The extent of atheistic thought (baptize, Mormonism, LDS, morals)
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.
It is that simple. But Mystic likes to confuse the issue with his word games and tries to put the burden of proof on us while constantly refusing to provide the extra evidence he claims he has.
Mystic is one of the only theists in existence who makes what I'd consider a valiant attempt to argue his points. He also has a lot more knowledge than I have, in general.
That said, in this circumstance he is definitely wrong. I'm not sure he's wrong about the existence of the God he believes in. I'm also wondering if a lot of people wouldn't call that God though. He talks about a sort of field of intelligence. I hesitate to describe it, because I don't even understand it well myself. I'm not yet entirely sure what traits it really has. I've read his "synthesis," which is a description of his view of God and some signs of its existence, and he's mentioned topics that he's researched and I have not...and I'm never going to, so I'll probably never understand the bulk of his views.
That said, I'm not thrilled about this attitude that pervades discussion forums in which we tend to see everyone who disagrees with us as worthy of disdain...so I won't demean Mystic that way.
I think I'd like a more positive attitude on discussion forums. I think learning can be a wonderful, fun, exploring activity, and that's what it would ideally be.
I can gloat in my own cleverness rather than seeing other people as foolish...and that's what I typically do.
If we have disdain for Mystic's attempts...we've got to have more disdain for the attempts of the extreme percentage of people on Earth when describing their views.
Also, I have views that most of my fellow atheists disagree with...and I believe most of them are wrong, and I'm right, because I'm better at thinking about abstract concepts than most people. Whether they've been in fields that require abstract thinking...whether they're atheist philosophers who've devoted their lives to abstract thinking...my thought process tends to run circles around everyone else's just as a leisure activity. I was born with something called a specialized brain in which I have innate strengths and weaknesses, and abstract thinking clearly appears to be one of my areas of skill. My fellow atheists have generally made valiant attempts to discuss my views with me, and I think they've all been wrong, because almost no one has agreed with me, but they put in the attempt. I figure that's about as much as I can ask for.
I want to be a teacher. I want to figure out how other people's minds work to convince them...and I'd like that learning process to be fun, personally, like most discoveries are, if possible.
Mystic is one of the only theists in existence who makes what I'd consider a valiant attempt to argue his points. He also has a lot more knowledge than I have, in general.
nipped for space ...
I want to be a teacher. I want to figure out how other people's minds work to convince them...and I'd like that learning process to be fun, personally, like most discoveries are, if possible.
your goals are different then most here. Only if we were in an agenda free environment does the scientific method work the way it is designed to. When steps are taking to limit what we can bring to bear, using phrases like "That's a strawman" is when I raise an eye braw.
How one even thinks that "I lack belief because I don't know" is even rational when discussing belief past saying it and being quite? Could you image telling Einstein or newton "Don't use that information, that doesn't get us anywhere" or "its not practical". And 10 others saying the exact same thing make "It doesn't get us anywhere" more real?
Its really is about what type of atheist one is.
It a good sign that atheism is growing. Its also about time we are honest about it. If we are are going to want proof and use logic, then we really need to apply that standard to ourselves.
I like largekings expression because he is focuses on fight religion and everything he says is only about that. Thats fine. I have a problem when atheist think that fight religion is reason enough to omit some data to remain in the fog of "lack belief" by actively omitting discussions and evidence so we remain in the dark.
I personally believe that the notion "Ok, but don't slow us down. We have the same goals and are fighting for you too." is far more of an issue than religion itself. Good people, for any number of reasons, buying into that.
Moderator cut: Quit mentioning politics.
"Luke warm" meaning ... I don't care if we are wearing the same t-shirt. T-shirt color (Fandom) doesn't decide the most rational belief. That includes hiding behind "lack of belief because I am not sure".
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-25-2021 at 06:49 AM..
Reason: Politics. Again.
<snip for space>
Also, I have views that most of my fellow atheists disagree with...and I believe most of them are wrong, and I'm right, because I'm better at thinking about abstract concepts than most people. Whether they've been in fields that require abstract thinking...whether they're atheist philosophers who've devoted their lives to abstract thinking...my thought process tends to run circles around everyone else's just as a leisure activity. I was born with something called a specialized brain in which I have innate strengths and weaknesses, and abstract thinking clearly appears to be one of my areas of skill. My fellow atheists have generally made valiant attempts to discuss my views with me, and I think they've all been wrong, because almost no one has agreed with me, but they put in the attempt. I figure that's about as much as I can ask for. I want to be a teacher. I want to figure out how other people's minds work to convince them...and I'd like that learning process to be fun, personally, like most discoveries are, if possible.
regarding bold above
so then do you understand time not existing, how it is an artificial construct.
and do you understand having no beginning and no end, always was and always will be
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-25-2021 at 07:00 AM..
Mystic is one of the only theists in existence who makes what I'd consider a valiant attempt to argue his points. He also has a lot more knowledge than I have, in general.
Not all of us are as confident in Mystic's self claimed status.
Cue ad hominems in 3, 2, 1 ...
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 06-25-2021 at 07:54 AM..
Mystic is one of the only theists in existence who makes what I'd consider a valiant attempt to argue his points.
Which ones?
Because if you've been here long enough, then you know that at one time he claimed Nature was god. So, he's evolved.
I get why people wanna believe in a god-thing.
Some people have low to no self-esteem. They're just unable to credit themselves for the good or beneficial things they did, because they don't see themselves as having any self-worth.
Just because someone has low self-esteem, it does not mean they cannot persevere, yet they credit their perseverance to a god-thing. It was a god-thing that opened the door for them. No, it was their own perseverance knocking on a 100 doors before one finally opened.
Even if you get them to admit that, then they credit a god-thing for giving them strength to persevere, because they cannot acknowledge or don't recognize their own inner-strength, or perhaps they derived that strength from their support groups, be it family, friends or an actual support group.
And, no one wants to accept that death is finality, in spite of the fact that it is for the 100s of Millions of organisms who live/have lived on this Earth, including, apparently, earlier species of humans in the evolutionary chain.
Everyone wants to believe there's something more.
If you examine christianity, you will see it's evolution, because for a very long time, and even now in some sects, it's hell-fire and brimstone if you don't get with the program.
But, some very devious x-tians cherry-pick verses and tell people you just have to know Jesus (carnally?) to get to heaven while ignoring the part where Jesus says if you divorce your spouse and remarry you have sinned and will be judged and will be dining with Satan for the rest of eternity.
What we also need to take into account is not just that we don't know how God would accomplish things...but that there appears to be nothing about our universe that God's existence would make any easier to come to be, so far as I can tell, at least...and that there appears to be no signs of many of the traits gods are commonly described as having in our universe, so far as I can tell.
Rather than gods, I'll use the example of sentient, plasma-based life existing in the atmosphere of stars. (By plasma, I'm referring to one of the stages of matter consisting of super-heated material)
I don't know how plasma would remain in a stable location long enough to form living, sentient life. Now it might...but I don't see a reason to believe in that yet. The things that would seem necessary to form plasma based life don't seem to exist in our universe. We'd need some method for sentience to form in the chaos and constant movement of the atmosphere of a star, and I don't know how that would happen.
So...why would I believe in a God's existence, if I see no reason for it to exist, and no patterns that point to its existence and no way for its creation to come about that I can think of...especially if it were not created by something else? Also, again, there is nothing I can think if that would seem to have been impossible to exist without the existence of a God, that currently exists, or that we even have reason to believe would be less likely to exist without a God, so far as I can tell.
A lack of belief in a God could be a presumption...or it could be a mere lack of belief. Either way, I'd say there are a lot of good arguments for those positions.
You have excluded from your consideration the very phenomenon that enables you to deal with abstractions and even consider these issues - consciousness. I see no deterministic, materialistic, mathematically describable process of mere elemental manipulation that could produce consciousness as we experience it. The dodge of pointing to the current manifestation of matter (brain) that produces it (or the non-explanation of "emergence") will not avoid the inexplicability of its existence and attributes from a dead (non-living) deterministic physical Reality. That is what needs God - consciousness.
Yes, we should exclude "where consciousness comes from" because that is an unknown. We can use what we know, but in the end .... we don't. Well, at least, we aren't sure. Ok, we don't know so we leave that out and see what we have.
We can use the fact that we are in a sea of information exchange. Ignoring the details of that exchange, we can say that system of information exchange is what is responsible for our existence. We can apply the definition of the word "god" to match that. And we don't have to too.
We can take the positive side, leaving out the negative side, and use "Jesus as the avatar" to discuss the sea of information exchange, in a healthy way, for people that are into that kind of thing. The emotional slant if you will.
I think the issue is confusion.
Like we see some atheist say "I am only talking about a deity", and I think they really need to repeat it more often. Even make it a rule in the forum so its not looking like fudging the rules to keep it hidden from view to tell the truth. I think it helps when you say your god is not a deity type as most use the word god.
I mean you say it, and your type of god fits squarely in many, if not most atheist, view of how to think about our place in the hierarchy of structure that is our reality. But I think, due to the confusion (baggage) it needs to repeated a ton.
Then the issue comes up about "we are talking about how most use the word "god". Well then, is the forum about a deity only use of the word. Or is only addressing religion's over reach the point of the forum. Or is just discussing what we believe the point. But we will end up where we ended before. You talking about your belief and the evidence for that belief. And them focusing on "lack belief" based on lack of information, semantics, and feeling religion is so dangerous we can't talk about beliefs unless its helping fight religion.
What we also need to take into account is not just that we don't know how God would accomplish things...but that there appears to be nothing about our universe that God's existence would make any easier to come to be, so far as I can tell, at least...and that there appears to be no signs of many of the traits gods are commonly described as having in our universe, so far as I can tell.
Rather than gods, I'll use the example of sentient, plasma-based life existing in the atmosphere of stars. (By plasma, I'm referring to one of the stages of matter consisting of super-heated material)
I don't know how plasma would remain in a stable location long enough to form living, sentient life. Now it might...but I don't see a reason to believe in that yet. The things that would seem necessary to form plasma based life don't seem to exist in our universe. We'd need some method for sentience to form in the chaos and constant movement of the atmosphere of a star, and I don't know how that would happen.
So...why would I believe in a God's existence, if I see no reason for it to exist, and no patterns that point to its existence and no way for its creation to come about that I can think of...especially if it were not created by something else? Also, again, there is nothing I can think if that would seem to have been impossible to exist without the existence of a God, that currently exists, or that we even have reason to believe would be less likely to exist without a God, so far as I can tell.
A lack of belief in a God could be a presumption...or it could be a mere lack of belief. Either way, I'd say there are a lot of good arguments for those positions.
There are two things going on. One is just how to form and evaluate beliefs. The other is seriously scarred and recovering people discussing beliefs. I am only looking at beliefs. I don't care about religion when discussing how the universe works to form a belief.
I think if we look at some of particulars of what mystics says it becomes more rational. I also lack belief in his aware field.
But what I see him saying ... If I am wrong, please mystic correct me.
We can use what we do know to classify objects around us. Think about how we do classify objects. We classify them by how they interact with their surroundings. "size" is less of an issue in defining objects. A secondary notion if you will.
Well, to me, he is saying that we (humans) are nodes of complexity in a system. We humans may be the "thinking" part of the system. He is constantly saying that "we", really the system around us, is evolving into something. For comparison, I use a person's life as an example. We, this planet (again, what I mean by "planet" is important but I think you know) Is like a child, and evolving. Actually I would say less than that, more like a first trimester baby.
He also points out that we are probably just one Bubble of "awareness" in many bubbles of awareness" that are probably around the universe. To start.
I see no reason, as an atheist, to fight that tooth and nail. Its a reasonable approach based on evidence that we have. I wonder why other atheist do not, at least, stand up and say to the atheist that are focusing on fighting religion "many atheist would have no problem with that belief." More or less ... I really mean that type of belief.
Like I believe we are in a system that better matches "alive" than "not alive". There has been no serous challenge to that. The word "organism" is an issue, but I can even demonstrate where "only one set of genes" isn't a defining trait for "alive". If we were allowed to discuss all beliefs that is. And leave out fight religion.
That belief can show where "Lack belief" falls short. "lack belief", when confronted with a belief that has list of evidence, and that many people would agree with, is as unreliable and faith based as "A DEITYDUNIT".
Mystic's belief is a good example of a borderline belief. I know what he is saying and I lack belief. I know what the others say when they say the word "GOD" has baggage why use it. Like you saying, I just think that we atheist would embrace somebody that is offering a belief based on a logical method in forming the belief. And is totally open about the limitations of the beliefs. Even though he sticks it in my eye sometimes. He has a "rose" type belief, just be careful how one reaches for it.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 06-26-2021 at 05:55 AM..
I have a few questions for Christians that I never can ask because anytime you challenge their beliefs it will clear a room, get me a trip to HR, or get a thread locked. I guess this is as good of a place as any.
If belief in the divinity of Jesus is the path to heaven, does it seem fair that so many people born in parts of the world where Christianity is not the prevailing belief are doomed to hell?
Bummer for all of you Indians, and Chinese.
Gee, never heard that one before!
But yes, that is something many of us have pointed out before, as well as reminding religionists that in MOST cases, people are of the religion that was handed down to them by the ancestors, and that is pretty much a coincidence of where they happened to be born.
I have a few questions for Christians that I never can ask because anytime you challenge their beliefs it will clear a room, get me a trip to HR, or get a thread locked. I guess this is as good of a place as any.
If belief in the divinity of Jesus is the path to heaven, does it seem fair that so many people born in parts of the world where Christianity is not the prevailing belief are doomed to hell?
Bummer for all of you Indians, and Chinese.
This varies from Christian sect to sect. For example, this is a non-issue for LDS because you don't go to Outer Darkness (Hell) unless you've openly and willingly rejected Jesus and company; that is, ignorance of the faith is not sufficient to be cast out. They'll also just do a proxy baptism for you after you're dead and pretend you shot right on up to Heaven. Several branches of Baptist are pretty informal and as long as you didn't do terrible things and had a personal relationship with Christ (whatever that means), you're also good. Heck, many Christians are fine with believing even murderers went to Heaven if they later repented or made good with Jesus.
The whole 'you go to Hell if you aren't baptized or any of 100 other things' level of restriction is mostly just the Catholic faith and its derivatives.
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.
