Strong Atheists are Blinded by Their Senses. (Jews, Christ, religion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Up until this point I had thought that you had put a substantial amount of reasoning into your religion. The God claim is nothing like electricity. We don't only see the effects of electricity, but we know electricity exists because it can be measured, routed, transformed, etc. Also, your shirt "watchmaker" analogy fails because we have seen other shirts and every shirt we've seen we know has been designed. We have seen no other universes, designed or undesigned, to make such an assertion about our universe that it must have a designer.
As much as I respect your character, you've presented two fallacies that have been presented and debunked many times. Neither logically provides any evidence of a God or any reason to believe in one.
My failed attempt at using an analogy.
Last edited by Woodrow LI; 07-21-2014 at 03:24 PM..
Reason: Silly error. Had spelled analogies instead of analogy
Anyone want to try taping fridge magnets to their head?
Ceist,
I appreciate your efforts to provide information. The issue with replications of the Persinger studies is "independent" replication . . . because there were replications. The independent (I think one or two at most) who chose to replicate were not neutral about the possibility. His theory is not considered a very good one. He also, as you say, would NOT agree with me about the cause of the interpretations . . . so I was not using his studies as evidence of my assertions. I used it as evidence of the existence of another sensory modality for the brain that requires the suppression of the main senses. That places the CONCEPT in the realm of plausible . . . NOT verified or validated. I am convinced that if you do NOT learn to suppress the sensory system and enter altered states while retaining an "observer" status in the left brain that you will have difficulty achieving the state I refer to.
I admit I set up my own firing squad with this thread . . . but I am not proselytizing or trying to convince anyone . . . just explain and defend my views from what have been rather consistently uncharitable assaults. I understand the antipathy to the religions and the religious nonsense within them. I hold similar antipathy to them. But the Christ story epitomizes TO ME the spiritual template I see in the "spiritual fossil record." It seems rational to me that a God that IS consciousness would deal with us primarily through our consciousness, i.e. spiritually. This makes the products of human consciousness the potential repository for any and all communications. You and your cohort have no reason to accept any of that . . . but it is consistent with my views and explains why I hold them.
My sympathies, brother. I routinely encounter the same analogy-challenged misunderstanding, Wood. I don't know why it is so prevalent. I have always seen analogies as way to simplify the presentation of otherwise not very simple concepts. The field nature of our reality is one such not very simple concept that comes up against the dominant materiality of our experiences and crashes and burns . . . no matter how it is presented.
Ok. Accepted that we have no obligation to accept your views, nor do you have any obligation to accept ours. Given that we bot have a right to believe what we want (which is not the same as having the validity about what we believe) discussions like this are more about explanation that deprecation, even in criticizing the standards of evidence, use of analogy and soundness of logic.
The two points in your last post are about the mechanism of the brain in accessing the 'God -field' we might call it, and looking at the support you adduce for it, and presenting queries for your comment.
The second is the relating all this to the spiritual development outlined in the relation of Jesus' life and acts. I don't think I need to comment on that.
What I'm saying is - you will continue to think as you do and we will continue to have fatal reservations about what you tell us - for very good reasons, old chum, so please don't even think of telling us that we are blind to the spirit. There is an old axiom - when you can't trust what they say abour mundane matters, how can you trust them on the spiritual?
P.s I forgot to comment - the distinction between strong and weak atheists is really meaningless here. Even if one did not believe in a god but did not deny the possibility and the other (strong atheist) did, that would make no difference as to whether they were 'blind' to the truth or not. any failure to believe' is supposedly (spiritual) blindness.
Assumptions and opinions can stand in for proof - just like a chainsaw can stand in for a steak knife, I suppose - but that doesn't mean a chainsaw IS a steak knife. By definition, assumptions and opinions cannot be proof. Sure, sometimes our assumptions and opinions turn out to be right - but as long as they remain assumptions and opinions, that's all they are.
I would argue that the majority of people get their notions of God from holy books and, perhaps, other sources written about those holy books.
And the only thing holy books are - at least to me - is Mankind's desperate effort to bargain with the cosmos. Perhaps if we condemn homosexuality, dress modestly, and only have sex under specific circumstances, the cosmos (God) will bless us with a bountiful harvest and a healthy baby boy.
Holy books are huge compilations of dos and don'ts, behavior modification on a massive scale, in the hopes of finding the right combination of behaviors to appease angry gods. Unfortunately, the gods are always angry because bad things will always happen - so the rules become more strict, more intolerant, more absolute.
This is why it's like having an internet relationship without meeting or seeing the other person. You fill in what you don't know. You try to picture what the other person looks like based on what little information you can splice together from texts, posts, tweets, and chats. In addition, you will also try to cobble together a personality based only on what is written - in the same way we try to peg God down to specific characteristics based only on a single holy book.
But how often are we correct in the assumptions and opinions we make about people on the internet? Would it surprise you to know that I'm very soft-spoken and slow to anger in the real world? Do you think my "militant" atheistic posts reflect that in me? I doubt it.
I also remember the one (and only) time I took a chance and fell for someone on the internet (though we did exchange photos). This guy was extremely charismatic online. Everyone loved him, and I was constantly told by other women in our online community how lucky I was. Then we moved in together and the guy turned out to be a dud of epic proportions. His personality turned out to be -nothing- like his online persona; he was about as exciting as a dead fish, he was a terrible conversationalist, all of my real-life friends hated him and stopped coming around, he couldn't even hold a job at Taco Bell, and while he was educated he seemed to have no interest in anything except comic books and spending countless hours talking to people online.
I can't help but think - why should we so readily trust our religiously-inspired notions of who and what God is and what he wants based on an unseen, unmet version of god found in holy books written thousands of years ago? I truly congratulate you on your marriage, especially having met her online. But you're the exception. For every person like you, there are thousands who end up with a dud like I did - or worse, a stalker, a rapist, a pedophile, or a nymphomaniac.
That's a very interesting analogy to god and religion, but I think a perceived relationship with god is even more hazardous. In terms of on-line "relationships" at least we're responding to actual external stimulation. It's very limited and potentially inaccurate and dishonest, but at least we can be reasonably confident the source of the stimulation is real. For instance, I obviously can't discern much about you based on your posts, but at least I'm responding to the words you've typed.
When people talk about having a 'relationship with god', it's probably completely illusory. This is even more potentially perilous: Who knows what some illusory deity might tell someone to do? Think about how many schizophrenics have delusional perceptions of god, and worse yet, how many mass murders we're convinced they were just fulfilling god's will. When someone is convinced their probably imaginary friend is real and omnipotent they're capable of doing almost anything.
It seems rational to me that a God that IS consciousness would deal with us primarily through our consciousness, i.e. spiritually. This makes the products of human consciousness the potential repository for any and all communications. .
Rather than bad analogies I'm going to try for extremely simplified wording and hope I don't end up with the same crash and burn.
Going by memory here, Mystic.
Do you not maintain that our 'thought waves' ( to put it simply) that resonate with this god consciousness will 'meld'/'blend' and become part of your universal field of consciousness?
That this is where the energy produced by the brain that can't just dissipate, finds it's 'home'?
This is how the oneness and communication of mutual love is possible?
Oh...and you can enter a state where you can experience the effects of this through your deep meditation
It's not that the analogies fail so much as the concept. Your argument for design, because we see other things that are made that have a designer, is flawed as well. There is no analogy with the universe since it is a unique existence, so the watchmaker argument fails. Also, since we have no way to measure God's influence/work, we cannot logically assert that he/she/it exists.
It probably is possible for a person to have God(swt) blindness. But it may be closer to Not seeing what they expect God(swt) to look like.
Not seeing God(swt) is similar, one sees the effects of God(swt) with your eyes, you have to look at the results. Sort of like no one has ever seen electricity. We can only see the results. An electric spark or lightening are not electricity they are the effects of it.
One does not "see" God(swt) directly, they see the effects and From there arrive at a conclusion and eventually realize all things are an effect of God(swt).
Sort of like when you put a shirt on, You don't see the person who designed it, but eventually you might come to the conclusion somebody did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
It's not that the analogies fail so much as the concept. Your argument for design, because we see other things that are made that have a designer, is flawed as well. There is no analogy with the universe since it is a unique existence, so the watchmaker argument fails. Also, since we have no way to measure God's influence/work, we cannot logically assert that he/she/it exists.
Wasn't going for a revised version of the "Watch Maker" argument. More like an after view when one does believe.
I was trying to point out if one comes to the conclusion there is a creator, they will see all things as having been designed.
Look closely at my comment:
Quote:
Sort of like when you put a shirt on, You don't see the person who designed it, but eventually you might come to the conclusion somebody did.
I was pointing out one will not see God(swt) they see effects and might come to a conclusion,
Moot Point--I botched on all counts.
I have no desire to MAKE anyone believe in a creator. My goal is to encourage people, all people Theists, Agnostics and Atheists, to explore all options and make free will choices with knowledge of all the possibilities they are aware of.
Just my opinion, but I feel that when a person is convinced they have found the truth, it means they lost the desire to question. As Humans I doubt we can find the truth we can only find the most likely explanation. That can always be fine tuned, by learning more.
I have no desire to MAKE anyone believe in a creator. My goal is to encourage people, all people Theists, Agnostics and Atheists, to explore all options and make free will choices with knowledge of all the possibilities they are aware of.
Just my opinion, but I feel that when a person is convinced they have found the truth, it means they lost the desire to question. As Humans I doubt we can find the truth we can only find the most likely explanation. That can always be fine tuned, by learning more.
Rather than bad analogies I'm going to try for extremely simplified wording and hope I don't end up with the same crash and burn.
Going by memory here, Mystic.
Do you not maintain that our 'thought waves' ( to put it simply) that resonate with this god consciousness will 'meld'/'blend' and become part of your universal field of consciousness?
That this is where the energy produced by the brain that can't just dissipate, finds it's 'home'?
This is how the oneness and communication of mutual love is possible?
Oh...and you can enter a state where you can experience the effects of this through your deep meditation
That wasn't bad, old_cold. What the brain actually produces is a resonant neural field composite (energy wave form) that adds to our Spirit's growth and development. The difficulty exists while we are tied to this physical body/brain (factory). The merging (and purging) only occurs after our bodies die. We cannot experience or access the part that resides within the unified field (God's consciousness field) directly except while it is being produced . . . or indirectly in altered brain states (dreams, meditation). We experience it in delayed fashion (after-the-fact) as our instantaneous awareness. It also influences us indirectly as what we call our subconscious mind.
The only thing about my view that used to give me concern until the complete unconditional nature of agape love sunk in . . . is that there are TWO unmeasurable components that comprise the bulk of our reality. The Void or vacuum of space (Dark energy) that is expanding at an accelerating rate . . . and the Dark matter that holds the galaxies (lakes of fire) together. Obviously if there is a refining out of the dross there has to be somewhere for it to reside during refinement As a result the lake of fire was always a concern . . . for obvious reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
at least we're responding to actual external stimulation. It's very limited and potentially inaccurate and dishonest, but at least we can be reasonably confident the source of the stimulation is real. For instance, I obviously can't discern much about you based on your posts, but at least I'm responding to the words you've typed.
