"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 88 by William]


[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.
Part Two: Bias vs Skepticism[/center]

I think that you make it a competition when you said that your kind of religion is better than another kind of religion.

Well what you think about me or my agenda, is relevant how?

I'm pointing out that you brought up the competition aspect to religions, and then you said that it WASN'T some kind of competition. Apparently, yours is better than theirs. You contradicted yourself, that's all. No biggie.

If you recall, my one question to you is how anyone can know that what you believe in is TRUER than theirs.

But I wasn't arguing that Blastcat. I was simply giving a story of an experience. I agree that personal bias come into the mix. It does that with everything. It is what casued you to give up Christianity.

Actually, no.

It wasn't a bias that caused me to give up on religions. It was a LACK of bias. When I looked at my religion and other religions WITH AS LITTLE BIAS as I could, none of them stood up to scrutiny.

I was attempting at the time to "save my soul", I was NOTHING if not rigorous. So, bias of any kind was OUT the door.

How can anyone be objective if they embrace a bias of any kind? We KNOW that bias only leads us to cognitive errors. I do my utter best to get rid of as much bias as I can when I am evaluating something.


Embracing a bias is antithetical to skepticism.

Should I accuse YOU of competing against Christians because you think your way of thinking, as someone who now lacks belief in any gods, is better than your way of thinking before, as a Christian?

Yes, I really think that you should.
I think that everyone could benefit from the discussion.

I don't see why you should be congratulated for exchanging belief systems.

Good. Who needs to be congratulated for their chosen preferred position?

We agree.

Of course, when someone learns something new, it's exciting, so I think that good news like that should be celebrated. Don't you?

You seem to still be a Christian, but perhaps one that doesn't have to go to church on Sundays.

You seem to be an atheist, but perhaps one who prefers to say he isn't. What of it?

I have no problem stating my positions.
Why would you conclude that I have?

I was just saying that you "MIGHT BE" the kind of Christian who doesn't go to church on Sundays. I don't think that would make your brand of religious beliefs more TRUE than any other kind. Do you?


How do you know that your brand of religious beliefs are truer than any other brand?

As an agnostic and a theist, I'm not upset by that..

Well that's data which might come in handy.

Ooops.. i made a mistake. Sorry.
Typo.


I'm an agnostic and a SKEPTIC is what I meant to write.

( lol, apparently, I DO have a bit of difficulty stating my position !! )

you might not be inclined to donate your hard earned money to that church as much.

I don't donate any money whatsoever to any organised religion.

Good for you.
I wish that everyone did that.

It helps with the decline of religiosity if the tax free club houses have to close due to lack of attendance.

Your bias is leaking through Blastcat.

You have to be careful of the word "bias" .
A bias is not the same thing as a conclusion.

I can change my conclusion as soon as I get new data ... that's not a bias at all. I am open to new data. I'm not going to ignore any new data.

If you got new data bring it.
I'm here for that.

I am as little impressed with religion as you seem to be.
I think that they had their day.. and their utility isn't as obvious as it used to be.

I ask you again about the truth of your beliefs.

What truth as you speaking about in relation to these supposed beliefs which you claim that I have?

If you have any religious beliefs, are any of those religious beliefs TRUE?

Or does the truth of your beliefs not matter to you?
And if you are an atheist, please say so.

And if you subscribe to some other religion that Christianity.. time to fess up.

In what way are they more TRUE than any other Christian's beliefs?

I am not a Christian so I have no particular way of answering that. Perhaps ask me again without the assumptions.

It's not at all an assumption.

If you are not a Christian, then I made a mistake. You can feel free to correct me at any time. Most people in here are either atheists or Christians, you know. It's kinda the "thing" in here.

Sorry if I made a mistake. But if you don't clear it up for me, I won't know. Some people label themselves quite creatively.

It's odd that you take the trouble of saying that you aren't a Christian, but not at all any trouble to tell us what you DO happen to believe in.

Do you care about the truth of your beliefs at all?

What beliefs?

I don't know.. I thought you had religious beliefs.
Are you an atheist?

I do care about the truth. It is one of those things which is very well hidden and requires a lifetime of getting to the bottom of - At least for me, that is the case. It is a work in progress.

Hmmm it seems you think that religious "truths" are very well hidden, and that so MANY people claim to have them.

Why is that?

Its been said oft enough. The nature of the particular god idea we are dealing with here is 'seek and you shall find.' Hide and seek really. Individually subjective and if anyone wants evidence, they have to make the effort.

IF you think that evidence for "God" is individual and subjective, why is it so hard for you to know your own individual, subjective mind about it?

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not at all trying to cheat ... I like to be as intellectually honest as possible. I do, however, make many mistakes. Please, feel free to correct me when you spot one of those, as I really do "learn by my mistakes" at times.

I'm trying to find out if what any religious person believes in is true.

I'm just asking for some kind of evidence for their beliefs, or some good method that they have to know if their beliefs are true OTHER than evidence. ( that would be a big breakthrough in epistemology )

You tried it and found it did not deliver and so chose to depart from that.

I'm not too sure what you are referring to.

I don't depart from a proven epistemic method such as "demanding evidence" for a claim, if that's what you mean.

Perhaps you were barking up the wrong tree?

How would I know? I am given NO METHOD by which to know which tree to bark up. Some say this tree, and some the next. I tried a lot of trees.. no god or goddesses were there.


Blastcat doesn't bark, but growls, instead.

Did someone tell you to believe this?

People have and still do tell me to believe all kinds of weird things.

What convinced you to think that the God in question would work in that way, and just come out of hiding when you say "I give up, where are you hiding?"

Well, at first, I was raised a good little Catholic boy, born and raised to believe all that good down home Catholic stuff. There was a lot of stuff to learn. I learned it well. It was rote learning, so all I had to do was use my memory for that. I excelled at that.

Trouble started when I started to ask questions.
Big trouble.

Now, of course, many years later, when it comes to evidence for gods or goddesses, any good evidence will do. I have no expectations at all. I'm not a believer. I don't have a bias in that regard.

I'm just being as good a skeptic as I can.

The game is on.

Do you mean debate?
Is this all just a game to you?

Well, then, lets play.
Kitty cats are very playful indeed.

[rikuoamero]

William said

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

That's been pretty much what I've been doing in my year and a half here on this forum (I don't call it cheating though). The reason I went that route is because I had tried, for years, to make contact with 'the god(s)', all to no success. I would get people saying to do all sorts of things, I did them all...no dice. I tried prayer, meditation, etc.
When I first found this forum, I read over thread topics and found all sorts of people claiming to have contact with 'the god(s)'. So instead of trying myself, I decided to just start asking point blank for evidence of what they were saying was true. In fact, since you're not exactly well known around here (only 54 posts in five years), I might as well clue you in. I have a standing challenge for anyone who claims access/communication to some supernatural intelligence: a sheet of paper with a detail about myself that I have quite literally never told anyone.
To date, I have not had anyone even try, let alone fail.

Besides, think about what you're saying. You're saying that it's all right for people to make this claim (contact with God) and that they do not have a burden of evidence. If I claim contact with say...Robert Downey Jr., to pick a name at random, to having lunch with him every other weekend, do I not have a burden of proof? Especially if I go on about how wonderful Downey is, and why others should follow what Downey teaches?

[Clownboat]

Filling in the gaps based on such limited knowledge of the individual you are attempting to make a strawman out of Clownboat?

What are you talking about and why are you quoting me?

Assumption is the cart before the horse. You don't have enough data in which to make the positive claim that I am 'some kind of Christian'.

Please show where I claimed that you were a Christian so I can retract that statement. However, if I have not made such a statement, it would be prudent for you to offer me a retraction.

Who I am is right now, beyond your ability to know for certain.

Why is me knowing who you are or not relevant to this discussion?

You don't have enough data I am not a Christian of any sort, Clownboat. That should help you to cease and desist in labeling me as such, yes?

Did you find that quote where I labeled you a Christian or does no such a quote exist?

You have the benefit of my doubt.

I don't see how I benefit from your doubt. Can you expand?

Steer away from the need to label people so that you can then make assuptions about them. It is the old strawman fallacy thingy going on there, The partaking of pointless waffle between peers in order to show rudeness and ignorance to the subject of their mirth.

Labels can have a use. Either way, who are you accusing me of labeling and what label did I use? Was the label useful in anyway to convey a point, or was I just doing it for mirth? Why do you find me to be the topic here, can you not refute whatever it is I said or you think I said?

Step up a notch Clownboat.

Perhaps someone should suggest that you relax?

I don't recall labeling you, nor addressing you personally. I can only guess that something I said just may be a shoe that fits, but I do admit I am only guessing at the reasons for your sensitivity here.

[William]

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Yay! We agree on something! Moving on...

Science can comment on the complete and utter lack of any data or empirical evidence supporting the concept, and how the concept's properties violates what has been verified by scientific inquiry.

Exactly! Thanks for making my point!

Useless to explore because there is no data or evidence for it, but not useless to note the illogical paradoxes that exist in the claims.

Exactly! Thanks for making my point!

Whatever claims are being made in relation to the supernatural.

What do you mean by 'supernatural'? Is this referring to outside universes? Do you consider the idea of Intelligent Design to signify a claim of involving the 'supernatural? If so, why?

That volume is zero

.

Do the math.

The size of the universe does not increase the chances that magical creatures exist (that would exclude Big Foot presumably). Not sure why someone would claim that.

The context that I spoke was inclusive of the possibility of such creatures of FORM existing in this universe while excluding the 'supernatural' and so no, 'magic' was not invoked or otherwise implied. Read what I said in context and you will see for yourself that this is what I said about the matter.

Uh-huh.

Yah-ha

No supernatural powers in this universe I agree.

Good. I thought for a moment we might never get there.

So is delusion.

Your point being...?

You would credit the claim of Vishnu as being on par with the Islamic god for example.

What I credit is that the source of all GODs is the One GOD.
That, related to this neighborhood of the galaxy, amounts to; "there is a source to all of the god-ideas human beings have experienced, given names to and attempted explanations for."

Great. Prove it.

How? Connecting the dots I can see for myself what is most likely going on. If I can, you can. All that is required in effort on your part.
For more data on that, see this post.

Empirical evidence is the reaction that the universe experiences when a god creature takes an action.

I am aware of this. When a GOD creature takes action in this universe, time is involved. There is plenty of space in which to take action, and plenty of time to do it.

Not the point. There will always be evidence created as a result.

To date, the evidence we have can be seen to be a footprint of GOD.

Those reactions to the universe can't be found by anyone, anywhere.

That is hilarious! When you think about it from my perspective (some of which I have shared on this message board) I have the idea that all human gods real or imagined are the product of a GOD which IS those humans and became those humans as a result of time and space and enough of both in order to make it so.
Perhaps "those reactions" to the universe can be found exactly by "anyone", "anywhere"...once they 'find themselves' within the particular 'anywhere' that they just happen to be in...aka 'The Universe'.

Just like a beach reacts to your walking on it (footprint), a divine critter taking human form, speaking to people, causing natural disasters, making stuff, etc must leave evidence behind. And of course no one has any.

Here you are tending to superimpose concepts on top of each other. To explain...;

Just like a beach reacts to your walking on it (footprint),...

No. A GOD in this universe does not instantly manifest evidence, so the footprint analogy is misrepresenting the action.
The footprint in the sand is the action of GOD through human (or whatever made the footprint) form. That took a long time to manifest.

Nonsense. There are plenty of specific claims of specific god creatures doing specific things. That's the god itself doing it, not making a human do it. If such events did and do happen then evidence has to be created.

Yes and if the evidence is not found through looking, then the claims regarding that idea of what god did can be discounted.
The defendant did not do as the witness claimed.

The defendant is not guilty of the actions he is accused of.

The charges are dropped through lack of evidence.

...or does the prosecution have further questions?

...a divine critter taking human form, speaking to people, causing natural disasters, making stuff, etc must leave evidence behind. And of course no one has any.

You are speaking about the stories of human beings relaying a witness of supernatural powers coming from 'special' human beings and it is in the very existence of such stories that the 'footprint' has been made.

Nonsense. There are plenty of specific claims of specific god creatures doing specific things. That's the god itself doing it, not making a human do it. If such events did and do happen then evidence has to be created.

Yes and if the evidence is not found through looking, then the claims regarding that idea of what god did can be discounted.
The defendant did not do as the witness claimed.

The defendant is not guilty of the actions he is accused of.

The charges are dropped through lack of evidence.

...or does the prosecution have further questions?

We can complain that the stories are made up by liars, fools, cheaters, woo-slingers, et al, or we can leave those questions unanswered so's not to make out of them a barrier to any other possibly conclusion being made on the subject of GOD.

This is a fascinating comment on multiple levels. You want to ignore all manner of baseless claims we find in "stories" because you feel it keeps people from being open to other conclusions about a god.

Correct, your honor...

I can see why you'd want to do this, because you are smart enough to realize the devil is in the details, and the stories usually contain specifics which can be readily and easily challenged. The more people realize the logical paradox of supernatural claims, the less likely they are to buy into even the very generic nonspecific flavors.

Getting very warm your honor...

Of course the vast majority of believers find out about the supernatural via such stories.

Indeed they do. And whats more, it is the very crux of faith. One has to believe because the evidence isn't so apparent.

I believe your friend you first talked to about your god was from a specific denomination with a specific brand of religion.

He was. But he never told me much about that. I found out later what that was about, for myself.

Stories and claims were shared. Now such stories are an impediment to making conclusions about that god.

Not now. There were for a while, no doubt. Sifting through the evidence...."drum-role please!"...

Problem is, ...

...and "Cymbal crash!"

...which one of you is supposed to be right?

Right about what? That there is no evidence of the supernatural? My friend has moved on and by all appearances has accepted that is the case.

There are thousands of sects of Christianity alone. I see believers telling each other that they don't truly understand and are "wrong" all the time, at this site and everywhere else too. And all those different understandings come from the same place too, the same stories.

Potato/Potato. Everybody wants to rule their world. The stories are not for 'making up stories about' they are stories about a story related to an actual event which itself is a kind of story.

The events within those stories which I am interested in re the supposed supernatural angle can be explained by the same witness Astral Travelers share re their experiences.
"In The Mind" The mind of the individual connecting with the Mind of GOD, aka 'we are it' as per my revealed position on the matter.
I don;t personally se the subject as supernatural, or my own experiences therein as 'supernatural'.

As far as I am concerned, what happens, happens naturally - even that we may not presently have hold of any data of evidence to explain that there is indeed a 'supernatural' whatever the hey that really means.

The stories aren't a barrier, they are a window into the bigger problem.

Some say the glass is half full, some say the glass is half empty,


GOD does not exist as a supernatural entity? If so, why refer to the idea of such a being as GOD?

I have no reason to think a god exists at all.

Then what is the 'bigger problem' you mention re the window?

Well, how I do it is to understand that if there is a SOURCE for all these experiences which become stories - taking my own subjective experiences into consideration as well, what we may think of as 'supernatural' might have to be redefined a tad for that.

It is of course your right as a human to have that understanding. As there is zero data for such a source, I consider it conjecture.

From your perspective, what else could you call it? Stating the obvious is neither here nor there.

There is no data to say that the minds of everyone are connected to the mind of this GOD.

Yes there is. It is subjective data, but it is data nonetheless. Altogether it does give a picture that yes indeed, something is going on related to that idea.

I hold out hope that science will explain consciousness precisely as it actually is, whatever that may be.

Eventually you may be right their. All things are possible.

Right now though, there is no reason to hitch the cart before the horse. If you 'hope' is that science might then solve the problem of GOD, one way or the other, all well and good.

I don't have an expected outcome as you do, I only seek the empirical truth of the phenomena.

What phenomena? That we are somehow all consciously connected to each other through the one source?
By the time science does come up with the evidence, we will no doubt understand the concept more intimately than presently speaking.
The internet in some ways shows us that this is the case...still we are infants to the concept at present, as clearly can be observed.

That would be pure conjecture in my opinion, but you are welcome to it if it satisfies you.

Do I even need your approval your honor? What compels you to think that I do?

There are several threads in this forum on the topic if you care to peruse them at your leisure...

Oh I have studied the 'brain is god-creator of consciousness' theories enough to know that they explain nothing to my satisfaction. Same goes for supernatural god theories.

Glad to see you've read up on it. It is interesting stuff.

Sure is!

Science isn't looking to eradicate anything. Not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.

If one supports getting rid of all ideas of god from the human mind, one can try to convert them with 'reason' and good luck with that. I think it superfluous myself, but each to their own.
If, however, the need was great and the support for it greater still, legalized ways could be explored toward that intent through science. Perhaps the brain could be manipulated enough to make that happen?

Again, this is not the agenda of anyone that I am aware of.

Are you aware of everyone?

I am for logic based, rational examinations of things, be it a phenomena or a political dispute or social ideal.

Me too.

If everyone approached life with reason and rational thought, baseless speculation like gods would disappear as a natural result, not through a forced effort or conspiracy.

[center]Rolling down the rails of the ridiculous...[/center]

Baseless speculation won't cut it, I agree.
Speculation has to have some kind of base to work from
The idea of god is best kept in the philosophical sector for that. It can still involve the physical universe as the object.
Speculating on ideas of GOD in relation to that, is acceptable enough, philosophically speaking.
Science is about stuff made of evidence.
God ideas are not.

Nonsense. What exists in the human mind is not representative of reality.

Depends upon the human.

To a small extent, true.

[yoda]Focus on that you can. [/yoda]

But most of it is a hard wired result.

What to do about that eh?

Everyone experiences adjusted reality from what their sensory tools take in.

"Adjested reality"

Who Knows Who?

The Limitations...

(Have A Look At The Map)

Adjusted Reality

Reality is adapted through the individual adjusting to it.
Part of the process for many of those individuals is the reality that alternate experiences happen to them for which the universe apparently has no answer to.

Enter stage left... "GOD". "applause please!"

Watch a show like Brain Games for example. Your brain distorts and changes the data into the perception that you recognize.

To what degree? If it is happening to everyone, how is it that we can still focus in and acknowledge an overall reality we call 'the universe'? The answer has to be that our minds are together experiencing the universe and we then interpret things from that point.

There is no evidence that any person's mind is experiencing anything in conjunction with any other mind.

'Strike One'.

Did you forget about the internet? Flag that? What about your personal intereacts with others? Flag that? What about how scientists use their minds to figure things out together? Flag that?

"Everybody! Flags OUT!"

From a common sense point of view, given the obvious statement that every single person is different, I don't see how anyone could think humans are experiencing the universe "together". That makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it makes sense, because we actually ARE. That we do not have is an overall consensus as to what this experiencing the universe together signifies does not mean that we are not experiencing the same universe together.

In relation to being 'different' yes our forms are unique and our individual stories are also unique, but our consciousness? Only in the way we use it to adapt to our personal [strike]predicament[/strike] situation as the individual. If everyone used their consciousness to come to the same consensus in relation to our existing in our present situation together on the planet, this would be evidence that we are indeed connected that way.
BUT, the same cannot be said of the opposite. Why not? Because us not all getting on in consensus does not in itself give evidence that we are not connected. It might signify that we are not all awake to that idea being part of this reality.

Sometime being unique can be a problem. This is one such time. But it is not necessarily beyond our individual nature to think in terms of a collective nature.

The reason we can still focus and acknowledge the reality of the universe is because of the scientific method and the fact that our brains are all similarly constructed. It's why verification and validation of claims is so damn important. It's also how we've come to realize that there are differences between the physical makeup of some people. Things like color blindness show that there are differences for example. That's why empirical data matters.

Preaching to the choir there Kenisaw. We really do have to understand our exact circumstance, so best not be ignoring that eh.

We are taught to see it in 'this' way or in 'that' way. Its existence though, does not in any way mean that it wasn't created by the purpose of Intelligent Design.

Some people perhaps are taught that way.

Some people perhaps are taught 'this' way too,don't forget.

Eventually though we are taught the scientific method way. We are taught to observe things and explain them as objectively as possible. Then we see how that compares to other explanations. No one is forced to conclude everything. Any conclusion is free to be retested and re-examined at anytime by anyone. That's the best way to do it in my opinion.

When it comes to the physical stuff, yes - I continue to agree.

The GOD stuff though - leave that to the individual. Like I said, 'all the time in the universe' for that process to come to its conclusion.
Mean time, a lifetime is no time at all. (In comparison.) Take all the time that you need in relation to that.

I agree with you regarding existence. Existence of the universe does not prove intent or lack of intent. it does not prove creation and it does not prove the Big Bang. The only thing the existence of the universe proves is that the universe does indeed exist.

Not actually correct there Kenisaw...it is not 'the universe' per se which does the acknowledging of existence. It is the consciousness within the experience of the universe which does that.
'The universe' strictly speaking is just a lot of *stuff* "Bring on the STUFF!"
Within that stuff there exists consciousness observing and doing all the science stuff and experiencing et al.

Our understanding of consciousness is still very much in its infancy stage. We haven't yet altogether agreed as to what we are and what part we play in this unfolding reality.

We are still trying to understand ourselves in relation to consciousness.

Totally agree that we have a lot more to understand about consciousness.

I don't know what data would lead anyone to believe there is a part to "play", other than the biological drive to continue the species...

Specifically;

The Universe + Consciousness = 'Part to play' and of course the fundamental aspect of being able to play the parts involves the necessity to don costumes which brings in the biological necessity in relation to experiencing 'being human'.

Why stop there? What does that mean? "That is all"? Why would it mean that?
Indeed it is obvious that it is not 'all' but only the beginning. We possess biological forms which allow us to venture into manipulation of the universe (related to our part in that) and as such we learn to BE what we can...with what we have.

Consciousness, as ever, determines how that will pan out.

We are consciousness. Why did the brain have any need to invent us? The brain is a mindless organ without 'needs'.

"We" are not consciousness.

Okay. You are not consciousness and I am. Is that better?

Each individual has consciousness, and that extends to many species in the rest of the animal kingdom too.

Each individual body has consciousness. We are not the body, we are the mind. We are consciousness.

To self identify as 'the body' one gets oneself into all sorts of problems, as the evidence of this is very apparent.
It is consciousness which determines what it is. The body only determines where consciousness is.

The brain evolved the way it did because the changes it experienced were either a selective advantage or at least neutral enough that they happened to survive. There was no guarantee that we would end up as we have.

Yet here we are. Brain and all. Is there any way you have verified that without the brain we would not exist as in some other form as consciousness?
What the brain does is allow for the consciousness to examine itself in/from the position it finds itself within.
Self consciousness. Human form.

If we then decided that 'we are the brain' on account of that, we may indeed be missing the mark and self identifying incorrectly. Open minds are called for.

"It was simply an accident of chemical reaction!"

That argument gets circular extremely quickly without GOD in the picture, which is precisely why the idea of GOD is (still) in the picture.

That's not really an accurate representation of abiogenesis, but let's run with your statement. Why is it circular?

Because like every circle, it goes nowhere. It ends in itself. The argument sits one facing a wall in a maze, and to be just content with that view.

In relation to the universe and consciousness within it, this is not a problem in itself because there is plenty for consciousness to achieve for itself while it survives the experience as breeding and seeds give it that advantage.

For individuals experiencing it though, the views don't always align and the supposed polarities tend to create problems, because everybody dies, so their part in it might be overlooked or judged as irrelevant to that agenda.

Either way the collective consciousness decides to go ahead with things, the individual is free not to sit and stop at the wall and say 'that is it' if the individual so chooses.

If the individual sees value in their self and their experience as a human being and chooses to identify more as the consciousness rather than the body, that should not be a problem for the collective and their agenda. Or for other individuals to accept.

Striping all ideas of gods of their supernatural abilities can still leave us with at least one idea of GOD, as I have already explained.

Why do we need even one idea of a god creature?

Is it really about need, or the possible fact that one such creature exists and we are all aspects of that one such creature? Are we that creature doing its thing in relation to the universe? The jury - as I say - hasn't even got all the evidence on that yet in which to reach a verdict.

As pointed out, subjective experience comes with its own problems. Even alternate experiences (associated with religion/woo) are interpreted by the one who has had the experience, thus different belief systems are created based on other data of experience the individual has - to do with the culturally social over-group that the individual is within.
These will influence the individual and this is why groups are formed as subsets of the over-group.
This is precisely why a more scientific approach to the question has to develop. Not easy, considering the subjectivity involved. We find ourselves in this universe.

Not easy, but worth the effort. Of course since any or all of them could just be lying, subjective experience is pretty useless as a study tool.

To suggest ALL are lying is a stretch of the imagination. And if the imagination was at the tip of the nose.... :liar:

Investigating the structure, reaction, and psych makeup of people's brains at least gives us a base line to start from.

Sure. But that is still just the cart. The horse remains unhitched.
What IS consciousness doing with that brain??

Yes it is backwards, because you don't seem to understand why it isn't comparable. Since no one can have the same experience as you, there is no way to establish a baseline of comparison.

Similar experiences others have can indeed form a baseline for speculating what may be happening.

Can you delineate what you ate that day, what the atmospheric conditions were, how much sleep you got, what your fitness level was, what allergens were present, what your blood toxicology was? How can you be sure what did and did not affect how your input systems received information and how your brain processed that data? You can't. In fact, I'll guarantee you don't have the first clue.

Chemical reactions producing alternate visions. Can be done. Can be considered. Not enough evidence to make a call either way. Self honesty required. Explain thyself! Who are you are what is your purpose?

That is the wonderful thing about consciousness. It can determine for itself what might be happening 'this' way or 'that 'way but best that it remembers not to draw any conclusions without taking everything into consideration and if in doing so, no conclusion can yet be reached, proceed as directed (by consciousness) OR, if you prefer to do so, sit in front of the wall and proclaim "I know already".

Entirely the individuals choice, since choice is available.

And of course the big elephant that is always in the room is that you could be lying to us.

Yes I could be. Or lying to myself! Or speaking the truth! It is irrelevent in context of the discussion. You do not have experiences of the alternate kind = 'I am lying to you /myself'? Nope, it does not.

We wouldn't have any way to know. Why should anyone try to repeat something that they can't even say for sure actually happened to you? What folly.

Then you answer your question and continue to choose to sit in front of your wall.

What of that?

You won't genuinely know unless you at least genuinely try, now will you?
So there is no justification for you to complain about those who have, is there?
Assuming it is just 'folly' doesn't do the job of gathering evidence for or against. All it does is speculate through self doubt and project 'liar liar' or 'foolish wooist' on to those who do so.

And yet other people also claim to have a god proven to them. They claim to have personal experience of some godly creature. Of course their conclusions are always different than everyone else's. Amazingly, they are just as sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

That is why I came to the conclusion that 'GOD' as far as human beings are concerend, derives from an entity which is able to lterally 'be' god for all of those who take their search into such human establishments which 'explain' god 'this' way and 'that' way.

The GOD obviously wants connection, and will do those things, even if the data is a little off in that dept. Obviously it is at least an opportunity afforded. The details can be looked into more, if indeed the individual takes it further than the establishment recommends or otherwise advises/makes rules about.

The idea of GOD is not owned by any of these particular institutes, so I would suggest the best course of action on that is to take it with a grain of salt and try to put the pieces together before deciding on 'what god is, or isn't'.

How do you know that they aren't right and you just had a weird case of heartburn combined with a reaction to grass pollen?

How do you know that is the case? We don't know, either way so why presume?

Which is why your claim is your responsibility to support. You don't have to tell me you can't prove a god exists, I already know you can't.

Then I would think that you wouldn't be one of those who expect it from others.

That's why you want to push the onus onto others.

Only as far as it is their responsibility to investigate for themselves rather than rely on second hand knowledge of experience.

You aren't the first believer to try that slant. Meanwhile, I will continue to question such claims and demand for an accounting of anyone who proposes to have knowledge of something baseless like god creatures...

Demand all you want. You have been advised how to find the data of experience for yourself. Ask and you shall receive. Be genuine.

You can't possibly know either way.

Exactly. All I have is my own experiences. I acknowledge that YOU cannot have MY experiences, so how are YOU to know I actually have them, or that I am lying about having them or telling the truth, or interpreting them as something supernatural when 'the brain' can explain everything without having to mention ideas of GOD (supernatural or not).

For me, the explanation 'the brain did it' is too inadequate as it presumes too much about the brain as it hand-waves away Intelligent Design in order for the presumption to have affect.

It doesn't presume anything. We know brains are real. We know they act as the central processing area for our input systems. We know that part of the brain stores information. There are things that we know about the brain.

But we don't KNOW that the brain created consciousness, or that consciousness created the human form for the purpose of experiencing through it.

We do not know everything about the brain.

True that.

One thing we don't know is the limits of the human brain. You, however, presume that the brain is inadequate.

No. I said the brain was a mindless thing without consciousness. In that sense, yes it is inadequate for the purpose of conscious experience UNLESS consciousness is involved in that experience.

A baseless claim you cannot base on evidence. You assume something like ID is real, a baseless claim you cannot base on evidence. All, of course, in support of your assertion that there is a god creature that you've experienced, yet another baseless claim that you cannot base on evidence.

It's up to you to support your claims William....

And philosophically I can, Kenisaw. You are asking me to use science. That is a different kettle of fish. Not saying I cannot be scientific in my approach to my experience of life, but that is still subjective and produces no results that anyone cares to repeat.

I asked, and I received. That is the base formula. I am satisfied with the idea of god I have and the evidence related to that, through my subjective experience of this life as this human being.

It is not important to me that you believe me at all. That is not the reason I choose to share my experiences and the theories I have developed to explain them.

That is just the nature of the game. The mind is an awesome thing not easily understood by the science presently used to learn about it.

I imply that I'd like to think at least some people come in here with an open mind.

You imply then that my mind is not open?

I apologize if I am wrong here, but I have seen this tactic by cultists in the past, but don't know if this is your end game. They want to make their god creature claims but don't want anyone challenging them. That way some wayward person can visit this site and read their unsupported conjecture and possibly think it is true. To let any such speculation go unchallenged, regardless of the topic, is irresponsible of a society. Ideas should always be debated and discussed. Not all ideas are of equal value, and the better ones should win out over the lesser ones. Letting bad ideas go unchecked is itself a really bad idea...

I have no 'end game' that I am aware of. I am propelled by a number of reasons which could be considered agenda, but specifically not really my agenda, or my idea.

One of those reasons is that I see the human potential to transform the present systems of disparity inherited down the line, into a system of parity.

Given the systems of disparity currently honed to near perfection in this day and age, it can be logically argued that they can be sourced at a cult-like initial position and have and thus will continue to have a negative affect on the majority of humanity.
Such systems are taught to be protected, invested in, fought for, and die for by the very population controlled by said systems.

Why? Because it is the result of letting bad ideas go unchecked and thus, yes - a really bad idea overall.

There's a lot in that last statement. I don't think it can all be broken down here as you have opened several new topics. All I will say is that equality is my ideal as well. All individuals have the same value. All individuals deserve the same basic rights. Equality of success, however, is not guaranteed, nor should it be. If you would like to discuss anything in particular I'm sure we can do so in another thread.

From your perspective the topics are separate, From mine they are intricately integrated.

My idea of GOD (through personal subjective experience) has taught me that GOD in action, requires parity. Anything else is a path to disaster.
Said another way, consciousness (to be specific) human consciousness requires parity.
This can be seen in the formation of subsets related to survival, but zoom out and what is found is that these pockets of party rely on systems of disparity to even function as pockets of parity.
This is not to assume therefore that systems of disparity create the opportunity for pockets of parity. These pockets of parity are actually what allow for the systems of disparity to exist - even that their existence is not permanent and subject to the fickle winds of fate.

Survival in a nutshell, but one historically proven to end badly for the majority (losers), time and again.

Rather these pockets of parity have to utilize their positions by seeing the logic in getting together to design a system of parity to replace the systems of disparity currently governing them. (Winners, one and all).

No such thing as everyone being a winner. It's a fine ideal, and cannot possibly exist in reality.

Subjective horsepucky I think. It has never been tried, so there is no way of presently knowing whether it can or cannot exist in reality.
It might be just a line used by the 'winners' in order to pacify/weakly console/etc the 'losers', for all that is known.

But even so, whatever the way things pan out as I have said, makes no dfference to the agenda of the idea of GOD which is the collective consciousness of all things earthbound.

There is all the time in the world to accomplish that.

I don't agree that it is anyone's responsibility to build a shared system of parity. You get guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not the achievement of it.

That's just prison talk.
Which is precisely why there is so much unhappiness. Theism allows for subsets to be happy in unhappy circumstances. To be free to at least that degree, whilst incarcerated.
Atheism allows for subsets to say that happiness is to be found in disparity and too bad if you don't succeed in making it happen for yourself using the materials available, which are governed over by systems of disparity.

However, it is undeniable that without the poor, the rich would not exist. Tell that to the poor and see why they turn to ideas of GOD as a source of happiness, (among other things) when material happiness is beyond their reach, because systems of disparity make it that way.

♪"Give me that Old Time System of Disparity" ♫
*sung it gospel tradition*

Disparity is the reality of the universe William.

I'll fully admit right here and now that I am probably more hardline on this matter than most people in here. Life has winners and losers. It is impossible to create a utopia.

Did I not mention already that utopias are presently being built by those who can afford them? So no - the concept is not only imaginable, it is also possible to make real. The evidence is there to observe in the lifestyles of the rich and famous 'winners'.

Even the losers can acknowledge that the evidence exists.

Those are attempted utopias perhaps. There are no true utopias. Name 1 person that is completely happy and satisfied with their life as it currently stands. The definition of utopia is - "1.an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Good luck finding an utopia...There aren't any.

There is nothing about the human potential which justifies your stance on this. Human could easily build a system of parity which could indeed be seen as a kind of Utopia. Perfect in the sense that it is built upon the ideal of parity.

Can be done. Will be done? That's another story...not unrelated to this one. But first, how to get people to invest their lives in it when they are owned by the systems of disparity and the voices of support (such as your own here) are proclaiming it can't be done?

Why can't it be done? Because you say so? Why do you say so? Because you have invested your life into the systems of disparity?

Okay then, I see where the problem lies. :liar:

'Winners and losers" are what make those micro utopias a reality for those who can afford them.

Better off doesn't necessarily equal utopia. I'm sure you know about the studies relating to money and happiness. Just because the rich are more satisfied with life than the poor doesn't mean they've achieved perfection. It even matters what day you ask the question about happiness. As University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers, who has done studies on this type of thing, has said: "The affective measure raises a puzzle. “No one has resolved that puzzle. It’s an interesting, open question"...

Therein is the leverage one could apply to try and convince those with the means to invest in something more collective and aligned with the idea of parity.

If they are still not happy with their lots, perhaps it is time to rethink? That is what I am saying. It is not necessarily a lost cause to think such people in such positions could get their heads around the idea and move forward together in that understanding.

If they could come up with the plan on how to make it happen, and helped make it happen, they would effectively collectively become the heroes of humanity for the part they played in that. Surely something worthy of being happy about given they are still not currently happy, don't you think?

But I hear what you are saying. You like things the way they are, thank you very much.

No, I'm saying I understand and accept the reality of the universe, and don't pretend imaginary beings can alter that reality.

What about real beings called 'human'? Oh no that's right, you already said...."Disparity is the reality of the universe William."

And furthermore you will continue to live for, invest in, and protect your interests in the present systems of disparity which makes you at least a potential winner.

But at least you are trying, right?

Wrong again. You assume you know how I live my life, how I treat other humans, animals, and the planet itself, and how I judge my happiness and self worth just because I understand how life really works? Your presumptiveness is off the charts.....

Well that is good to know. You may have a bit of the old *faith* that humans can take the (so-called) position of the universe being a place of disparity and through sheer will and determination of consciousness, carve it into something which best suits us altogether - our own self created system of parity.

"There is hope yet", I hear you saying in the above.

By what you were saying I had you picked out as a supporter of disparity. My bad. Please forgive me for that trespass.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 92 by rikuoamero]

I have a standing challenge for anyone who claims access/communication to some supernatural intelligence: a sheet of paper with a detail about myself that I have quite literally never told anyone.
To date, I have not had anyone even try, let alone fail.

{puts Carnac hat on}You have a teddy bear about 12 inches tall with one eye missing that you call "Mr Kibbles" that was the inspiration for the movie Ted.

Did I get it?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 94 by William]

What do you mean by 'supernatural'? Is this referring to outside universes? Do you consider the idea of Intelligent Design to signify a claim of involving the 'supernatural? If so, why?

Supernatural means anything that is not limited by the rules of this universe. Claims of a design creature always seem to include supernatural aspects, which is irrational given that they are acting within a universe with conservation laws. If someone wants to claim a design creature that is not supernatural, then they admit that everything that exists falls within the natural laws, which means it does not need to be designed in the first place in order to occur. Either way it is a silly claim.

The context that I spoke was inclusive of the possibility of such creatures of FORM existing in this universe while excluding the 'supernatural' and so no, 'magic' was not invoked or otherwise implied. Read what I said in context and you will see for yourself that this is what I said about the matter

You listed magical creatures but exclude the magic? A leprechaun without magic is not a leprechaun, it’s something else, so your list as stated is not possible in this universe. That’s why I excluded Big Foot by the way, because that is not something characterized with magical properties.

How? Connecting the dots I can see for myself what is most likely going on. If I can, you can. All that is required in effort on your part.
For more data on that, see this post.

I can’t, because your logic isn’t sound and you base your conclusions on speculation. I’ve been a theist, I’ve been a non-affiliated believer, and I’ve been an atheist. Only one of those is based on logic and empirical data, while the other two are steeped in baseless assertions. The dots you connect in your opinion are not relatable in my opinion.

To date, the evidence we have can be seen to be a footprint of GOD.

Great. Please list that evidence for all to see.

That is hilarious! When you think about it from my perspective (some of which I have shared on this message board) I have the idea that all human gods real or imagined are the product of a GOD which IS those humans and became those humans as a result of time and space and enough of both in order to make it so.
Perhaps "those reactions" to the universe can be found exactly by "anyone", "anywhere"...once they 'find themselves' within the particular 'anywhere' that they just happen to be in...aka 'The Universe'.

To be honest I have no idea what your perspective is, because what you’ve written to me is devoid of anything containing detail or specifics. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why someone would want to do that for as long as they can, it’s a great delaying tactic.

You go on to mention baseless claims of “astral planes�, and “connected consciousness�, and how “god ideals� can’t be analyzed by science even though “As far as I am concerned, what happens, happens naturally� which means it can indeed be analyzed by science. Maybe you will decide to stop talking in circles and just state exactly what it is you think…

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to William]

The answer has to be that our minds are together experiencing the universe and we then interpret things from that point.

There is no evidence that any person's mind is experiencing anything in conjunction with any other mind.

'Strike One'.

Did you forget about the internet? Flag that? What about your personal intereacts with others? Flag that? What about how scientists use their minds to figure things out together? Flag that?

"Everybody! Flags OUT!"

We seem to have been like two ships in the night, passing each other without realizing it…

That each person has an experience does not mean that they are having the same experience. In fact given all the possible variations in everything that makes up a biological unit it is impossible for two persons to have a shared experience. Each person has their own unique experience. You and I can both look at a rainbow in the sky. We don’t see the same rainbow. You see the one from the photons that hit your eye, and I see the ones that hit mine. We see two different rainbows. I don’t think you would disagree with that.

My experience is my universe, and your experience is yours. That there are commonalities between our universes is due to the consistent nature of the timespace that we are both experiencing our universes in, but we are not having a common experience. Every experience is unique. Every consciousness is unique. I can sit here and write and describe the rainbow for the rest of my life, and you will still never be able to share that experience. You will only be able to understand it through your own universe. We cannot possibly have a shared experience. There is no evidence that there is a totality of human consciousness anywhere either.

From a common sense point of view, given the obvious statement that every single person is different, I don't see how anyone could think humans are experiencing the universe "together". That makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it makes sense, because we actually ARE. That we do not have is an overall consensus as to what this experiencing the universe together signifies does not mean that we are not experiencing the same universe together.

In relation to being 'different' yes our forms are unique and our individual stories are also unique, but our consciousness? Only in the way we use it to adapt to our personal predicament situation as the individual. If everyone used their consciousness to come to the same consensus in relation to our existing in our present situation together on the planet, this would be evidence that we are indeed connected that way.

BUT, the same cannot be said of the opposite. Why not? Because us not all getting on in consensus does not in itself give evidence that we are not connected. It might signify that we are not all awake to that idea being part of this reality.

Sometime being unique can be a problem. This is one such time. But it is not necessarily beyond our individual nature to think in terms of a collective nature.

I disagree with multiple things here. The first paragraph I addressed earlier in this post. The second and third paragraphs reach an improper conclusion. Consensus or lack of it is not evidence of a connection or even the possibility of it. As stated earlier, it is impossible for any person to actually share the consciousness of another. There is no data supporting such a claim. Even if every single person comes to the same consensus, you have no way to know how they got there. You don’t even know if they did, because they could be lying. You can never know the consciousness of another. Even if you could download their memory into your brain, you’d still store it differently because your neural network is not set up the exact same way as theirs. And how it is stored also depends of what other experiences you’ve had.

In a way each one of us is the universe observing itself. We are made up of part of the universe, therefore we are, in part, the universe. But we are different parts of it, and therefore different parts of it doing the observing. Some hypothesis that consciousness is a quantum property, and who knows if that is true or not, but we’d still be tapping into the consciousness of the quanta in our own specific bodies. Therefore it would still be unique to just that person. There’s no empirical evidence for connectivity of consciousness, and no reason to think it’s a plausible phenomena.

Unique isn’t a problem so much as a limitation. But I agree that we can still think in terms of a collective nature, but we won’t ever have an actual collective nature…

The GOD stuff though - leave that to the individual. Like I said, 'all the time in the universe' for that process to come to its conclusion.
Mean time, a lifetime is no time at all. (In comparison.) Take all the time that you need in relation to that.

That process starts and stops with each individual. As there is no evidence for consciousness or the concept of gods to exist before a person is born, or after a person dies, there is a finite limit on that contemplation. Another can take up that contemplation after the first dies, but it won’t be the same because it will be their own unique contemplation, regardless of what your specific definition of “GOD� even is…

Not actually correct there Kenisaw...it is not 'the universe' per se which does the acknowledging of existence. It is the consciousness within the experience of the universe which does that.
'The universe' strictly speaking is just a lot of *stuff* "Bring on the STUFF!"
Within that stuff there exists consciousness observing and doing all the science stuff and experiencing et al.

The experience and the consciousness are finite in their organized existence. There is no evidence of anything like you describe – a consciousness that exists separately from the “stuff�. Consciousness and each person’s experiences are strictly because of the physical makeup of their body and the properties of the “stuff�. When that physical makeup succumbs to entropy the organized existence of that decays away.

The Universe + Consciousness = 'Part to play' and of course the fundamental aspect of being able to play the parts involves the necessity to don costumes which brings in the biological necessity in relation to experiencing 'being human'.

Why stop there? What does that mean? "That is all"? Why would it mean that?
Indeed it is obvious that it is not 'all' but only the beginning. We possess biological forms which allow us to venture into manipulation of the universe (related to our part in that) and as such we learn to BE what we can...with what we have.

Consciousness, as ever, determines how that will pan out.

Why does it have to have a meaning? I would argue that there is no master meaning to our existence. We are groups of inanimate material that have the ability within the laws of chemistry and physics to maintain our organized structure and create copies of that structure. That’s all we are. Sure we can all find reasons to do things or have goals we want to achieve, but there is no reason to think we are doing that for some “purpose� outside of our personal desires.

Each individual body has consciousness. We are not the body, we are the mind. We are consciousness.

And the mind is part of the body. It is part of the physical. There is no evidence to the contrary.

To self identify as 'the body' one gets oneself into all sorts of problems, as the evidence of this is very apparent.
It is consciousness which determines what it is. The body only determines where consciousness is.

Forgive me, but the evidence of that is not very apparent to this person. All the evidence I am aware of indicates that everything we consider “mental� arises from the physical structures of the body. If there is data that suggests otherwise, please bring it forth.

Yet here we are. Brain and all. Is there any way you have verified that without the brain we would not exist as in some other form as consciousness?

Sure. There is zero data for that. Got any evidence for a consciousness that exists outside the physical structure of the brain? If you don’t then there’s no rational way to conclude any specific person could exist elsewhere.

There’s evidence for evolution, including the evolution of the brain, and there is evidence that the physical structures in the brain are responsible for the thoughts and memories that we have. Since the data states that we are our brain, it’s pretty clear that the brain is needed for my existence as a conscious entity.

What the brain does is allow for the consciousness to examine itself in/from the position it finds itself within.
Self consciousness. Human form.

Unless you can provide some empirical evidence for this, I can’t take this seriously.

If we then decided that 'we are the brain' on account of that, we may indeed be missing the mark and self identifying incorrectly. Open minds are called for.

Open minds…and data. You clearly have the open mind. You just completely lack even one scrap of data.

"It was simply an accident of chemical reaction!"

That argument gets circular extremely quickly without GOD in the picture, which is precisely why the idea of GOD is (still) in the picture.

That's not really an accurate representation of abiogenesis, but let's run with your statement. Why is it circular?

Because like every circle, it goes nowhere. It ends in itself. The argument sits one facing a wall in a maze, and to be just content with that view.

That’s not an answer to my question. Why is that statement circular without your concept of a god in the picture?

[Kenisaw]

If you get a chance William, I think it would help this particular debater if you clearly define what you mean by "GOD" since you mention in frequently. I would like a specific answer to this please, no links to other threads. Thanks in advance.

[William]

[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.
Part Two: Bias vs Skepticism[/center]

I think that you make it a competition when you said that your kind of religion is better than another kind of religion.

Well what you think about me or my agenda, is relevant how?

I'm pointing out that you brought up the competition aspect to religions, and then you said that it WASN'T some kind of competition. Apparently, yours is better than theirs. You contradicted yourself, that's all. No biggie.

Perhaps you misunderstood me then?

If you recall, my one question to you is how anyone can know that what you believe in is TRUER than theirs.

And did my answer make it plain to you then, that I was in competition with all the others?

But I wasn't arguing that Blastcat. I was simply giving a story of an experience. I agree that personal bias come into the mix. It does that with everything. It is what caused you to give up Christianity.

Actually, no.

It wasn't a bias that caused me to give up on religions. It was a LACK of bias. When I looked at my religion and other religions WITH AS LITTLE BIAS as I could, none of them stood up to scrutiny.

What scrutiny did they not stand up to? Do you believe that you current position is without bias?
Is your current position the same one you had when you gave up believing in any idea of GOD?

I was attempting at the time to "save my soul", I was NOTHING if not rigorous. So, bias of any kind was OUT the door.

Why were you attempting to 'save your soul'? What did that mean to you then?

How can anyone be objective if they embrace a bias of any kind? We KNOW that bias only leads us to cognitive errors. I do my utter best to get rid of as much bias as I can when I am evaluating something.

Has it occurred to you that a subjective experience is all that you can have? Do you not think that being objective is the subjective accepting thing as they are, without attaching any interpretation to it? Do you realize that once interpretation of what exists, happens - then bias has become involved?

Embracing a bias is antithetical to skepticism.

So you do understand the concept of interpretation through subjective interpretation=not remaining skeptical?

Should I accuse YOU of competing against Christians because you think your way of thinking, as someone who now lacks belief in any gods, is better than your way of thinking before, as a Christian?

Yes, I really think that you should.

Then will you accept that this position requires bias through personal interpretation of what exists?

I think that everyone could benefit from the discussion.

Yes - we all could. I agree.

I don't see why you should be congratulated for exchanging belief systems.

Good. Who needs to be congratulated for their chosen preferred position?

We agree.

NSS. Elementary Conclusion my dear Blastcat .

Searching for the truth...

...It Would Be Rude Not to

Secular Science Projects...
...Intelligent Directions

Instant Manifestation...
...Go Within and Find That Place...Central Intelligence Agency ...

Elementary Conclusion

Of course, when someone learns something new, it's exciting, so I think that good news like that should be celebrated. Don't you?

I think there are so many wonderful things humans have created with the shaping of the stuff of the earth.
And so many terrible things as well.
So IF the human potential to go either way creates the oxymoron apparent, HOW are we to react in relation to our choices?
We react as our subjective bias directs.

You seem to still be a Christian, but perhaps one that doesn't have to go to church on Sundays.

You seem to be an atheist, but perhaps one who prefers to say he isn't. What of it?

I have no problem stating my positions.

Very few individuals I have met have any problem stating their positions. What of it?

Why would you conclude that I have?

Look again. I was commenting on how things might seem to be when in fact they probably aren't.

I was just saying that you "MIGHT BE" the kind of Christian who doesn't go to church on Sundays. I don't think that would make your brand of religious beliefs more TRUE than any other kind. Do you?

What " religious beliefs " Where did I claim that they were? That is entirely your interpretation Blastcat.
You have interpreted me in a particular way, shaped by your own bias, and then from that you have decided to focus on that under the headline "Not going to church on Sundays anymore." as if this is somehow relevant to what I was saying.sharing in context.

In other words, you are shaping me into something I am not, through the use of your subjective bias. Then you are arguing from that position.

It is a shadow-man you are yapping to.
I am over here.

You are speaking of my shadow you see on the wall, through the filter of your bias. Speak to the person I AM. Not to the person you think me to be.

How do you know that your brand of religious beliefs are truer than any other brand?

What 'religious beliefs' ? You don't say.

As an agnostic and a theist, I'm not upset by that..

Well that's data which might come in handy.

Ooops.. i made a mistake. Sorry.
Typo.


I'm an agnostic and a SKEPTIC is what I meant to write.

That's sure one hellova 'typo'

( lol, apparently, I DO have a bit of difficulty stating my position !! )

Perhaps after all, 'positions' are not that useful...if they are in conflict.

you might not be inclined to donate your hard earned money to that church as much.

I don't donate any money whatsoever to any organised religion.

Good for you.

Bias.

I wish that everyone did that.

Wishful thinking.

It helps with the decline of religiosity if the tax free club houses have to close due to lack of attendance.

Your bias is leaking through Blastcat.

You have to be careful of the word "bias" .
A bias is not the same thing as a conclusion.

Why not go the other way then?

I can change my conclusion as soon as I get new data ... that's not a bias at all. I am open to new data. I'm not going to ignore any new data.

If you got new data bring it.
I'm here for that.

Data is simply data. It takes bias to interpret the data one 'way' or another 'way'.

I am as little impressed with religion as you seem to be.

Do you understand that religion is a natural enough reaction of consciousness within this universe and that it isn't a bad thing in itself, but - like everything else, can be used in bad ways?

Do you think that being the case, ultimately GOD is to blame (regardless of what idea of GOD that might be)?

I think that they had their day.. and their utility isn't as obvious as it used to be.

I think that the attitude within humans which created what can be observed as the bad side of religion transfers to any medium it so chooses or otherwise is afforded the opportunity to do so, therefore the 'bad' is still there to be dealt with, whatever form of social structure it does so through.

Do you dedicate you life's energy into exposing the bad no matter what platform it is using, or are you more content to focus on the bad in religion, specifically?

I ask you again about the truth of your beliefs.

What truth are you speaking about in relation to these supposed beliefs which you claim that I have?

If you have any religious beliefs, are any of those religious beliefs TRUE?

Define what you mean be 'religious beliefs'.

Or does the truth of your beliefs not matter to you?

Are you referring to faith-based beliefs? I am not focused in such beliefs. I am interested in experiences and explanations.
Some things in life can be explained using the method of science to help get to the truth about those things.
Any exam which has not yet 'got to the truth' remains 'not the truth.' Inconclusive.

No point in forming beliefs about such things.

And if you are an atheist, please say so.

And if you subscribe to some other religion that Christianity.. time to fess up.

I self identify as an individuate consciousness connected to the hub of a collective consciousness. I am having a human experience (partly as a data collector), on a planet in a universe. In this way I am helping the process of the central intelligence agency related to that hub.
In relation to the planet, I self identify as being an aspect of the entity which is currently incarcerated within said planet.
That being is experiencing being a planet, and this includes being every living thing on the planet.

(That being is also 'the god of many names', one of which is 'the Abrahamic idea of God.)

I also 'see' everyone else in the same way even as I appreciate their right to self identify in any way they see fit to do so. It matters not to how I see my self and my position in relation to my self in relation to how others self identify.

This should not be news to you, as I have said as much since at least this post in this thread.

In what way are they more TRUE than any other Christian's beliefs?

I am not a Christian so I have no particular way of answering that. Perhaps ask me again without the assumptions.

It's not at all an assumption.

Your phrasing "other Christian's beliefs" infers otherwise.

If you are not a Christian, then I made a mistake.

Potato/potato.

Assumption is a mistake.

You can feel free to correct me at any time. Most people in here are either atheists or Christians, you know. It's kinda the "thing" in here.

Nevertheless, presumption.

Sorry if I made a mistake. But if you don't clear it up for me, I won't know. Some people label themselves quite creatively.

Self identification is a funny old thing.

It's odd that you take the trouble of saying that you aren't a Christian, but not at all any trouble to tell us what you DO happen to believe in.

Its not 'odd'. I wouldn't have said anything if you had not said it first. You made the call, I corrected you. Nothing odd about that.

Do you care about the truth of your beliefs at all?

What beliefs?

I don't know.. I thought you had religious beliefs.

Perhaps the ideas I think about are 'religious'. I don't think of them as such. When I think about GOD as an idea, I am not thinking I am being 'religious'. Do you think my self identity shared in this post signifies I am 'religious'?

If so, why do you think that?

Are you an atheist?

I self identify as an individuate consciousness connected to the hub of a collective consciousness. I am having a human experience (partly as a data collector), on a planet in a universe. In this way I am helping the process of the central intelligence agency related to that hub.
In relation to the planet, I self identify as being an aspect of the entity which is currently incarcerated within said planet.
That being is experiencing being a planet, and this includes being every living thing on the planet.

Does the above make me an 'atheist'? I don't have an opinion on that as I find such labels unhelpful.

I do care about the truth. It is one of those things which is very well hidden and requires a lifetime of getting to the bottom of - At least for me, that is the case. It is a work in progress.

Hmmm it seems you think that religious "truths" are very well hidden, and that so MANY people claim to have them.

Why is that?

You got that wrong. I said I care about the truth. Not 'religious truths'.
Lots of truth about all sorts of things is hidden from my subjective awareness. That is why I said;
"I do care about the truth. It is one of those things which is very well hidden and requires a lifetime of getting to the bottom of - At least for me, that is the case. It is a work in progress."
As to 'why' religious truth is also hidden, give an example and maybe we can look into that together.

Its been said oft enough. The nature of the particular god idea we are dealing with here is 'seek and you shall find.' Hide and seek really. Individually subjective and if anyone wants evidence, they have to make the effort.

IF you think that evidence for "God" is individual and subjective, why is it so hard for you to know your own individual, subjective mind about it?

That's elementary my dear Blastcat.
An individual human brain is incapable of being used for this purpose.

The mind of the individual can only glimpse to behold the mind of GOD - even this GOD (the earth as a living entity experiencing being a the planet Earth inclusive of everything on it, in real time, simulataniously.

Get your mind around that, your doing well. Understand the sheer volume of this synchronized, simultaneous endless flow of data of experience (no sleeping for this little beauty) and in that understanding, admit that one human brain is incapable of holding such volume of data, and admit thus, that our individual subjective position is always scratching the surface in relation to 'The Truth'.

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not at all trying to cheat ... I like to be as intellectually honest as possible. I do, however, make many mistakes. Please, feel free to correct me when you spot one of those, as I really do "learn by my mistakes" at times.

When I said cheating, I also explained what I was meaning by that. The explanation was an attempt to correct your perception by offering another for you to contemplate.
It is a mistake to want others to show you GOD exists, because that is not how GOD is playing the game.
You are required to approach the GOD in question and seek out that GODs attention.
Those are not my rules, they are just the way things are in relation to that idea of GOD.
I have followed the rules as best to my understanding of them and have not been disappointed in the results of doing so. That is my subjective witness. No one 'showed me GOD' I had to find GOD for myself.

So far what I have discovered (re that subject,) has redefined my initial understanding told to me by others.

I'm trying to find out if what any religious person believes in is true.

That's a mistake right there.
Their individual subjective experience are not yours. Did you not find GOD in Christianity? Apparently not. You don't say what your experiences were in relation to GOD in that setting. Did you seek? What did you find?

I'm just asking for some kind of evidence for their beliefs, or some good method that they have to know if their beliefs are true OTHER than evidence. ( that would be a big breakthrough in epistemology )

You want to know what the methods were that I used to reach the conclusions I have reached, to date?

Do you want to know this so that you might then be enabled to follow suit and see what happens?

Are you interested in the possibility of connecting with GOD?

You tried it and found it did not deliver and so chose to depart from that.

I'm not too sure what you are referring to.

GOD. Your search for GOD re Christianity. Did you come up empty handed and decide that there was no GOD to look for?

I don't depart from a proven epistemic method such as "demanding evidence" for a claim, if that's what you mean.

So you are saying that Christians you were involved with, validated their beliefs in regard to knowledge?

But you left them anyway, for other reasons?

Perhaps you were barking up the wrong tree?

How would I know? I am given NO METHOD by which to know which tree to bark up. Some say this tree, and some the next. I tried a lot of trees.. no god or goddesses were there.

This seems to be the theme. You sought out GOD and whatever methods you were taught to use, did not work for you so you abandoned the quest altogether and became atheist.

Blastcat doesn't bark, but growls, instead.

Riiiiight... So you were seeking GOD in a growly mood. Not a happy barking excited one.

Did someone tell you to believe this?

People have and still do tell me to believe all kinds of weird things.

Do you let this have any affect on your persona? Does this shape your bias?

What convinced you to think that the God in question would work in that way, and just come out of hiding when you say "I give up, where are you hiding?"

Well, at first, I was raised a good little Catholic boy, born and raised to believe all that good down home Catholic stuff. There was a lot of stuff to learn. I learned it well. It was rote learning, so all I had to do was use my memory for that. I excelled at that.

Handy data. Do you still use this method for other things of interest which you pursue?

Trouble started when I started to ask questions.
Big trouble.

Anything which is organised, resists change. Trouble with that is ordinary enough.

Now, of course, many years later, when it comes to evidence for gods or goddesses, any good evidence will do. I have no expectations at all. I'm not a believer. I don't have a bias in that regard.

So obviously you haven't given up in your quest to find GOD. Nor have you changed your approach, by your own account.
Has anyone ever suggested to you to change your approach?

I'm just being as good a skeptic as I can.

How sweet.

The game is on.

Do you mean debate?

No. I mean we were born into the game which has been going on since Adam was a cowboy dressed in animal skin. That does involve debate, but not debate alone.

Is this all just a game to you?

Yes and no. I approach it as a game. Hide and seek.
I also respect it as a game not to be underestimated. It is complex and invigorating. It is serious enough not to be treated as merely a game.

Well, then, lets play.

Shall we ♪sing♫ hymn 8dHUfy_YBps together then? We each have been involved in this game since day one.

Matrix...
...Overall
"Hide and Seek"

Use Mind
You Are


Presence
Fearless
Original
Separate

Kitty cats are very playful indeed.

No...I am NOT going to tickle your belly...I know where that leads.

[William]

If you get a chance William, I think it would help this particular debater if you clearly define what you mean by "GOD" since you mention in frequently. I would like a specific answer to this please, no links to other threads. Thanks in advance.

Sure.

When I use the term GOD it reflects ALL ideas of 'God'.

In relation to our shared position (human beings experiencing life on the planet earth, in a galaxy in a universe.);

When I used the term GOD, I am specifically referring to the Planet Entity, which is experiencing being a planet, and that involves the simultaneous experiences of all the living creatures on the face of the planet.

In relation to that, GOD is the expression of all living things on the face of the planet.

eta
For The Readers Convenience, I elaborate on this, in this thread