Theists sometimes DO ask questions.

[Zzyzx]

.
Theists sometimes DO ask questions. Here is an example from a current thread:

And now, I ask you a question.

What if you’re right?

Right about what?

Reading my signature with some comprehension indicates that my position is that ANY of the thousands of proposed 'gods' MAY be real and may affect human lives – AND that I await verifiable evidence upon which to base an informed, intelligent, reasoned decision.

Is there any reason that I should 'hurry up' and make a decision when the ONLY 'evidence' presented consists of unverifiable tales and testimonials (ancient or modern) plus emotional appeals? I do not take anyone's unverifiable word as a basis for making ANY important decisions. Should I make an exception for religious matters? If so, why?

What if mindless, random energy is “all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be�?

I take NO position regarding 'mindless, random energy'. Kindly debate what I actually present.

What if all we are is a temporary arrangement of matter? A pattern, here today and gone, forever, tomorrow?

Notice that I take no position on that matter. Kindly debate what I actually say rather than things I do not say.

What possible difference could that make? In fact — what possible difference could anything make?

My life and the lives of (some) others make a difference to me, as does the environment, because I (we) live in the real world.

And what difference would it make if I believed otherwise?

What you believe could not possibly make any less difference to me. Discussing / debating these ideas with you involved is simply a way for me to present READERS with ideas that contrast with those presented by Theists.

I trust that some / many readers are fully capable of evaluating the merits, credibility, verifiability of what is presented and to use whatever they find has merit in their own thinking.

If I chose to believe a complex, imaginary fable about an eternal Mind that created a space-time environment; a fable which explained the cause of man’s depravity, and the way out of it —even if it was all just an ancient and ongoing fabrication, what difference does it make?

That belief makes NO difference UNLESS and UNTIL it is presented in public debate as though true. In which case, I challenge any claim of truth and accuracy – asking for verifiable evidence to support the pronouncements.

When the 'evidence' presented is nothing more than unverifiable tales and testimonials (ancient or modern, oral or written), readers are invited to consider its credibility.

And what difference does it make that energy occasionally arranges itself in patterns such as the deformed child you pictured?

I pictures no deformed child. Perhaps there are some wires crossed?

Or generates patterns in the matter that composes human brains that motivates them to slaughter each other over territories or genetics or ideas?

Human brains have great potential to instigate actions in all manner of directions – which include slaughtering people or helping people.

Many Religionists seem to think that religion is what keeps them from slaughtering (or raping or stealing or whatever) and that religion is what motivates them to do benevolent things. Perhaps that is true for them personally – but does not extend beyond them to everyone else.

What difference does it make what I do with my own little pattern of energy, during the brief period of time it is integrated and possesses the consciousness to make determinations as to what it does?

It makes no difference at all to me what you 'do with your own little pattern of energy' PROVIDED it does not affect me or others I care about.

And if, for instance, someone should be in the way of my obtaining some objective that would please my consciousness, what difference does it make what I do to them in order to remove them as an obstacle?

If I am the 'obstacle to be removed' so someone can accomplish an objective, they are likely to 'meet their maker' before intended (any my attitude is not hypothetical).

I’m just asking. Do you have an answer for me?

I typically attempt to answer coherent questions. I am always prepared to substantiate any claims I make or arguments I present.

Is it possible that even if your belief system is true,

You have shown that you have absolutely no comprehension of my belief system.

and mindless matter and energy is all that ever was or will be:

I do not and have not thought or said anything suggesting 'mindless matter'. That is a 'stinky fish' (red herring) thrown in, perhaps to try to make an argument.

that it would be BETTER if we lived as though we were subject to living forever, based on what we do during our temporary pattern of consciousness, before we revert back to our eternal elements of mindless matter-energy?

I see no 'better' in real life by those who profess to being 'subject to . . .� some sort of afterlife. Christians who preach such things are incarcerated at rates no 'better' than other groups, have divorce rates that are no 'better' than others, and have half a million abortions per year in the US (while condemning the practice).

WHERE is the 'better'?

Even if that would mean “living a lie�, so to speak?

Those who find benefit in 'living a lie' are welcome to do so. I prefer to live by what I can understand and learn about the real world.

Or would that make any difference, either?

Many would apparently be LOST without their religion telling them what to think and do.

And if so — in what way?

Perhaps those who rely upon one of the thousands of gods or thousands of religions are well advised to keep doing so (to avoid running amok if they had to rely upon their own ethics, judgment, discernment, decision-making).

However, the dependent should not attempt to inflict their limitations and personal problems onto others – who do not share those limitations and problems.

[William]

[Replying to post 40 by Divine Insight]

So all in all you don't even know.
You have opinions which are created through the filters of your personal bias.
You are unable to connect Jesus with this 'old testament' idea of GOD. (as you have mentioned in another post)

In effect you are stabbing at some effigy straw-god which you think is some true representation of GOD...

Secular Naturalism + Intelligent design=[linky]

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 35 by William]



[center]
Universe ≠ Living, thinking organism[/center]

It is not true. It is verifiable. There are indeed minds in the universe and these can be said to be - at least - "the minds of the universe."

You are mistaking the minds IN the universe for the minds OF the universe.

Do you think that the legs in the universe are the legs of the universe?
If so, you think that the universe is some kind of being that has a lot of legs.

( billions, if I am not mistaken, walking around )

Even if we take the whole 'consciousness on Earth' as a singular mind, this equates to 'the mind of the universe'

Lets say that there are about 8 billion human minds on the planet Earth. I wonder how you figure out that 8,000,000,000 = 1

Given the size of the universe, there are likely many planet systems which will have/be Consciousness. These could be called 'the minds of the universe' and altogether regarded as 'the mind of the universe'.

So essentially the universe is not mindless at all.

All you're really doing here is saying that you could call all the minds IN the universe the minds OF the universe. That's just playing with words.

Your categories are out of whack.

You seem to want to anthropomorphize the "universe" and give it a human kind of mind that somehow thinks like a human does. Here is a news flash : the universe isn't an organism that can think. The word universe is a short cut word for "Everything that there is". There are thinking brains in everything that there is. That doesn't mean that each and everything that there is HAS a brain or IS a brain.


Universe = Everything that there is, organic living beings, and inorganic non-living objects

It's like you throw fish guts in a bucket, and the tell us that the bucket HAS guts ... But what you really mean is the the bucket CONTAINS guts.

The universe CONTAINS minds. It doesn't HAVE a "mind" or "minds".
Humans “have� the minds.

AND the legs.

[Divine Insight]

So all in all you don't even know.

What is it that you believe I don't know?

Please be specific. I don't claim to know everything, but there are indeed things that I do know.

You have opinions which are created through the filters of your personal bias.

Totally false. I have come to sound rational and logical conclusions based on the information available. That's dramatically different from what you just accused me of.

You are unable to connect Jesus with this 'old testament' idea of GOD. (as you have mentioned in another post)

Wrong again. I have demonstrated rock solid evidence from the Gospels rumors themselves that Jesus could not possibly be the Son of the God of the Old Testament.

No opinions required. The stories themselves reveal their own fallacy.

In effect you are stabbing at some effigy straw-god which you think is some true representation of GOD...

I have never claimed that the Bible is a "true representation of any God". That's what I was taught as a child and by Christian theists who ultimately could never make a compelling case for their claims.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that the Bible is a "true representation of any God". In fact, I can demonstrate why that it absolutely impossible. Have you been paying attention to what I say a all:

My position is the Bible cannot be a true description of any God as it is written.

Therefore, for you to even suggest that I believe that Bible is a true representation of any God only shows that you aren't paying attention to what I say.

Secular Naturalism + Intelligent design=[linky]

It's a false claim by creationists that nature exhibits intelligent design. That's simply not true. To the contrary if nature is 'designed' it actually represents "stupid design" not intelligent design.

Also physics has proven that this universe is not a simulation. It's ridiculous to say that it is. This universe doesn't need to be "simulated" because it contains everything it needs to run on its own. There is nothing that need to be simulated.

In fact, if the universe was a simulation then the laws of physics wouldn't even be required. Why would there need to be any laws of physics if everything were being simulated?

So nothing in your 'linky' represents anything more that your bias opinions. And those opinions cannot even be backed up by any logical reasoning. In fact, precisely the opposite can be demonstrated to be true as I have just outlined above. Our universe can be fully explained via natural processes, therefore there is no need, nor any room, for any hypothesis of an external 'simulation'.

So your arguments don't hold any water.

[OnceConvinced]

If when we die, that's it, we just have to accept that.

Q: How?

By accepting the facts. It means pushing aside all fantasies and wishful thinking. Grasping a hold of what is real and accepting that is what is real. It can be difficult. It was hard for me to accept that death was the end. I wanted to continue to believe in the afterlife. However one day I realised I had to get real.

We don't know what is going to happen when we die,

We can see what happens when people die. They lose consciousness and their body rots. That is quite obvious to anyone. They don't get up and regain consciousness again except in zombie movies.

If anyone is going to try to claim that there is a soul that continues to exist and that there is an afterlife, then it's up to them to show proof of that. I see no reason to indulge in fantasies when we can see for ourselves what happens to people when they die.

On the other hand, if there is more to experience after dying from this one, then certainly, we are just going to have to accept that, whatever it might turn out to be.

Then we will. However let's not indulge in fantasies in the mean time. Reality shows us that dead bodies do not rise again. Reality shows us that when we die that's it.

Sure - no reason at all. I can of course appreciate the idea that there may be just oblivion, and find it easy enough to accept as a concept. I draw the line in accepting it as a sure thing though.

Why would you think there would be anything else when you can see for yourself that dead bodies do not rise again. That once we die, we ain’t coming back.

Have you ever met anyone who has risen from the dead? Have you ever seen a dead body come to life?

We may want to live for ever, but there doesn't seem to be any point in making up fantasies about the after life.

On that subject there are many stories. Not all are even religious in context.

Yes, because humans tend to fear death so they conjure up fantasies about the afterlife. About living forever. Ok, I can understand why people do make up these fantasies. People don’t like to think that death is the end. People take comfort in these stories.

However for me personally, I don’t see how it would bring me any comfort when I see them as fantasies, nothing more.

OOBEs NDAs and Astral Experiences are not all about religious experience meeting 'GOD' and what have you.

Indeed. That fact should be enough to make one realise that they are hallucination or dreams.

Astral Projection. I have theories about that. Scientific theories. Nothing involving anything supernatural. Nothing involving any afterlife or soul.

Nigh on all of them have to do with meeting conscious beings in alternate realities.

Or are simply hallucinations brought on by the brain when in a certain state.

And they all conflict with each other.

I am sure that some of them do, and just as sure that some of them do not.

It would be understandable that there would be many similarities, after all we are all taught a similar description of what Heaven and Hell should be. It is only natural that our subconscious would conjure up these similar images and experiences. It’s the differences however that are damning evidence they are all in the mind.

When I see contradiction I do this. [linky]

Come up with your own version to get around the contradiction? Yeah, Christians do that a lot.

There are some similarities, but it's the differences that show us things like NDEs are all in the mind. These hallucinations can be triggered in medical experiments.

Q: Have you ever personally had an OOBE and have you also ever had hallucinations triggered through participation in medical experiments?

No. have you?

I am however very familiar with how the brain can fool you. How your subconscious can conjure up images that aren’t there when you are in a sleepy state. It’s no wonder people hallucinate when they are close to death.

I am very familiar with how when we are unconscious our brains dream and these dreams can often seem very vivid and disturbing. They can affect you long after you’ve woken up. Dreams can also continue even as you are waking up. When you are still between the state of sleep and awake. I can only imagine what your brain would conjure up if you were close to death.

Death is what it is.

Q: And what is that which death is?

Death from my perspective is the end.

Q: By "from my perspective" do you mean 'From what you believe'?

IF
Yes
THEN
Q: Is your belief faith based or knowledge based?

I’ve seen dead bodies. They don’t move. They don’t talk. They don’t get back up. They rot. Do you have any evidence to show that they do anything else? I have certainly come across no such evidence in my life. Only fantastical claims of the souls and the afterlife.

Q: If you believe this is going to be the case, and it turned out not to be the case, would that bother you or in any way cause any immediate conflict?

I would have to accept what I know. I would not be able to live in a state of denial. I would not be able to make up other fantasies when faced with truth. I would have to be honest with myself.

I was once in a situation where I believed in the afterlife. Where I believed in the soul and life after death. Then it became obvious to me it was all a fantasy. I was forced to deal with that and accept it.
So I have been in that situation you have described. I am no stranger to facing facts and realising that everything I believed before was wrong. I went through 5 years of struggling with that when I went from Christian to Atheist.

I wonder if you have ever been in such a situation?

I ask this also because it appears to me that you are also saying that non faith belief in an afterlife is 'fantasy'.

I believe that the afterlife is a fantasy.

Also, to be specific, I am not asking you to imagine any scenario related to the question, but just if, upon dying, you then come to the realization you were still existing as a conscious entity.

Like I said. I would have to accept that whether I liked it or not. However as seeing there is no convincing evidence that would be the case, I will continue to believe that when we die that’s it. Give me real evidence… not NDEs or Astral projection. Then you may be able to get me to change my belief now while we are still alive.

Q: A sense then that they are not truly seeing the woods for the trees and placing too much emphasis on what they see as the positive, and ignoring what they should see as the negative?

That’s what Christians do! LOL

It’s true, I look at the world and I see much beauty. In fact I want to get around and see as much as possible. However I will not pretend that the horrors don’t exist. There are plenty of that too.

Q: What about those who explain there beliefs in that we are currently living in a universe designed to be both good and evil while we each sort out what that means, but if we don't allow that evil to influence our relationship with good, then eventually they will be rewarded with an actual real universe of only good?

They are welcome to their beliefs. I don’t really care.

I once had a debate with a theist about feeling things from the heart, pointing out that the heart is simply a blood pumping vessel.

Q: Do you understand the metaphor therein?

Many Christians still do not use it as a metaphor. I doubt those in biblical times saw it as a metaphor either. Many Christians do actually think that deep feelings really does come from the heart.

Often with emotion it is the chest area which responds.

See? There you go. Trying to make out the heart is where emotions come from. Treating it as a literal thing not a metaphor.

No, it is not the chest area that responds. It is your brain. It gives you the impression that it comes from the heart, that’s all.

Our feelings come from the brain.

I have heard that the brain feels no pain. Emotional pain is not felt in the head, unless of course stress develops from the emotional pain and transfers into a headache.

Without the brain, you would feel no pain. You would feel nothing.

Certainly it is undeniable that the brain is involved but certainly not alone. The whole body and consciousness (and even subconsciousness and unconsciousness - as in one is conscious but not conscious of all that is taking place) is involved in the process of emotional feelings.

The brain can only function if the heart is beating. That and the fact that it’s the brain that controls the heart and keeps it working.

Why are you saying on one hand that the “heart� is a metaphor, but then doing your best to try to make out its not a metaphor?

Her response was "Saying that I love you with all my brain is not very romantic".

Understandable. That is a very feminine thing. Little girls and dolls, and princesses finding their perfect prince and marriage and kids etc...

I said to her it would be more romantic to say “I love you with my whole being�.

It just demonstrated to me how much Christians want to focus on the lovely things that God supposedly created while ignoring the horrors. They will look at things emotionally rather than rationally. This women looked at things emotionally rather than rationally.

Q: Do you have a significant other to whom you Love in a heart-felt way or is everything simply a chemical reaction to you and thus de-romanticized?

We know that love is simply a chemical reaction. That love comes from the brain. That doesn’t take away the value of it. It doesn’t make love any less beautiful.

Q: Do you think love is something which can be real and can adapt to the external world of reality if the ugly is also accepted, and the romance left out of it?

This debate is just getting bigger and bigger. Let’s not get into a debate about what love is. Maybe you can start another thread if it’s important to you to discuss this.

Too many irrelevent questions. I don’t have time to answer them all. How about considering cutting down on them a little or sticking to what's relevant? There are too many tangents already. Otherwise perhaps consider starting up new threads on some of them?

Q: Do you think of death as only being ugly?

I think death is an ugly reality. Sometimes it can be a relief if someone is suffering terribly. Sometimes it can be a welcome event in a long life. For religious people it can be something to look forward to because they believe they are going to Heaven. For some it will be a horror especially if they believe ridiculous tales of Hell and Damnation.

Q: Do you think of spiders eating flies, birds eating spiders, cats eating birds, humans eating cats as being 'ugly'?

I do. With evolution we can accept and understand this. With creation it becomes malevolent design.

Q: Are the 'harsh realities' only to be seen and understood as 'ugly?

Nope, but if it were created by a god, it would show a very ugly and malevolent god. With evolution however, it’s just a natural outcome. Something we have to accept if we can’t do anything about it.

Why do theists only focus on the pretty bits?

A: They don't as far as I have seen.

Then clearly you haven’t watched many creationists documentaries on nature.

So can we atheists. However there needs to be more honesty. For instance not all of "creation" is lovely and beautiful. Some of it is horrific and if it was created could only be deemed malevolent.

Q: Why is this necessarily the case? If malevolent exists alongside benevolent, how can it be that it can only be deemed to come from malevolent?

You don’t think that a god created an animal to act simply to keep the population of another species down by eating them alive is malevolent?

You don’t think the creation of something like the ebola virus or AIDs is malevolent?

You don’t think that the creation of parasites is malevolent?

Q: How is the ugly ebola virus a standard in which to make a judgement on the idea of a creator GOD (intelligent design) when there are beautiful things which exist as well?

Do you believe in the reasoning behind IF there is an intelligent designer (GOD) THEN that designer MUST be EVIL"?

If you were a creator would you create the ebola virus?

If a human were to create a virus which caused so much suffering, wouldn’t you consider that human evil?

It sounds like you do. Personally I think that is a fallacy JUST on the fact that there are beautiful things in the world as well, and as you appear to be arguing BALANCE is needed in regard to all logical thought processes, I would expect you to practice what you preach. You appear to be arguing from the polarity position and in that committing the same mistake you are criticizing some theists of doing from their polar position.

I am arguing that not all of God’s creations are wonderful and lovely. I am pointing out all the horrors that God has also created. Horrors which show he is a malevolent creator.

The thread topic isn't about 'things that matter'. It is about theists sometimes asking questions of atheists.

I was replying to Volbrigade’s comments where he made claims that with atheism nothing matters. I responded that we as humans determine what matters. The we find meaning in our lives. You then jumped in and attacked every comment I made, going off into tangents all over the place. Perhaps it would be prudent to pay more attention to what things you are attacking before going off on tangents?

I don;t self identify as either theist or atheist, but whatever. I am asking you, the atheist, questions.

How about some relevant questions then instead of just firing out every question you can possibly think of?

Sure I got that. But atheism isn't about finding one's own purpose and meaning.

I never said it was.

No. Being an atheist is besides the point. Being a human is what makes you HAVE to search for yourself.
As a Human, you are just doing that without GOD.
As a Human, a theist is just doing that with some idea of GOD.

Which is what I was saying all along. If we go back to Volbrgade’s original comments which I was responding to before you came along and started firing out a whole lot of irrelevant questions, you will see that this is exactly what I was trying to say. You don’t need any god for meaning or purpose.

[OnceConvinced]

Q: Why do some atheists focus on the ugly bits?

That's not what they are doing.

Think of it like this:

Someone says to you, "The God of the Bible is always moral and righteous".

You then point out ugly, obviously immoral, and unrighteous things this God has done.

They then say, "Why are you focusing on the ugly stuff?"

Well, that observation is what demonstrates that the God of the Bible is not always moral and righteous.

You need to read my posts in context.

You need to do the same thing, William. For instance, if you look back at my previous replies to Volbrigade's comments you will see where I was coming from. Instead you got confused about what was relevant to the discussion and what was not. You jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions and asked a lot of questions that just weren't relevant.

DI is completely right with what he is saying. If the bible or a theist makes a statement, like God is love for instance and then we see one thing out of a 100 that show that God is not love, then that one thing completely contradicts God being love.

Likewise we can look at the beauty of this world and thing Wow, God is great. We can claim all his works are perfect, that he's fair and just and loves us. Then when we take a look at one thing like the ebola virus, we can see clearly that all those claims are false.

Q: Why do you make sweeping statements about these theists?
Q: Do you think that human beings have always understood morality the way you understand it?
Q: What do you think 'righteousness' is?
Q: If you were the GOD, how would you have done things differently?
Q: Can you answer that last question without presuming there was a way to do things differently?

Bombarding people with irrelevant questions does not help things stay on track. Is it any wonder we are having trouble with context?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Theists sometimes do ask questions. My favorite question was the Christian lady who asked me to explain, since it has rained every year for thousands of years since the great flood occurred, if there is no God to regulate all things why hasn't the world become completely covered in water again?

Admittedly that is an extreme example of ignorance. But the truth is that theists tend to be overwhelmingly ignorant of natural processes. Even basic ones like evaporation.