The Thesist and non-Theist Brain

[William]

"I am only able to see gibberish"

I am presently sharing my Generated Messages with a variety of internet platforms and have noticed that non-theists insist that they only see 'gibberish' [unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.] whereas with theists - no matter what particular belief they have - they appear to be able to - at least - get the gist of any GM - even if some of it is not understood.

To begin with, I was highly skeptical and thought that non-theists were being disingenuous [pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.] and in that, I used other ways in which to try and help them to understand what was taking place, [such as diagrams and analogies], but nothing helped.

This has lead me to question my skepticism and I am now wondering if it is just the case that once an individual unreservedly believes that they - the mind/consciousness - are nothing more than brain chemicals, anything contrary to that understanding simply isn't able to penetrate because "The Mind' only happens in brains and is the reason minds exist."


Is it the case that
1. non-theists are simply unable to 'get their head around ideas' which are outside of the idea that we are simply emergent properties of brains, [every other idea is gibberish/gobbledygook

or

2. are they just being disingenuous?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #40]

There is no such thing as accidental. But a theist cannot explain to a non-theist why that is the case, and ever expect to be understood.

They could if they provided verifiable evidence to support this claim. What have you that qualifies?

No. They still couldn't.

The act of the non-theist demand for 'verifiable' evidence is apparent gibberish to the theist mind-set, as it is not accompanied with any explanation as to what such evidence would have to consist of, especially in relation to matters of the mind.

Even if a non-theist were actually able to provide a sample of what they mean. to help the theist understand, it will have nothing to do with anything which is outside of their belief that they are products of brains, which are products of a mindless process of an accidental universe.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #40]

There is no such thing as accidental. But a theist cannot explain to a non-theist why that is the case, and ever expect to be understood.

They could if they provided verifiable evidence to support this claim. What have you that qualifies?

No. They still couldn't.

We'll never know given that you haven't provided evidence of any kind, much less verifiable, to support your claim.


Tcg

[William]

The act of the non-theist demand for 'verifiable' evidence is apparent gibberish to the theist mind-set, as it is not accompanied with any explanation as to what such evidence would have to consist of, especially in relation to matters of the mind.

Even if a non-theist were actually able to provide a sample of what they mean. to help the theist understand, it will have nothing to do with anything which is outside of their belief that they are products of brains, which are products of a mindless process of an accidental universe.

[Replying to Tcg in post #42]

We'll never know...

Exactly!

As theists know, - cutting to the chase - they have to find out for their self, rather than rely upon others to find out for them.

That is because their minds are different from non-theists minds.

The theist understand that there is a mind behind creation and
the theist knows this through their subjective experience.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #42]

We'll never know...

Exactly!

As theists know, - cutting to the chase - they have to find out for their self, rather than rely upon others to find out for them.

That is because their minds are different from non-theists minds.

Ah, yes. More claims with zero evidence to support them.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #42]

We'll never know...

Exactly!

As theists know, - cutting to the chase - they have to find out for their self, rather than rely upon others to find out for them.

That is because their minds are different from non-theists minds.

Ah, yes. More claims with zero evidence to support them.


Tcg

Not what I said, but how your mind-set interpreted what I said.

See?

There can be no reconciliation, so why waste time attempting to?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #42]

We'll never know...

Exactly!

As theists know, - cutting to the chase - they have to find out for their self, rather than rely upon others to find out for them.

That is because their minds are different from non-theists minds.

Ah, yes. More claims with zero evidence to support them.


Tcg

Not what I said, but how your mind-set interpreted what I said.

Nope, you made claims. No interpretation required.

See?

Yes, I see no evidence to support your claims.

There can be no reconciliation, so why waste time attempting to?

Who is seeking reconciliation? I asked for verifiable evidence to support your claims.


Tcg

[William]

Who is seeking reconciliation?

That is what is included in the thread subject.

The evidence is seen by the theist mind-set as speaking for itself.

So 'who is' seeking reconciliation? Do you have an answer to that? My observation is that no answers from either side will give an answer to that question.

Therefore the observation that theist mind-sets and non-theist minds sets cannot reconcile differences due to ...well I already said why this is the case and you have responded with nothing to the contrary.

[William]

Surely non-theists are not disagreeing that the mind-sets are different?

How is it that the non-theists think they are products of brains while the theist thinks they are products of a creative mind, and the non-theist complains that this is not evidence enough to conclude that no further useful discussion can be achieved?

It is nonsense!

[William]

There is no finer theistic story which exemplifies the state of difference between theist and non-theist mind-sets, better than the following.

Once upon a time...

Three people were nailed to three trees and left to die.

One of the three was someone who claimed that there was a mind behind creation and he knew this mind intimately.
The other was a fellow who had a non-theist mind-set and believed he was the product of the brain.
The third was a theist-potential - an 'undecided'.

The non-theist mockingly asked the theist "where is the evidence of your god now?'"

The theist did not even attempt to answer the non-theists question, while the theist-potential tried to answer the non-theist by pointing out that since the three of them were in the same predicament, mocking questions weren't going to achieve anything, and that it would be best - at least - to humble oneself by refraining from emotional critical outbursts and unreasonable demands.

The theist did not ignore the theist-potential and replied that his sensible understanding of the situation would ensure that his next experience would be a good one.

The theist potential probably became a theist at that moment...since his mind wasn't set in the same way the non-theist mind was set.

Then they all shut up and died...

...well maybe not...

One version of the story has it that the non-theist just went on and on making senseless proclamations, until finally the breath left his body, and that the theist who claimed to know GOD, simply ignored the non-theist, as if the non-theists protestations where non-sensible and thus unable to be answered sensibly.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #1]

Is it the case that
1. non-theists are simply unable to 'get their head around ideas' which are outside of the idea that we are simply emergent properties of brains, [every other idea is gibberish/gobbledygook

or

2. are they just being disingenuous?

Or

3. They have concluded that evidence supporting the idea that consciousness/mind is an emergent property of a complex, working brain considerably outweighs the evidence that it isn't. That would describe my position given what we do know about how brains work, how they evolved over time, etc., together with the lack of any convincing (to me) evidence for the existence of the supernatural in any form.