you have thoughts or not are irrelevant to facts or truths. They will be facts or truths whether you alive, dead, never existed or exist in another dimension. Truths are not subject to anything, they will be true in this world, alternate universes, the center of a black hole, 25 different dimensions, etc.
And if you were high I don’t care, it was just a rather incoherent way of saying that my belief in an Uncaused-cause is false because I realize in thought. My thoughts may die, but the truths they contain will still be true.[/quote]
I wasn’t high, sorry to disappoint you.
We evolved as part of a system. At its current state the system has certain properties.
At a different point in its lifetime the system will have different properties.
What is true now may not be true 10 billion years from now.
But that’s not important. Let me recap to see if i got this right:
You think an uncaused cause exists because, inspite of us existing or not, certain truths will always exist?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< We evolved as part of a system. At its current state the system has certain properties.
At a different point in its lifetime the system will have different properties.
What is true now may not be true 10 billion years from now.
But that’s not important. >>>[/quote]Yes it is important. Do you own these as tenants of faith? No trick question and I think I know your answer. I’m just honestly asking.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat:
They are only deductive truths because we perceive them as such. You’re putting the cart before the horse here.
[quote] [You may not have broken it down far enough pat, and you may have looked at the pieces with preconceived notions.
Ego, the idea of self, and everything that we believe makes us a person; that is a product of thought. The whole construct of self is a mirage that exists only in thought. And because you did not look close enough you failed to see it’s illusory nature.
Instead you’ve opted to believe this mirage is probably godgiven.
When my body dies the man that existed nowhere else but in thought, dies too.
The end.]
Where you high when you wrote this? I will try to decipher…
The self is a the paradigm by which we intemperate and process information. There is no way to avoid perception, period. What matters in the end is that facts are facts and truth is truth. Whether you have thoughts or not are irrelevant to facts or truths. They will be facts or truths whether you alive, dead, never existed or exist in another dimension. Truths are not subject to anything, they will be true in this world, alternate universes, the center of a black hole, 25 different dimensions, etc.
And if you were high I don’t care, it was just a rather incoherent way of saying that my belief in an Uncaused-cause is false because I realize in thought. My thoughts may die, but the truths they contain will still be true.[/quote]
I wasn’t high, sorry to disappoint you.
We evolved as part of a system. At its current state the system has certain properties.
At a different point in its lifetime the system will have different properties.
What is true now may not be true 10 billion years from now.
But that’s not important. Let me recap to see if i got this right:
You think an uncaused cause exists because, inspite of us existing or not, certain truths will always exist?
[/quote]
I believe the uncaused-cause exists because it is logical. What you cannot argue is that the argument is flawed. The only thing you can argue is that the premises for said argument are incorrect. The only way you can refute the argument is to refute causation…You actually already know this on some level, it is why you argue randomness, or chaotic causeless events. The problem is there is no evidence or proof, there is only a possibility; a slim one at that. That is why arguing a slim possibility for which there is no evidence at all seems more implausible than arguing causation for which there is inevitably, something that must cause with out being caused, it’s the only possible solution.
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You think an uncaused cause exists because, inspite of us existing or not, certain truths will always exist?
[/quote]
I believe the uncaused-cause exists because it is logical. What you cannot argue is that the argument is flawed. The only thing you can argue is that the premises for said argument are incorrect. The only way you can refute the argument is to refute causation…You actually already know this on some level, it is why you argue randomness, or chaotic causeless events. The problem is there is no evidence or proof, there is only a possibility; a slim one at that. That is why arguing a slim possibility for which there is no evidence at all seems more implausible than arguing causation for which there is inevitably, something that must cause with out being caused, it’s the only possible solution. [/quote]
You look at the system from within the system without understanding the system, and then logically conclude that something that exists outside of the system created the system.
Not only that but from this something you derive the christian god.
In a nutshell.
We’ve been here before pat, and i still don’t see the logic [no surprises there!].
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence. [/quote]
Religious folk may look, but they sure do ignore a lot.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< You look at the system from within the system without understanding the system, and then logically conclude that something that exists outside of the system created the system.
Not only that but from this something you derive the christian god.
In a nutshell.
We’ve been here before pat, and i still don’t see the logic [no surprises there!].[/quote]Very VERY good. That is indeed exactly the most popular and in my view quite erroneous “Christian” theistic view. In a nutshell.
The trouble is this. Left to ourselves (meaning saint and sinner alike) we have no other choice than to “look at the system from within the system without understanding the system”. That is the very essence of subjectivity and is why every attempt to explain anything of ultimate import backs us into a corner fraught with darkness, frustration, tautology and, yes, faith.
You are no different than Pat except you logically conclude that there ISN’T something outside the system that created the system and even if there is it sure ain’t that Christian God. How do YOU know? How does anybody know including me? The answer in the end is that we can’t (we actually agree to this point) and these several months of discussion, reflecting a few thousand years of human thought should have made that abundantly clear by now. Aristotle and Aquinas were dead wrong on this score… sorry bout that.
I say that in the gospel of Jesus Christ having been given His mind and person living in me by faith, I view the system from the outside having been graciously granted box seats to the whole show from His vantage point. That is the only objectivity possible and it doesn’t belong to me. Now, not even in my post resurrection glorified state will I be equipped to exercise His incommunicable attributes including omniscience, as Paul says, faith is the first fruits, the ticket I hold guaranteeing me admittance into the holy of holies where I will see Him face to face and faith will no longer be necessary.
Once again Eph. This is no insult to you. You cannot see any of this because it IS life and you are dead. You can no more on your own embrace His life than a natural corpse can claw it’s way out the grave and back into THIS world. He must first make you live with Him in His resurrection. I contend… still… that many I embrace as true brethren in the Lord do err in digging themselves into your grave rather than beckoning you into their life by persisting in viewing the system from within the system without understanding the system.
My God is one of eternal absolute certainty. “In Him there is no variance or shadow of turning”. In embracing Him, I do by faith, in the way that I was originally designed, and then some, think His thoughts after Him. I am at peace and fully contented being able to smile and say with confidence. “I don’t know, but He does”.
Now that you’re done rolling your eyes and finding everything I just said the maximum expression of wishful thinking, please feel free to continue your aimless, fruitless search for meaning. Oh yeah, you already found it. Nevermind.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence. [/quote]
Religious folk may look, but they sure do ignore a lot.[/quote]
Perhaps a vast majority, which I am sad to say is true. However I think its safe to say that the Christians on this board have not ignored anything. We are educated individual’s. We just have a hard time believing that everything is a product of mindless chance.
I know this because, if you look back at the earlier religious traditions, christianity is an amalgamation of those earlier traditions. The monotheistic principle was a brilliant idea, and incorporating aspects of pagan and naturalistic religions aswell; this allowed an easier [albeit forced] transition between religions.
When you take into account how the bible was compiled, and place it’s inception in the geopolitical context, you’d have no problem seeing the bible’s myth for what it is: a myth.
I think we’d sooner see a complete agreement on what is actually true amongst every christian faction currently in existence before the god of Abraham reveals himself once more.
That was pretty good man. You won’t be shocked to learn that I disagree. As self evidently manifest as what you just said is to you? The presence of the God of Abraham in my life is eternally more self evidently manifest to me. Two different realties Eph. This is what I keep saying. I will not confront you in yours. I was born there. The air is much better here. I’ll continue praying that God please give me the grace to [quote]“refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”[/quote]2nd Timothy 2:23 and following: NASB I do sometimes fall short of this standard and must repent of misrepresenting His grace before the world.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That was pretty good man. You won’t be shocked to learn that I disagree. As self evidently manifest as what you just said is to you? The presence of the God of Abraham in my life is eternally more self evidently manifest to me. Two different realties Eph. This is what I keep saying. I will not confront you in yours. I was born there. The air is much better here. I’ll continue praying that God please give me the grace to [quote]“refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”[/quote]2nd Timothy 2:23 and following: NASB I do sometimes fall short of this standard and must repent of misrepresenting His grace before the world. [/quote]
You and me both brother. It is my hope for people to recognize that I am a follower of Christ without me saying a word. Unfortunately Im not there yet 
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That was pretty good man. You won’t be shocked to learn that I disagree. As self evidently manifest as what you just said is to you? The presence of the God of Abraham in my life is eternally more self evidently manifest to me. Two different realties Eph. This is what I keep saying. I will not confront you in yours. I was born there. The air is much better here. I’ll continue praying that God please give me the grace to [quote]“refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”[/quote]2nd Timothy 2:23 and following: NASB I do sometimes fall short of this standard and must repent of misrepresenting His grace before the world. [/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That was pretty good man. You won’t be shocked to learn that I disagree. As self evidently manifest as what you just said is to you? The presence of the God of Abraham in my life is eternally more self evidently manifest to me. Two different realties Eph. This is what I keep saying. I will not confront you in yours. I was born there. The air is much better here. I’ll continue praying that God please give me the grace to [quote]“refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”[/quote]2nd Timothy 2:23 and following: NASB I do sometimes fall short of this standard and must repent of misrepresenting His grace before the world. [/quote]
I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your selfmedicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence. [/quote]
Religious folk may look, but they sure do ignore a lot.[/quote]
Perhaps a vast majority, which I am sad to say is true. However I think its safe to say that the Christians on this board have not ignored anything. We are educated individual’s. We just have a hard time believing that everything is a product of mindless chance.[/quote]
You don’t have to believe anything.
That’s the point.
And, that is the massive gulf between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence. [/quote]
Religious folk may look, but they sure do ignore a lot.[/quote]
Perhaps a vast majority, which I am sad to say is true. However I think its safe to say that the Christians on this board have not ignored anything. We are educated individual’s. We just have a hard time believing that everything is a product of mindless chance.[/quote]
You don’t have to believe anything.
That’s the point.
And, that is the massive gulf between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer.
[/quote]
I agree with you too. You don’t have to believe anything I or anyone else says. Thats your random chance right (see what I did there…did ya???).
If God gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose, who am I or any other person to take that freedom away from you. It is your choice. IF you happen to pay for it, you’ll be without excuse. IF you don’t, then it doesn’t matter what you do (or even I) as we’ll all end up as mindless dust.