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?

[Jose Fly]

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.

So from what I can tell, I'm correct. You use a random process to generate "messages" that are just strings of random words, with no intentional, actual message in them. Occasionally, due to random chance, the strings of random words form coherent "messages" (in the same way that random number generators will sometimes produce patterns).

It seems to me that the non-theists are therefore correct. The Generated Messages are indeed gibberish with no intentional, actual messages in them.

Thus IMO the takeaway is that non-theists accurately assess the situation, whereas theists tend to see things (i.e., meaning) that aren't actually there. That's pretty consistent with something I noticed growing up in a religious environment....a propensity to see "signs" in common, everyday events. I remember my mom praising God for finding a good parking spot, when my view was that the parking spot would have opened up whether she was needing one or not, and the gods did not alter the course of the universe just to give it to her.

It also puts me in mind of something I read quite a while ago (I can't remember exactly what it was though....sorry) that showed liberals/atheists valued objectivity and accuracy more than conservatives/theists (who value loyalty, tradition, and sanctity more).

It's certainly interesting.

[Jose Fly]

[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.

I understand that. I was just pointing out that equating atheists with evolutionists is factually wrong.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #31]

So from what I can tell...

Your explanation of what is occurring re the GMs is different from my own.

The point of this thread is not centered on the GMSystem but upon the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the mind-sets of theists and non-theists.

That is why your explanation of what is occurring re the GMs is not conciliable with my own, any more than your understanding of the mind is.

That is why there is no point in you and I 'discussing' things of the mind. We simply only have to agree that there is no point in doing so, because of the obvious differences.

I agree to that. You might not. But that is here nor there.

[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.

I understand that. I was just pointing out that equating atheists with evolutionists is factually wrong.

No it is not, but we will never reach agreement so there is no point in wasting time attempting to do so.

You are a non-theist, and that is factual enough.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #31]

So from what I can tell...

Your explanation of what is occurring re the GMs is different from my own.

The point of this thread is not centered on the GMSystem but upon the fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the mind-sets of theists and non-theists.

That is why your explanation of what is occurring re the GMs is not conciliable with my own, any more than your understanding of the mind is.

That is why there is no point in you and I 'discussing' things of the mind. We simply only have to agree that there is no point in doing so, because of the obvious differences.

I agree to that. You might not. But that is here nor there.

Then what is your point with this thread? If you don't want to discuss the GM's or "the mind" with non-theists, what were you hoping to discuss and with whom?

[Jose Fly]

[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.

I understand that. I was just pointing out that equating atheists with evolutionists is factually wrong.

No it is not, but we will never reach agreement so there is no point in wasting time attempting to do so.

You are a non-theist, and that is factual enough.

Yes it is factually wrong. It's a matter of simple math....non-theists only make up ~7% of the population in the developed world, where evolution is very widely accepted. Thus it is mathematically impossible for them to make up all, a majority of, or even a significant portion of "evolutionists".

[William]

If you don't want to discuss the GM's or "the mind" with non-theists, what were you hoping to discuss and with whom?

The answer to your question is already provided for in relation to the the thread unfolding as it has...I myself was only hoping for confirmational feedback that my suspicions about this were correct.

The confirmation has eventuated.

As a result of this...well I already shared that...

"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."

Or as the GM advised;

"Snap out of it already!"

And that is how snapping out of something happens.

As to your stats, the focus is on identifying a non-theist mind-set. You are a non-theist who believes that your consciousness is a product of the brain.

Fiddling with stats doesn't change that. The only thing which will change that is if you were to argue that you are not a non-theist, and do not believe you are a product of the brain.

[Jose Fly]

If you don't want to discuss the GM's or "the mind" with non-theists, what were you hoping to discuss and with whom?

The answer to your question is already provided for in relation to the the thread unfolding as it has...I myself was only hoping for confirmational feedback that my suspicions about this were correct.

So the OP was not an attempt at debate or discussion.

So I suppose the question for the mods is.....why is this thread still in this sub-forum?

As to your stats, the focus is on identifying a non-theist mind-set. You are a non-theist who believes that your consciousness is a product of the brain.

Fiddling with stats doesn't change that. The only thing which will change that is if you were to argue that you are not a non-theist, and do not believe you are a product of the brain.

Um....no. The point of the stats is to demonstrate that the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists, rather than non-theists. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp that.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #38]

So the OP was not an attempt at debate or discussion.

So you see it.

I have just re-read the OP and it clearly states what my intentions were then, and still are.

The point of the stats is to demonstrate that the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists, rather than non-theists.

Which is not the subject of this thread.

I'm sorry if you cannot grasp that.

There is no need to make personal comments. Please withdraw it.

[Tcg]

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?


Tcg