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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]

If indeed that is the case, why even interact with them, since nothing a theist might say would change the closed looped materialist system that the non-theist engages with?

[I ask myself the same question.]

Good question, one can hope that the odd conversation, the odd topic might just trigger a spark of curiosity, it's happened but is rare in my experience.

Another reason too is that it helps develop a solid response to atheism, regularly engaging them and responding to their own arguments can help get to the heart of some issues.

I must have debated atheists online for some thirty years and have seen every argument that comes up here, before. Some are thought provoking I think, but the vast majority are the same old same old.

I rarely encounter anything new or thought provoking, most of the atheist arguments were also arguments I used to make when I was still an atheist.

[Jose Fly]

"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?

Help me understand.....do the Generated Messages actually contain a real message? If so, do the theists consistently and accurately pick up on that message?

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]

If indeed that is the case, why even interact with them, since nothing a theist might say would change the closed looped materialist system that the non-theist engages with?

[I ask myself the same question.]

Good question, one can hope that the odd conversation, the odd topic might just trigger a spark of curiosity, it's happened but is rare in my experience.

Another reason too is that it helps develop a solid response to atheism, regularly engaging them and responding to their own arguments can help get to the heart of some issues.

I must have debated atheists online for some thirty years and have seen every argument that comes up here, before.

I never encounter anything new or thought provoking, most of the atheist arguments were also arguments I used to make when I was still an atheist.

For me what occurs is that I learn something - like with the Skeptic forum I mentioned - I used to regularly interact on that forum but left it about 7 years ago as there was nothing more to learn - they were a ruthless bunch with no rules about being polite - a perfect nest for narcissistic expression and one does not need to look very deeply to see that they believe in their intellectual superiority and consider theist mind-sets beneath them and worthy of contempt.

Re engaging with these was different this time around - not because they had change at all, but because I have. I went back for closure - to answer some of the critique I had no answers for 7 years ago, but the response was just the same...so I have disengaged - I have my closure and I have new information which is relative to my particular journey as a theist.

Engaging with non-theists on matters of the mind is a pointless waste of time which results in a sort of rinse and repeat cycle as mentioned already.
I have better things to do with my mind than engaging it in unproductive pursuits. I think I have come to that place where the realization +years of experience = "there is nothing more to see here folks, move on."

I know that some non-theists are arguing that 'yes they do understand' and 'not all is gibberish to them' but I am not just skeptical about that. I am - through experience - convinced it is just a baiting tactic which said another way is 'please don't take our fun away from us by disengaging'.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #22]

do the theists consistently and accurately pick up on that message?

This is from a Gnostic FB group
viewtopic.php?p=1073821#p1073821

And this is the [typical type] response from the Skeptic group.

"Imaginary conservation of how William would have preferred sceptics to respond to his imagined messages"

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #22]

do the theists consistently and accurately pick up on that message?

This is from a Gnostic FB group
viewtopic.php?p=1073821#p1073821

And this is the [typical type] response from the Skeptic group.

"Imaginary conservation of how William would have preferred sceptics to respond to his imagined messages"

So there aren't actual genuine messages in the GM's?

EDIT: And any messages that do appear in the GM's are just accidental?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]

If indeed that is the case, why even interact with them, since nothing a theist might say would change the closed looped materialist system that the non-theist engages with?

[I ask myself the same question.]

Good question, one can hope that the odd conversation, the odd topic might just trigger a spark of curiosity, it's happened but is rare in my experience.

Another reason too is that it helps develop a solid response to atheism, regularly engaging them and responding to their own arguments can help get to the heart of some issues.

I must have debated atheists online for some thirty years and have seen every argument that comes up here, before.

I never encounter anything new or thought provoking, most of the atheist arguments were also arguments I used to make when I was still an atheist.

For me what occurs is that I learn something - like with the Skeptic forum I mentioned - I used to regularly interact on that forum but left it about 7 years ago as there was nothing more to learn - they were a ruthless bunch with no rules about being polite - a perfect nest for narcissistic expression and one does not need to look very deeply to see that they believe in their intellectual superiority and consider theist mind-sets beneath them and worthy of contempt.

Re engaging with these was different this time around - not because they had change at all, but because I have. I went back for closure - to answer some of the critique I had no answers for 7 years ago, but the response was just the same...so I have disengaged - I have my closure and I have new information which is relative to my particular journey as a theist.

Engaging with non-theists on matters of the mind is a pointless waste of time which results in a sort of rinse and repeat cycle as mentioned already.
I have better things to do with my mind than engaging it in unproductive pursuits. I think I have come to that place where the realization +years of experience = "there is nothing more to see here folks, move on."

I know that some non-theists are arguing that 'yes they do understand' and 'not all is gibberish to them' but I am not just skeptical about that. I am - through experience - convinced it is just a baiting tactic which said another way is 'please don't take our fun away from us by disengaging'.

What always amuses me is the atheist and evolutionists getting irritated and annoyed at theists when - in their worldview - theists are but a product of nature, of evolution, always struck me as the epitome of pointlessness. Like how can you blame a product of nature for being a product of nature, for doing what it's genetics drive it to do.

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]

If indeed that is the case, why even interact with them, since nothing a theist might say would change the closed looped materialist system that the non-theist engages with?

[I ask myself the same question.]

Good question, one can hope that the odd conversation, the odd topic might just trigger a spark of curiosity, it's happened but is rare in my experience.

Another reason too is that it helps develop a solid response to atheism, regularly engaging them and responding to their own arguments can help get to the heart of some issues.

I must have debated atheists online for some thirty years and have seen every argument that comes up here, before.

I never encounter anything new or thought provoking, most of the atheist arguments were also arguments I used to make when I was still an atheist.

For me what occurs is that I learn something - like with the Skeptic forum I mentioned - I used to regularly interact on that forum but left it about 7 years ago as there was nothing more to learn - they were a ruthless bunch with no rules about being polite - a perfect nest for narcissistic expression and one does not need to look very deeply to see that they believe in their intellectual superiority and consider theist mind-sets beneath them and worthy of contempt.

Re engaging with these was different this time around - not because they had change at all, but because I have. I went back for closure - to answer some of the critique I had no answers for 7 years ago, but the response was just the same...so I have disengaged - I have my closure and I have new information which is relative to my particular journey as a theist.

Engaging with non-theists on matters of the mind is a pointless waste of time which results in a sort of rinse and repeat cycle as mentioned already.
I have better things to do with my mind than engaging it in unproductive pursuits. I think I have come to that place where the realization +years of experience = "there is nothing more to see here folks, move on."

I know that some non-theists are arguing that 'yes they do understand' and 'not all is gibberish to them' but I am not just skeptical about that. I am - through experience - convinced it is just a baiting tactic which said another way is 'please don't take our fun away from us by disengaging'.

What always amuses me is the atheist and evolutionists getting irritated and annoyed at theists when - in their worldview - theists are but a product of nature, of evolution, always struck me as the epitome of pointlessness. Like how can you blame a product of nature for being a product of nature, for doing what it's genetics drive it to do.

Just call them non-theists because essentially that is what "atheists" and "evolutionists" et al. are.

From the perspective [through the lens] of 'we are products of our brains' there is no purpose beyond what the individual can do with their short and meaningless encounter with life and living.

I myself have no particular emotional-based descriptive re that, so am neither amused or not amused. More to the point is is simply information which helps me redirect my internal input into the external world and anything which seeks to disrupt that, is avoidable.

[Jose Fly]

Just call them non-theists because essentially that is what "atheists" and "evolutionists" et al. are.

Incorrect. The vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists. For example, the largest Christian denomination (Catholicism) in the world has as their official position that evolution is compatible with their beliefs.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #22]

do the theists consistently and accurately pick up on that message?

This is from a Gnostic FB group
viewtopic.php?p=1073821#p1073821

And this is the [typical type] response from the Skeptic group.

"Imaginary conservation of how William would have preferred sceptics to respond to his imagined messages"

So there aren't actual genuine messages in the GM's?

This is what I am talking about re the different mind-sets.
It is neither what I said nor does the evidence I linked you to - to 'help you out' - say it.
Rather what happened was that you took the information and filtered it through the mind-set you have and deduced from that the only thing that your mind could deduce.

That was the result of my obliging your request to 'help you out' and graphically shows that there is no point in engaging in trying to do so, because the results are predictable [as show time and again] - and I have come to understand this is because the two mind-sets are irreconcilable...

And any messages that do appear in the GM's are just accidental?

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.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #28]

Catholics are theists. I am referring to non-theists. The attempted tangent is besides the point I was making.