Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (body, create, spiritual)

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You would have to explain to me what the tools are that you would use there, and convince me that they were reliable. Speculation is fine, but it proves nothing.

there are different tools that work on different levels of the computer game.
a tool that works on one level, does not work in the same way on a different level.

the science key gets you artifacts on the basic physical level. very useful.
but it doesn't get you to the next level.

let's say there are other keys on the first level that don't seem to do much so you don't pick them up: feelings, intuition, perception, silence, introspection. those might work to get you to other levels but are more complex (than simple science; than the simple physical basic first level) because the effects they have vary based on the combinations they are used with other stuff in your character's sack such as motivation, intention, how you treat other characters in the game.

to get to the next level the character has to start looking at what is in his sack of beliefs, his sack of feelings, his sack of thoughts, his sack of character traits. what he picks up and puts in there, or takes out and discards, determines what happens to his character in the game. it is more complex because there are more combinations. telling people what to do at work gets you success in your career, so "bossy" in your sack of traits earns you money fame success. however bossy at home has the opposite effect. so the results for the character in the game are also determined by where and when he uses the traits in his sack. so getting to the next level is determined by not just what a character picks up, but also what they put down. an unwillingness to put something down affects whether the character can advance to the next level. examples of these might be: ego, self-image, how others see you, need to be right.

the levels are endless. however at each level there are consistent reliable rules and structure. what works great on one level, not only doesn't work on another level, but has to be discarded altogether because it is a hindrance that prevents a person from advancing to the next level.

the science key is not going to get you to the next level. for more hints on what to try with your character in the game, look in the sack that is called "resistance to letting go of _______" and see what's in there.

[TRANSPONDER]

Aside that I am sure I have talked before about playing within the game but not stepping outside and asking what game is being played, this is all fine, but about character and behaviour. If you want to call that 'spiritual' be my guest, so long as I know what you mean. But I'm still not seeing how these tools tell us about the truth. Look at it this way - Studying the rules of astrology will make one an expert, but they are the wrong tools for finding out whether it is a valid discipline or not. It takes the methods of logic and science to do that. 'It works for me' is not good evidence.

So what tools should we be using to find out whether the soul exists or not and what this 'spiritual' thing is, if science can't?

I'm quite familiar with "resistance to letting go of.." What is it that I should be letting go of? I hope not requiring good evidence to believe a claim before I believe it.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

But I'm still not seeing how these tools tell us about the truth. ... It takes the methods of logic and science to do that.
So what tools should we be using to find out whether the soul exists or not and what this 'spiritual' thing is, if science can't?
What is it that I should be letting go of? I hope not requiring good evidence to believe a claim before I believe it.

the truth is that science can not explain soul/spirit. it is limited in that regard. so by saying you will only consider valid that which science can explain, then you are painting yourself into a very small corner.

those who explore the realm of spirit usually do so because there is a desire to go beyond the superficial. if you are fine where you are (and it sounds like you are) then don't bother.

another person's evidence is never going to take the place of your own discovery. another person can not grow for you. you seem more interested in "having beliefs" or not based solely on debate and argument, rather than exploring and participating and validating for yourself, along the lines of "if this is the case, then how does it apply to my own life?"

[TRANSPONDER]

No, my question was - can you produce any valid evidence for the soul or the 'spiritual', if indeed that is anything other than dealing with our characters.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No, my question was - can you produce any valid evidence for the soul or the 'spiritual', if indeed that is anything other than dealing with our characters.

for myself - yes, plenty
for you - no, none whatsoever

if you want to go about gathering your own evidence (which is the only valid currency in the realm), and that question is not opening doors, and you keep hitting the same wall, then try asking a different question in different places in different ways, ask it internally (to yourself) as well as externally (to others) as well as to the universe or to your soul or Higher Self. "how do i tell the difference between my soul and, my thoughts?" "what am i not getting here?" "i've been trying to discover the truth about this for a long time, help me out" "what do i need to see or do to get more clarity on this?" "give me some insight on this, how can i look at it differently"

be willing to live in those kinds of questions (for days, weeks, months, years) and pay attention to what comes to you throughout your day in your thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intuition, events, occurrences. spirit is responsive, see what comes your way. note any resistance or discomfort to any of this. everything is data, that's all you're doing is gathering data, not analyzing it, just noticing it. spirit speaks to you in a language that is entirely personalized to you....that is why other people's experiences are really no help. the blueprint of your soul is individual to you. oh, and you get to be as demanding as you want with spirit, "show me this in a way that i can understand" and "make it so clear i can't possibly miss it."

set aside belief. set aside disbelief. try on for size "if this is the case, then ...." and "so how does this work if...."

see that's what i don't get...... on the one hand a person falls all over themself to say how "open they are to the unknown" and "there might be a soul" and how "eager they are to learn" but at the same time there is this excruciating paralysis and being really squeamish about "what if" and trying it on for size and seeing where it takes them. no one is going to know or care what the conversation you are carrying on in your head is, or the data you are gathering or the observations you are making.

[Arach Angle]

A soul is something different. What is it? we only have the standard model so "you" are really only a small information processor in a much larger information processor.

In the end it fits what you want and what we want. It just that the "me walking around with my dead dad" isn't real. My dad and myself were never "different entities", never. It's just that the group of atoms that make "you" limit one's view

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

science measures some things. but not the soul/spirit.

Science measures things that have been shown to exist. Things like "soul" and "spirit" however are things the existence of which no one has substantiated in even the smallest way. And in fact these days words like "soul" and "spirit" seem to be nothing more than placeholders for our ignorance. Our ignorance about the full working of human consciousness.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

that is one of the obstacles to understanding, it is demonstrated in the post above

And as I keep saying, the MAIN obstacle here is that nothing is being offered in the way of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to BE understood. All I am seeing is people like yourself making wanton and egregious assertions about the nature of reality.... and then hiding behind cop out phrases like "I do not want to change your mind" to dodge substantiating those assertions in even the smallest way.

And it is THAT behavior, above all else, that is the real "obstacle to understanding" here. As I said about your calculus analogy.... even if I meet someone who denies the existence of numbers or ignores what I teach him..... I am still capable of sitting down and laying out what the evidence and arguments actually are. Regardless of whether he simply sticks his head in the sand and ignores what I offer. This YOU have not been doing with your assertions however.

It is possible to demonstrate and evidence the existence of color to the blind. One just has to be willing to sit down and present the evidence. Try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

so i've stopped using the phrase "obstacles to learning" and am now instead using the phrase "obstacles to understanding"

And that change does not change or rebut the point I have made in even the smallest way. Because the "obstacle" of which you speak is the same in both cases. And it lies with you. Not me. It is impossible for me to evaluate your "understanding concepts, understanding what someone is trying to say in a conversation, or understanding someone else's views or perspective." if all you insist on doing is asserting things, then running away when asked for the substance behind those assertions. And it is that part of "addresses how a message is presented and how it is received and understood by others." that you need to work on. You. Not us.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

It is much more more user-friendly (in my view) and less likely to put people off and send them into knee-jerk reactions, than using the words "proof" and "evidence". so thank you Nozz for a better term that (in my view) removes an obstacle to understanding.

Yes I shy away from phrases like "Prove there is a god" when speaking with Theists.

Mainly because "god" is a word many of them have massively different meanings to than me. And some people even contrive to use definitions of it that are so dilute as to say nothing at all (like the "God is just all of everything" people we have as frequent users of this forum".

And also because "proof" suggests a level of conclusiveness that I do not believe theists capable of attaining. And I do not want to set the bar too high for them.

So I drop the words "proof" and "god" entirely when I can and instead say:

"Have you got any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea that our universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligence intentional agency?"

Or

"Have you got any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea that human consciousness and subjective awareness can survive independent of, or following the death of, the brain?"

As you can see this sets the bar MUCH lower for what I am asking.... and throws the net MUCH wider as to what I will accept as a response.

Alas, despite this, not a single theist..... much less any posting on this thread..... has offered a shred of anything in response except these common cop out narratives that we see daily. Narratives that, much more often than not, are designed to lay the blame for their lack of response on me in some way.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other people know a lot about stuff that you don't know about?

Probably because of their (or specifically in the case of this thread YOUR) inability and unwillingess to engage on those topics and explain the knowledge you claim to have, or the substance behind the assertions that you trot out with abandon.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

because you seem to inhabit only one of two places: there seems to be only "my way is right" and "everything else is delusion" can you not see the problem in that?

Where you seem to inhabit the world of "I can assert whatever the hell I like" and "anyone who wants to question me on it can just go away". Can you not see the problem in that??? It's like people speaking a language that you don't understand. what is the huge obstacle for you in saying "here are the answers to your questions as to why I believe what I believe" rather than just "Go away, I have no interest in changing your mind".

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

a person validates it in their own life

Or, in short, again you will not answer the question.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

tools that are helpful are: honesty with self about motivation and intention; willingness to observe closely your own thoughts and feelings; capacity for silence; capacity for listening; valuing and paying attention to your own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intuition and the data they deliver to you

And since I have all of those things in spades, thank you very much, the list appears to just be filler and irrelevant and just padding out your dodge.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

"science can't prove it" so "therefore you are making it up" and "you know you are making it up"

Yet I myself did not limit the conversation to science. The issue for me is that you are not substantiating your claims in ANY way at all. Not JUST scientifically. But in ANY way. And it is that, coupled with the form and types of cop outs and dodges you are using, that suggest strongly to me you are simply making it all up, and you know it.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

they recognize the value and importance in using tools and data and information that you dismiss, or reject out of hand.

Yet you have not GIVEN any tools or data or information.... so you have not demonstrated that anyone here has rejected anything out of hand. You simply maintain the narrative that we reject things by not actually offering anything TO be rejected. Which is, alas, as dishonest as it is useless.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

the truth is that science can not explain soul/spirit.

No, the truth is that you have not even established the existence of something FOR science to explain. You simply appear to be making it up as you go. You have not even DEFINED "soul" or "spirit" here, let alone substantiated their existence. I remember with a wry smile a debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt where Barker also noted that Butt was not defining soul in any way, merely asserting it's existence.

So in the end he pinned Butt to the mat on it and compelled him to offer a definition. Butt ranted out a definition which Barker then noted was a list of things "soul" was not. But nothing in the definition defined what "soul" actually is.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

for myself - yes, plenty
for you - no, none whatsoever

(snip..pardon me.)..

set aside belief. set aside disbelief. try on for size "if this is the case, then ...." and "so how does this work if...."

That's what I look at: how does this work? The only validated answers I am getting are about how people imagine things and find patterns where there aren't any. That doesn't have to be the actual explanation, so we make tests on one hand and ask for some decent evidence from those having the experiences.

see that's what i don't get...... on the one hand a person falls all over themself to say how "open they are to the unknown" and "there might be a soul" and how "eager they are to learn" but at the same time there is this excruciating paralysis and being really squeamish about "what if" and trying it on for size and seeing where it takes them. no one is going to know or care what the conversation you are carrying on in your head is, or the data you are gathering or the observations you are making.

Long ago in my UFo days, I learned that it is dangerous to cut your mind free of the validated basics and let it go floating. This is often thought of as freeing the mind of restrictions, but it was much more like losing any kind of reality check.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

Indeed science does not explain or even engage with all aspects of existence. It is the wrong tool for the job if you want some objective validation that your visit to the gardens was the best ever. But you don't need any validation, evidence, substantiation or logical argument for that because it is strictly an agreement between you and your spouse that's not binding on me, me and my spouse, or anyone else.

And theism need not involve binding you to specific feelings and responses, either. It seems that because some theism tries to, you intend to doggedly insist that that is a characteristic of theism itself.

Originally Posted by mordant

And you are not making a general truth claim about it and thus taking on a burden of proof for yourself. You are not suggesting that every couple who wants to have a best-ever date must go to the same gardens you did.

I'm saying that it inspired responses within me and my spouse: We own a certain locus of purview over truth, that which applies within our own bodies, within our own home, within our own family, and within our own worship. That's the nature of responsible, respectable religion.

Originally Posted by mordant

So it is really not something you need science or anything else for, including faith.

You choose not to understand the word "faith" the way it generally applies outside reactionary religious perspectives. So it is pointless to try to help you understand how faith does apply to some of the things I mentioned.

[TRANSPONDER]

The way your response to Mordant comes across is that 'Spiritual' experiences are particular to your own family group or members of it at any rate.

We goddless bastards use the word 'Faith' to mean believing something as reliable fact (not just probable, never mind possible) without persuasive evidence, or without any good evidence or indeed in spite of the evidence. It can also mean to buy into a claim that is backed up with goog evidence,persuasive evidence or compelling evidence. Though we prefer the term 'belief' to avoid confusion.

If you use it another way, that doesn't concern us, nor do we particularly care to try to understand it. If you were to try explain it, we would consider all aspects (as distinct from considering only those that would lead to accepting it as true) and come to our conclusions. Which shouldn't bother you as you said you were just interested in discussion, rather than trying to persuade us.

So we are quite interested i the case for a soul and the 'spiritual' - whatever that is. I am most intrigued by NED's and the evidence that they are for an afterlife. I am also aware of the other explanations and I am agnostic about it and await some persuasive evidence.

If the 'agnostic' position mandates not believing until the compelling evidence is presented - either way - that seems to me to be as reasonable as any accommodationalist could ask. It doesn't hurt me and it doesn't hurt any Theist for me to not believe in an afterlife. What difference could it possibly make?

P.s Though this does seem to have drifted off -topic, it is relevant. Not all atheist posting is screaming for Churches to be obliged to cough up taxes. Much of it is explaining our rationale. That is much needed as there is a LOT of misunderstanding of atheism and good deal of misrepresentation. Atheism is (or so it seems to me) a pillar of secularism. If there is no case for disbelief in a god, it must undermine secularism. Thus atheism has to be maintained tactically, as well (of course) as being correct, if logic and evidence counts for anything.

While some good points are made about the tone of voice or the methods used, it doesn't alter the fact that while we may modify our behaviour in order to be more effective, one thing we are not, ever, no freakin' way, gong to do, is depart the internet and be silent.