Strong Atheists are Blinded by Their Senses. (behavior, exist, Jesus)
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.
Assumptions and opinions can suffice as sufficient proof for may things. Without seeing each other and evaluating what we heard from others we knew we wanted to spend our remaining years together.
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.
While Mystic and I do often disagree about things, we both try to see the other's view. I think either of us try to build from differences, rather than stumble over them.
I am not much of a believer that truth can be absolutely proven. Except for in mathematics. We simply do not know everything and all forms of observation and measurement carry some degree of assumptions.
When dealing with the non-physical realm we have no physical means of direct measurement and observation.
I have no issues in thinking that God(swt) could be described in human terms as Intelligent, eternal Energy. I don't think we have the knowledge for an exact understanding.
I am always open to all views. I hope I am not stagnate and have reached the point I can't learn from others.
Yes, much of what I believe about God(swt) is based upon assumptions and my own opinions about what I observe. I do not expect them to be accepted as "Proof" by anyone simply take them as what they are, the opinions of another person.
Each person has to find their own reasons to believe.
That's good Wood, I hope that includes each person has their own reasons to not believe as well. As I've stated before, atheists like myself have plenty of wonder about the world, and fantasize about it's purpose and beginning. We just don't attach it to life, nor do we share it as truth with others. I enjoy hearing others imagination, I just don't enjoy others acting on it as it's the truth for me. It's only true for them because it's their fantasy.
Why on earth would our brain consistently interpret a "oneness" with all reality and a "presence" from artificial external field stimulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
You are referring to Persinger's "God Helmet" experiments where the subjects reported sensing a 'presence'. Unfortunately for you, no-one has been able to successfully replicate those experiments using methodologically sound double blind studies. No effect has been shown on the brain by the very weak EM fields he used. It seems to be more to do with suggestibility of the subjects (ie wishful thinking).
"Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with weak (micro Tesla) complex waveform fields have been claimed to evoke the sensed presence of a sentient being in up to 80% in the general population. These findings have had a questionable neurophysiological foundation as the fields are approximately six orders of magnitude weaker than ordinary TMS fields. Also, no independent replication has been reported.
To replicate and extend previous findings, we performed a double-blind experiment (N=89), with a sham-field control group. Personality characteristics indicating suggestibility (absorption, signs of abnormal temporal lobe activity, and a "new age"-lifestyle orientation) were used as predictors.
Sensed presence, mystical, and other somatosensory experiences previously reported from the magnetic field stimulation were outcome measures. We found no evidence for any effects of the magnetic fields, neither in the entire group, nor in individuals high in suggestibility. Because the personality characteristics significantly predicted outcomes, suggestibility may account for previously reported effects. Our results strongly question the earlier claims of experiential effects of weak magnetic fields.
...
Unlike previous studies in this area we did not find that the application of weak complex magnetic fields caused the sensed presence of a sentient being, mystical or any of the other somatosensory experiences described by Persinger and coworkers. However, personality characteristics indicative of suggestibility consistently predicted the mystical and somatosensory experiences in both religious and non-religious participants. These characteristics included absorption to mind-altering experiences, the adoption of a “new-age” lifestyle orientation, and signs of anomalous temporal lobe activity, which individually explained approximately 10–25% of the outcome variance."
"To look at the neurophysiology of religious and spiritual practices, we used a brain imaging technology called single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), which allows us to measure blood flow. The more blood flow a brain area has, the more active it is. When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the parietal lobe during meditation. This area of the brain is responsible for giving us a sense of our orientation in space and time. We hypothesize that blocking all sensory and cognitive input into this area during meditation is associated with the sense of no space and no time that is so often described in meditation."
When the activity in the parietal lobe is decreased by deep mediation, a person's sense of self in space and time is 'blocked' and so it subjectively 'feels' like they are "One with the Universe". It's not rocket science. It's also not metaphysical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I do love the quibblers who present a lack of replication of findings (which is not true) for science they do not agree with by charging they are NOT methodologically sound. You know there are replications . . . you just wanted to mischaracterize the situation. If priming effects work for the appearance of the phenomenon . . . they can also work against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
That's a blatant lie. Persinger's "God Helmet" findings have NOT been replicated by anyone else. I'm calling your bluff. Please present the authors and titles of Journal research articles and I'll download them right now.
I'm also not at all swayed by your claims of "studying the science". All I'm seeing is vague "sciency sounding" waffle and giant illogical leaps from you on this topic. Or as one cognitive neuroscientist puts it: "intellectually bastardised ideas permeating the unregulated internet."
What is ironic is that if anyone was able to reproduce Persinger's findings in such a way as to rule out suggestibility, bias etc, it wouldn't actually be an argument in favour of your claims anyway.
"....the only published attempt at replication (of Persinger's God Helmet experiment) failed to evoke a ‘sensed presence’ (Granqvist et al., 2005). Using kit and code borrowed from Persinger himself, Granqvist and colleagues could not reproduce his effects. They did, however, show that subjects’ scores correlated with their suggestibility. In a biting critique they argue that Persinger’s experiments weren’t properly double-blinded, subjects’ expectations were biased before the experiments and that the items on Persinger’s questionnaire were arbitrary and idiosyncratic (Granqvist et al., 2005).
Crucially, Granqvist and colleagues argue, entirely correctly, that the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses field strengths of around 1.5 tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons through the skull and cause them to fire. Persinger’s apparatus, on the other hand has a strength of around 1 millitesla. To give you some context, that’s 5000 times weaker than a typical fridge magnet. Granqvist argues that there is simply no way that this apparatus is having any meaningful effect on the brain...."
Anyone want to try taping fridge magnets to their head?
Yes it is very similar. That does not mean it is wrong.
Being Muslim I did not meet my wife in person until after we were married. We did get to know each other quite well as we exchanged our Nikkah (Marriage Contract) back and forth and each revising what we promised and expected. After we came into agreement we each signed our copy in front of 4 witnesses then sent it to the other to be signed again in front of 4 witnesses. At that point we were married under Islam. 20 days later we met each other and have now been together for 6 years. I was in Texas she was in South Dakota. After I came up North we moved to ND
Assumptions and opinions can suffice as sufficient proof for may things. Without seeing each other and evaluating what we heard from others we knew we wanted to spend our remaining years together.
It can work, if your shared fantasy continues. After all, that is what it was based on. Now things could change if that basis changes and one of you starts another creation fantasy. Plausible since there are many other beliefs but not probable given the commitment you've both made. Good luck to you, you look like a wonderful couple. If Allah bonds you together, then why not.
I doubt you think I'd be a better person if I went into a contracted marriage under your belief. If you do then we might have an issue. That's when the problem with fantasy occurs after all. Atheists don't start it, we just don't wish to participate in it. Some who really believe their fantasy call that defiance. Not really fair given the facts.
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.
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.
Anyone want to try taping fridge magnets to their head?
Yes, I'll give it a go. I have time to waste. lol
It can become like a Merry Go Round can't it. Fantasy can really take over ones reality. I think someones beating a dead horse. Maybe their bored this week. Mystic has a lengthy confusing fantasy.
No really upset, so much a flabbergasted that you can keep repeating this as fact with a straight face. For someone who continually and loudly demand that others add caveats to broad statements to repeatedly make unfounded truth claims, when you know better is just... a little mindblowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I respect you more than my usual adversaries, NoCapo . . . but you are not reading as carefully as you should. The bold in my post IS the minimum requirement for God, IMO.
Good, now that we have clarified, it is clear to me you are asserting reality cannot be a god! I am glad we agree. To elaborate, you said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is no question whatsoever that reality exists and that is God . . . since it is responsible for us and everything else that exists. Hard to be more Godly than that.
If reality is the sum total of everything, then it cannot be responsible for "us and everything else that exisits", even if we ignore the implications of agency, volition, and personhood in the word "responsible" which are totally unfounded. This is because reality = "us and everything else that exists", so your original argument is that reality is responsible for reality. It isn't even a tautology, it is just nonsensical. And it still does not clarify what it means to be a god. In fact in your next sentence you show it by using the adjective "Godly" where you are trying to compare the idea of being responsible for everything existing to an implicit definition of god. Not only have you tried to define it in a way that doesn't even quite rise to a tautology, it is circular to boot, relaying on some preexisting concept of god!
So not only is it debatable, it has been debated, and you still have not provided a solid reason to consider reality a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That would be consciousness. I realize that my adversaries see a disparate reality comprised of many separate things including each of us . . . but I do not. I see a singular reality encompassing everything as one. My experiences confirm this TO ME. When any aspect of reality exhibits consciousness . . . it is conscious.YMMV.
But that has nothing to do with your previous definition of god. How can the test for godhood be something unrelated to its definition?
Not only that, you are providing only your opinion with no evidence to support your assertion that consciousness is impossible if reality itself is not a conscious being. I understand that your personal opinion based on your experience, but in this forum you are not trying to convince yourself but others. If you don't have a solid logical or evidential argument for something, then just admit it. Also, maybe not asserting your personal beliefs as fact would help reduce the stridency with which you are replied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is not paranoia when they ARE out to get you. I assure you I am not being deceptive or dishonest. I had to make sense of what did not make any sense whatever to my previously atheistic and materialistic mind. It was a long and arduous road to find a rationale that satisfied me. My views are the result of those efforts. I appreciate your efforts to help me see in alternate ways . . . but I must admit at this stage the consistency of my experiences over the years trumps my intellect in this matter. I suppose in some way my critics are right . . . I have become so immersed in my experience of God that I no longer doubt sufficiently to question it anymore.
I believe that you don't intend to be dishonest, but you are using the tools of the dishonest when you use obfuscatory "analogies" presented as fact, or when you try to prove existence of something without a definition, or any number of rhetorical and logical "fast ones". It is precisely this style of argumentation that has gained you critics, and a bit perversely, ensures that people actually read your posts If you were to not make dodgy inferences, we would have a lot less to argue about...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But none of that erases the science that led me here or my hypotheses extrapolated from it. My most consistent stalkers repeatedly ignore the foundational science as if it is non-existent because my conclusions are of necessity extrapolations and hypotheses only. They continually and relentlessly use the taunts "made-up" and "not one shred of evidence" as if there is no scientific foundation or rationale for them whatsoever.
I don't think I have seen anyone dispute the actual science you are basing your ideas off of, only your interpretations about that science. It is those leaps and extrapolations that appear to have no basis.
For example, most of us have no problem with the possible existence of dark matter and dark energy. We agree with what science tells us that they are unknowns implied by the mathematical models we use to understand the universe and have been given names. Simply put, dark matter is mass that must exists for the universe to behave the way we observe, if our models are correct. We have no other evidence for it, no idea of its properties, and quite frankly it could turn out to be a error in our model that gets corrected, thus disappearing in a puff of logic. Similarly dark energy is energy we have no evidence for, save that it is predicted by our current models, based on the observed behavior of the universe. It is a label for an unknown, and once again, could be simply a missing variable in our model.
To make any extrapolation about what Dark energy or dark matter is, could be, or implies is to make an unfounded leap. It is not the labeling of an unknown that we are questioning, it is precisely where your ideas diverge from science that is in question. Simply pointing to the extant science as "evidence" of your inferences is misleading, we are asking for the evidence that gets you beyond science, and that is what is lacking.
That's good Wood, I hope that includes each person has their own reasons to not believe as well. As I've stated before, atheists like myself have plenty of wonder about the world, and fantasize about it's purpose and beginning. We just don't attach it to life, nor do we share it as truth with others. I enjoy hearing others imagination, I just don't enjoy others acting on it as it's the truth for me. It's only true for them because it's their fantasy.
Thank you Poppy. I agree each person has their own reason to not believe. I do not believe Atheists are mass produced in a secret Atheist factory. Every person is an individual. Neither Theists nor Atheists are replicas of each other. Everyone has their own reasons for believing or not believing.
The only thing any of us can accept as truth is what we our self have found reason to believe is true.
We each have the responsibility for our beliefs. It is our duty to question all things and understand we alone are responsible for the results of our beliefs.
Yes, I'll give it a go. I have time to waste. lol
It can become like a Merry Go Round can't it. Fantasy can really take over ones reality. I think someones beating a dead horse. Maybe their bored this week. Mystic has a lengthy confusing fantasy.
Beating a dead horse? There wasn't even a horse to start with. The fantasy is when someone thinks they have a thoroughbred stallion and expects everyone to admire it. In reality what they have is a stunted 1 legged donkey with it's head in an anatomically impossible position.
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.
fantasy.
