Religious Questions from the Faithful and the Believers

[quote]H factor wrote:

By my metrics yes. [/quote]

I’m sorry, but to me that just doesn’t add up. Why would you make it your metric, when viewing the ‘wronged’ of yester-year? You didn’t and don’t have the might to make right for them. Those who did, determined they had the right, and so no wrong was done. How can you possibly say they were wronged, if they clearly had no rights, and the offenders had no moral obligations to these people? Is it might makes? Your opinion determines what was/is/will be right? Or, what?

Then how can you claim those other folks at that time were wronged?

Had my side continued to win, I doubt you’d be here telling me I was right and you were wrong.

It’s not for men who were/are trying to change hearts. Who are pointing to the wronged and saying, you may have the might, but you/we are wrong for this. See, before you get “THE MIGHT” you either get them to realize they’ve been doing wrong. Or, at least enough people under them to realize they’ve been doing wrong, so now that you have your own might. The interesting thing is, I suppose no wrong would have ever been done to black slaves had we simply realized that as long we didn’t change our minds, no wrong was in reality being done. If you changed your mind tomorrow, no longer would wrong have been done to black slaves.

They have no reason to listen to me ever. If I don’t even believe they have a moral obligation to me, me to them, you to me, me to you, he needn’t think he’s wronged me. He’d be a fool to.

See, if I did the whole no-faith deal, I’d do it right. Without all the fun and inconsistent semantics that keeps me from having to voice the “hard truths” of such a position.

Nobody was wronged.

The black slave trade? They decided it was an economical/convenient enough practice. Units were shipped in for trade. We’ve decided it isn’t worth the trouble and costs today. Who knows though, maybe it’ll be a good option for the future though.

Nobody ever is wronged.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but to me that just doesn’t add up. Why would you make it your metric, when viewing the ‘wronged’ of yester-year? You didn’t and don’t have the might to make right for them. Those who did, determined they had the right, and so no wrong was done. How can you possibly say they were wronged, if they clearly had no rights, and the offenders had no moral obligations to these people? Is it might makes? Your opinion determines what was/is/will be right? Or, what?

Then how can you claim those other folks at that time were wronged?

Had my side continued to win, I doubt you’d be here telling me I was right and you were wrong.

It’s not for men who were/are trying to change hearts. Who are pointing to the wronged and saying, you may have the might, but you/we are wrong for this. See, before you get “THE MIGHT” you either get them to realize they’ve been doing wrong. Or, at least enough people under them to realize they’ve been doing wrong, so now that you have your own might. The interesting thing is, I suppose no wrong would have ever been done to black slaves had we simply realized that as long we didn’t change our minds, no wrong was in reality being done. If you changed your mind tomorrow, no longer would wrong have been done to black slaves.

They have no reason to listen to me ever. If I don’t even believe they have a moral obligation to me, me to them, you to me, me to you, he needn’t think he’s wronged me. He’d be a fool to.

See, if I did the whole no-faith deal, I’d do it right. Without all the fun and inconsistent semantics that keeps me from having to voice the “hard truths” of such a position.

Nobody was wronged.

The black slave trade? They decided it was an economical/convenient enough practice. Units were shipped in for trade. We’ve decided it isn’t worth the trouble and costs today. Who knows though, maybe it’ll be a good option for the future though.

Nobody ever is wronged.
[/quote]

Sloth no offense, but you attempt to do this all the time. Are you actually interested in discussing my lack of faith or are you interested in attempting to prove your point that I can’t happen to exist in this world and come to the conclusions I do without faith?

To the people at that time WHO WERE DOING THE SLAVERY they didn’t view it as wrong. If they did would they have done it? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Did your past Catholic brethren view that as wrong or God’s will?

Of COURSE they thought they were correct. Jeffrey Dahmer thought he was correct I’m sure. Me pointing that out doesn’t mean I think slavery isn’t wrong, the Inquisition is a good thing, or Dahmer was a cool guy who just happened to want to eat people.

No amount of word twisting or typing gymnastics makes me think these things no matter how many times you attempt to put the words in my mouth.

I get it. You can’t understand how some of us manage to not be horrible pieces of shit without believing in a higher power. Honestly it seems like it pisses you off. I think you’d be better off focusing on why so many people who claim to believe similar things to you and call themselves the same thing as you do so many horrific things.

Atheists aren’t hurting religion. Religion is hurting itself and has been for a while now. If I didn’t see all the hypocrisy by people in the world, on this board, and elsewhere I might be able to reconcile religion. Maybe, maybe not. You’re sitting here trying to figure out how my brain works when so many people on this board say horrific things and say they believe the same thing as you? I think that would be a better thing to figure out.

If I was a religious man I’d spend all my time trying to figure out why all these other people are giving us such a bad name. Pat says it’s the media. Pat’s a good dude, but absolutely full of shit on that and I showed him.

I didn’t say might makes right. I said might has the power to take away rights. Obviously this is and always has been and always will be true. You know it’s true. Doesn’t mean I agree with it for pointing it out. Your freedoms are only currently good for you as long as people in power think you deserve to have them. The moment they think otherwise what will happen? Will God save you? You better hope he does a better job than the past man.

The hard truths of smh or my position are hard because you make them hard. You want to make them hard because they don’t make sense to you. You’re probably not going to fix that no matter how much you say the same thing in these type of threads. You have the answer you wanted long before you asked the question. You won’t accept anything else from me.

If you would like to ask me questions about my lack of faith go ahead. If you would like to create strawmen all day long to attempt to prove something then I don’t know what to tell you.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m sorry, but to me that just doesn’t add up. Why would you make it your metric, when viewing the ‘wronged’ of yester-year? You didn’t and don’t have the might to make right for them. Those who did, determined they had the right, and so no wrong was done. How can you possibly say they were wronged, if they clearly had no rights, and the offenders had no moral obligations to these people? Is it might makes? Your opinion determines what was/is/will be right? Or, what?
[/quote]

Of course it doesn’t add up, you don’t intend for it to add up because I posted it.

To ME right now in 2014 I view slavery as absolutely horrific.

To the slave owners? Of course not.

I can’t judge yester-year, but you can? Why?

Your opinion ain’t helping them. Your God didn’t help them. Did he view it as horrific? How do you know? He didn’t do anything about it. He let Catholics kill in his name. He didn’t stop that either. Maybe his might makes all that right? Or maybe he doesn’t care? Or maybe he doesn’t exist.

I don’t claim to know. I can have my metrics though and I would never own a slave. Tell me how that helps someone out 250 years ago.

Go off my words, but don’t make your own come out of my mouth man.

See ya bud. Have a good weekend. long trip packing will respond if I can tomorrow.

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Sure other people helped you in your life? Same here, why? Because they love you? Perhaps? Why do they love you? What is love? Is there a rational explanation for someone to love you when its no benefit to them to do so? [/quote]

People have helped other people for a multitude of reasons, from selfishness to altruism, and everything in between. Hard to make generalized statements.

People love me because I’m awesome. (Jokes; I couldn’t resist!)

Seriously though, people love for the same reason they feel any other emotion: it is part of the human experience.

Love is an emotion, an experience, and a chemical reaction in the body/brain. It is fantastically dramatized in most western cultures, since the Greeks, at the least. It serves several purposes: reproduction and lowering the murder rate. You always hurt the one you love, sorta thing.

I don’t understand how loving someone ISN’T in their best interest, unless of course you love someone who has severe problems and causes you pain rather than returns that love. Love feels delicious. That’s as selfish as it gets.

[quote]pat wrote:
As far as sourcing your morality and purpose, you don’t think those are reasonable questions? What do you base your morality on? Just yourself? So that if you change your mind about something, then morality itself changes? I don’t think that, and I seriously doubt you believe that.[/quote]

Sure, they are reasonable, but they’re tired.

I base my morality on the affect it has on the world: myself and others.

If my actions cause pain, I call it bad. (Let’s be clear, for Sloth, that this is simply what I call it.)

If my actions cause joy, I call it good. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

.[/quote]

Well said. This probably won’t stop these points from being made over and over, but I feel the same way. Also my views change. I did not care about gay rights much until my favorite cousin and great friend came out. Then I started to question why so many in society could despise such a great guy simply because he wasn’t attracted to the opposite sex.

My views on values, government, history can and will change. I am very malleable, but I don’t view this as a flaw. I’m willing to change my mind when convinced someone has a great point. I understand I don’t know it all and view saying I don’t know as a sign of intelligence. In my opinion the most rigid people seem to be the least educated. Not talking about faithful people, but those who think they have an answer no matter what you ask them and that answer is right.

[quote]H factor wrote:

Sloth no offense, but you attempt to do this all the time. Are you actually interested in discussing my lack of faith or are you interested in attempting to prove your point that I can’t happen to exist in this world and come to the conclusions I do without faith? [/quote]

I’m just interested.

So then it couldn’t have been wrong. Why not just say that?

Isn’t that more my question? Since they didn’t, then they did no wrong.

Doesn’t matter if they viewed it as wrong, or if I view it as wrong. I maintain it was wrong regardless of any individuals opinion.

I’m just pointing that you should acknowledge, from your own worldview, that those folks weren’t wrong. No rights to be infringed upon, no inherent/objective value of human life, no moral obligations, so how COULD they be wrong. What was there even to be wrong about?

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m just trying to follow things to logical conclusions.

Why would I need to focus on them? I can kill two birds with one stone. If I say “this is/was wrong” I don’t mean just for the atheist.

I’m not actually all that concerned for religion. Eventually we’ll be the counter-culture and all the cool kids will want to join. The airwaves will be crammed with overly-dressed and prudish pop-stars “tainting” the sweet innocent secular minds of rebellious youth with that “dang religious noise.”

It’s kind of the point of the thread. If it bothers you to continue, I’ll let it go. You can take the last word after this post. Hey, you get sick of talking about a topic, I understand. But, you have to admit it sort of fits with the thread, no?

And, from time to time I do try to remind people that name-calling and colorful language are hardly good for conversation and changing hearts and minds. I’ve made it a point to not name call. Look, I’m sure I’ve failed somewhere, and I apologize to whoever that was. But mainly, I just try to be the example I’d like to see.

I won’t name any names, but there are certain atheists who I’ve said very little to ever, and will likely never have much to say to them. They are angry, and caustic, and come in guns-a-blazing.

They rant and rant about the stupidity of us sheeple. We’re the stubborn barricade to the Golden Age. F-this, and F-that, F-your church, F-your clergy, F-your Effin F (that’s when they’ve F-d so much the F’s begin running into each other). Not as common anymore, but the like still pops up from time to time. The points is, I don’t say much to them either.

  1. To be more accurate, you mean there weren’t actually any rights to take away in the first place? No moral obligations to observe? Which would have to mean no wrong was done.
  2. I don’t believe rights and moral obligations are taken away. I believe they’re trespassed upon, not lived up to, etc. If I didn’t believe this, I would laugh at myself for even claiming that I have a right to be treated this or that way. I would laugh at the fantasy I’ve concocted for myself of charity being a ‘good’ thing. Yeah, I guess I could just make it up, “charity is a good.” “Pillage, plunder, and rape is wrong.” But that honest voice in my head would say “you know you just made that up. You have no business declaring things you yourself don’t even actually believe to be truths.”

Maybe I don’t recall smh correctly, but I have the impression while he is an atheist [edit: correction, I think some sort of ‘agnostic theist?’], he may not exactly hold your view of morality. I might be mixing him up with somebody else, I guess. Maybe he’ll refresh my memory.

[quote] You want to make them hard because they don’t make sense to you. You’re probably not going to fix that no matter how much you say the same thing in these type of threads. You have the answer you wanted long before you asked the question. You won’t accept anything else from me.

[/quote]

At some point we all end up saying the same things over and over in these type of threads. Your reply will be the last if you want to make one. It isn’t my intent to harp. Just seemed like natural discussion for this thread.

Don’t forget to pack your toothbrush.

For the nonbeliever: What do you think happens when you die? Since you do not believe in heaven, where do you go once you die? Everything goes black and that’s it…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

None of this is remotely convincing. In fact it’s weaker than what’s usually offered.

For every prediction that panned out, a hundred didn’t.
[/quote]

No, that was Nostradamus.

The creation story and deluge are supposed to be obscure. It’s ‘wisdom teaching’. That’s why you get multiple versions of the same story.

Applying scientific criteria to religion is what pissed me off about Hitchens the smarty pants before I was even a believer. Your argument is weak as the two subjects coalesce about as easily as physics and quantum physics. Is Newton wrong or is Einstein wrong? They’re actually both right. The workings of the universe, whilst understood far greater over the last century still can’t explain some of the most simple things. Furthermore they are riddled with contradictions and hypothesis that have to be invented like dark matter.

[quote]

I didn’t think so. Which means that it does not follow from “the prediction about the terrorists panned out!” that the planet is only a few thousand years old and woman was made from man’s rib.[/quote]

That’s the second creation story. The historical account in the bible may well begin with Abram, not Adam, Eve, Noah, Shem, Ham or Japhath. As I’ve said I’m ignorant on the subject. Why question me on the most controversial aspects of the scriptures?

BTW Reading the entire bible including long lists of genealogies and land allocations, complex border descriptions and highly obscure prophetic writings for someone who doesn’t actually believe in God is quite a feat…one quite commonly professed by non believers too. Well done.[/quote]

I am not sure, again, if that last part is sarcasm. I have indeed read the entire thing, cover to cover. Not that I didn’t skim genealogies.

Regarding the rest of it, I’m not applying scientific criteria to anything. (Newton/Einstein is an entirely separate matter, for an entirely separate discussion.) I am applying to it the criteria of rationality. I think it obvious that I am arguing against the apologist–who has no problem, and indeed relies upon, the synthesis of religion, philosophy, and natural science–and not against the believer who stresses his faith. The latter, as I sort of got at in talking with Beans, is not someone I’m interested in debating (which, among many other things [like the fact that I’m not an atheist], separates me from Hitchens and the militant wing of New Atheism).

But anyway–I know this road very well, and I am more than happy to go down it again. It should probably be a separate thread. I will, at least to begin, re-paste some of what I’ve written on it, because, as I said, this debate happened about two weeks ago–and two months ago, and six months ago.

Edit: And I do, sort of, believe in God, or believe in the possibility of God. I just don’t think the Bible/Christian Bible/Theogony/Upanishads/Quran/Samaritan Torah have have anything more or less to do with the truth about God than does this paragraph that I’m writing right now.

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
For the nonbeliever: What do you think happens when you die? Since you do not believe in heaven, where do you go once you die? Everything goes black and that’s it…[/quote]

Yes, exactly. What happens when you kill a plant or an animal? Does it go to heaven?

[quote]pat wrote:
Well you can ask them if they think Hitler was right… When Dawkins was spouting off about his moral relativistic beliefs, they (a british radio show) asked them that question. His answer? ‘I can’t really say Hitler was wrong…’ Nice.

Aside from that little anecdote I think there are good questions to ask atheists:
Why is there something rather than nothing? ~ Leibniz
Where is morality?
Where does morality come from?
Is there any good reason to behave in a way that is not beneficial to yourself?
Is there any reason not to hurt other people with your actions that please you, especially if you have no connection to them or have no love for them?

If you wanted to rid the world of religious dogma, would there be any harm in killing off religious people and burning down all religious institutions? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

What rules should people live by and why?

I think some of those are good questions to ask non-believers.
[/quote]

Hitler was wrong and if you’re too scared to take a stand on that one, you’re a bitch or a Nazi, same thing in my book.

  1. Why not? Who knows? I sure don’t. Is there something?

  2. Morality is a creation of the mind.

  3. See #2.

  4. Altruism. Self-sacrifice. Compassion. Love.

  5. Yes, it hurts them. Golden rule.

  6. Why would you want to rid the world of religious dogma? Might as well kill everyone. Not sure if you’ve seen Monument Men, but it makes a good case. I fully support their actions and sacrifices, and cried at the movie. Mostly religious works, Christian/Catholic works, to be precise. Also, have you seen what Mao did to the temples and monasteries? That was evil, straight up. We will never get those back.

  7. A]Do not harm others. B] Be nice and be happy. Why? Because [A] leads to [B].

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Edit: And I do, sort of, believe in God, or believe in the possibility of God. I just don’t think the Bible/Christian Bible/Theogony/Upanishads/Quran/Samaritan Torah have have anything more or less to do with the truth about God than does this paragraph that I’m writing right now.[/quote]

This is sorta where I get hung up too.

The older I get, the more I come to accept I do believe in some sort of higher power. (Years of parental conditioning, followed by years of deluding myself take time to break down.) But it is the actual organization of these feelings that wear on me. Not that I judge people (at least anymore) for being so “into” their religion’s book, it just really isn’t for me, to be so into a book about it.

Put it this way, I can, and have, sit in a holy building, close my eyes and feel a chill run up my spine. But as soon as dude up front starts talking, that feeling of good, and peace, goes away.

I don’t know, maybe I’m an idiot, but I feel lke God’s concern would be, if God was concerned, your personal relationship with God, not your relationship with an organization in God’s name.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Edit: And I do, sort of, believe in God, or believe in the possibility of God. I just don’t think the Bible/Christian Bible/Theogony/Upanishads/Quran/Samaritan Torah have have anything more or less to do with the truth about God than does this paragraph that I’m writing right now.[/quote]

This is sorta where I get hung up too.

The older I get, the more I come to accept I do believe in some sort of higher power. (Years of parental conditioning, followed by years of deluding myself take time to break down.) But it is the actual organization of these feelings that wear on me. Not that I judge people (at least anymore) for being so “into” their religion’s book, it just really isn’t for me, to be so into a book about it.

Put it this way, I can, and have, sit in a holy building, close my eyes and feel a chill run up my spine. But as soon as dude up front starts talking, that feeling of good, and peace, goes away.

I don’t know, maybe I’m an idiot, but I feel lke God’s concern would be, if God was concerned, your personal relationship with God, not your relationship with an organization in God’s name. [/quote]

Great post. I have some similar feelings. The thread about “proofs of God,” which was fantastic, could lead someone to believe that I am an atheist. I am not, and, in fact, philosophical arguments for theism are the reason that, if I were forced to make a guess, I would–very tentatively–come down on the side that believes in God.

Regarding holy places, I have done a great deal of work (more than I’d have liked, in fact) relating to medieval Christian art, architecture, and iconography, and I have been in many of “the greatest churches in the world.” While I do not feel that these places are “holier” than, say, the top of Table Mountain, or the tallest building in Tokyo, I love them, and I am very glad that they were painstakingly built and decorated.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Neuroscientists plant false memories in the brain
MIT study also pinpoints where the brain stores memory traces, both false and authentic.

And for the True Detective viewers.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-not-simpler/2014/03/03/depressing-things-true-detective-says-self-true/#.UyI3b4VvDq4

"The ‘you’ that rationalizes and chooses and deliberates is simply a way for the brain to navigate the world. Having a sense of a self that apparently controls the body from behind the eyes is an efficient way to deal with other sentient creatures, and evolved along with our intelligence, or so psychologists like Hood suggest. This conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to come from a scientific perspective either. In Buddhist philosophy, the term ?anattā? refers to Rust’s contention of the ‘not-self’ or the self illusion. If you simply pay attention to the nature of perception–what you feel and how–eventually you will notice that the sensation of a singular sense of self melts away. Of course, that kind of meditation does not work for everyone, and does not prove there is no ‘you.’ Maybe shrinking your mirror down to the size of a quarter will help.

Think about the brain’s self modeling like The Matrix. In that film, humans are kept alive and thinking by electrical inputs wired straight into their brains. The humans in turn create a sense of self and experience from these inputs alone. But their sensory experience is completely illusory, and they’d never know it. Is that really any different from how we experience the world? Isn’t the self just a jumbled of sensory input that is stitched together like some rag doll that looks terrible up close? Now that’s thinking like Rust Cohle."

[/quote]

This is essentially exactly what I believe. If you disagree, I ask you: where is the self?

Doesn’t matter if they viewed it as wrong, or if I view it as wrong. I maintain it was wrong regardless of any individuals opinion.

I’m just pointing that you should acknowledge, from your own worldview, that those folks weren’t wrong. No rights to be infringed upon, no inherent/objective value of human life, no moral obligations, so how COULD they be wrong. What was there even to be wrong?
[/quote]

I’m on my phone, so if I jacked up the quotes, let me apologize.

I still see this as an obvious hypocrisy. You can decide the Spanish Inquisition was wrong but we can’t decide anything is wrong? Please explain.

[quote]AceRock wrote:

I still see this as an obvious hypocrisy. You can decide the Spanish Inquisition was wrong but we can’t decide anything is wrong? Please explain. [/quote]

We’re setting aside the debate. However, I feel comfortable enough that this is dealt with in my previous posts. If you don’t see it, it’s because I haven’t convinced you. You’re not “buying what I’m selling.” It happens.

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Neuroscientists plant false memories in the brain
MIT study also pinpoints where the brain stores memory traces, both false and authentic.

And for the True Detective viewers.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-not-simpler/2014/03/03/depressing-things-true-detective-says-self-true/#.UyI3b4VvDq4

"The ‘you’ that rationalizes and chooses and deliberates is simply a way for the brain to navigate the world. Having a sense of a self that apparently controls the body from behind the eyes is an efficient way to deal with other sentient creatures, and evolved along with our intelligence, or so psychologists like Hood suggest. This conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to come from a scientific perspective either. In Buddhist philosophy, the term ?anattā? refers to Rust’s contention of the ‘not-self’ or the self illusion. If you simply pay attention to the nature of perception–what you feel and how–eventually you will notice that the sensation of a singular sense of self melts away. Of course, that kind of meditation does not work for everyone, and does not prove there is no ‘you.’ Maybe shrinking your mirror down to the size of a quarter will help.

Think about the brain’s self modeling like The Matrix. In that film, humans are kept alive and thinking by electrical inputs wired straight into their brains. The humans in turn create a sense of self and experience from these inputs alone. But their sensory experience is completely illusory, and they’d never know it. Is that really any different from how we experience the world? Isn’t the self just a jumbled of sensory input that is stitched together like some rag doll that looks terrible up close? Now that’s thinking like Rust Cohle."

[/quote]

This is essentially exactly what I believe. If you disagree, I ask you: where is the self?
[/quote]

I don’t claim to know. I believe it’s a mix of primal instincts and nurture. Where is it? Don’t know.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Neuroscientists plant false memories in the brain
MIT study also pinpoints where the brain stores memory traces, both false and authentic.

And for the True Detective viewers.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-not-simpler/2014/03/03/depressing-things-true-detective-says-self-true/#.UyI3b4VvDq4

"The ‘you’ that rationalizes and chooses and deliberates is simply a way for the brain to navigate the world. Having a sense of a self that apparently controls the body from behind the eyes is an efficient way to deal with other sentient creatures, and evolved along with our intelligence, or so psychologists like Hood suggest. This conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to come from a scientific perspective either. In Buddhist philosophy, the term ?anattā? refers to Rust’s contention of the ‘not-self’ or the self illusion. If you simply pay attention to the nature of perception–what you feel and how–eventually you will notice that the sensation of a singular sense of self melts away. Of course, that kind of meditation does not work for everyone, and does not prove there is no ‘you.’ Maybe shrinking your mirror down to the size of a quarter will help.

Think about the brain’s self modeling like The Matrix. In that film, humans are kept alive and thinking by electrical inputs wired straight into their brains. The humans in turn create a sense of self and experience from these inputs alone. But their sensory experience is completely illusory, and they’d never know it. Is that really any different from how we experience the world? Isn’t the self just a jumbled of sensory input that is stitched together like some rag doll that looks terrible up close? Now that’s thinking like Rust Cohle."

[/quote]

This is essentially exactly what I believe. If you disagree, I ask you: where is the self?
[/quote]

I don’t claim to know. I believe it’s a mix of primal instincts and nurture. Where is it? Don’t know.
[/quote]

You know, from a believer, that makes perfect sense to me. You don’t know where God is, but that doesn’t deter you in your belief. It follows.

Definitely side-stepped the whole point of your own post, however. Sorry for the short tone, again, on my phone.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

I still see this as an obvious hypocrisy. You can decide the Spanish Inquisition was wrong but we can’t decide anything is wrong? Please explain. [/quote]

We’re setting aside the debate. However, I feel comfortable enough that this is dealt with in my previous posts. If you don’t see it, it’s because I haven’t convinced you. You’re not “buying what I’m selling.” It happens.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Neuroscientists plant false memories in the brain
MIT study also pinpoints where the brain stores memory traces, both false and authentic.

And for the True Detective viewers.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-not-simpler/2014/03/03/depressing-things-true-detective-says-self-true/#.UyI3b4VvDq4

"The ‘you’ that rationalizes and chooses and deliberates is simply a way for the brain to navigate the world. Having a sense of a self that apparently controls the body from behind the eyes is an efficient way to deal with other sentient creatures, and evolved along with our intelligence, or so psychologists like Hood suggest. This conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to come from a scientific perspective either. In Buddhist philosophy, the term ?anattā? refers to Rust’s contention of the ‘not-self’ or the self illusion. If you simply pay attention to the nature of perception–what you feel and how–eventually you will notice that the sensation of a singular sense of self melts away. Of course, that kind of meditation does not work for everyone, and does not prove there is no ‘you.’ Maybe shrinking your mirror down to the size of a quarter will help.

Think about the brain’s self modeling like The Matrix. In that film, humans are kept alive and thinking by electrical inputs wired straight into their brains. The humans in turn create a sense of self and experience from these inputs alone. But their sensory experience is completely illusory, and they’d never know it. Is that really any different from how we experience the world? Isn’t the self just a jumbled of sensory input that is stitched together like some rag doll that looks terrible up close? Now that’s thinking like Rust Cohle."

[/quote]

This is essentially exactly what I believe. If you disagree, I ask you: where is the self?
[/quote]

I don’t claim to know. I believe it’s a mix of primal instincts and nurture. Where is it? Don’t know.
[/quote]

You know, from a believer, that makes perfect sense to me. You don’t know where God is, but that doesn’t deter you in your belief. It follows.

Definitely side-stepped the whole point of your own post, however. Sorry for the short tone, again, on my phone.

[/quote]

Well, one point of the post is related to the idea that even many atheists start with a fundamental leap of faith.

The second is that there might not be a “self” to be harmed.

That so much of ‘life’ is possibly an ‘illusion’–the brain/mind so unreliable (see the implanted memories article above)–to ask “how can one know another self even exists” if even our own self is questioned, can hardly be silly.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

How am I supposed to convince myself to listen to that book over all the other religious texts out there? How do I know I have found the correct answer there and not in the words of someone else? [/quote]

How am I supposed to convince myself to marry one woman over all the other women out there? How do I know I have found the correct woman for me and not the woman for someone else?[/quote]

Why not just bang’em and kick them to the curb? What’s wrong with doing that? You got what you wanted…[/quote]

Or take a page out of old Mitt’s ancestral playbook and marry 'em all.[/quote]

I had added to that, ‘Or did I miss the point?’ with a smiley face, but the edit didn’t take.