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.
The above. My long post from which you excerpted it beginning was attempting to talk on the basis of no claim to a god of any kind.
Geez, my accidental omission of the letter "s" (excerpted its beginning) made mush out of my above response on a fresh re-read. And the statement had no melody to begin with.
Fixed, I hope:
My long post, from which you had excerpted its beginning, was an attempt to talk on the basis of no claim in a god of any kind.
Geez, my accidental omission of the letter "s" (excerpted its beginning) made mush out of my above response on a fresh re-read. And the statement had no melody to begin with.
Fixed, I hope:
My long post, from which you had excerpted its beginning, was an attempt to talk on the basis of no claim in a god of any kind.
We all make those irritating typos (I hate it it when I do) but we learn to 'auto-correct' the errors of others. It's likely that no one noticed.
The above. My long post from which you excerpted it beginning was attempting to talk on the basis of no claim to a god of any kind.
Thank you for saying that. I have not really had much of any discussion with atheists nor do I know the lingo and I have concern that any choice of my phrasing that might be new to my mind might also accidentally coincide with phrasing that has been previously weaponized by anybody in previous conversations here or anywhere.
That's ok, and I would like to discuss as I seem to have the impression that you had a god -belief. Do you or not? If not then you have been co-existing with an atheist for some time.
Going back to you post, the essential points are thus:
"I will attempt to show you how and why it is possible I can have reasons for believing in God or in anything else that you cannot accept.
Something physical in the universe pushing our physical thoughts into formation. ...
..., it's no doubt there will be variation on the thoughts formed among these many people even if they may experience similar or near-similar inputs, .... So, there is plenty of variation going on. All in this universe of IS.
... A certain right amount and combination of pushing and whoops, a Christian is born. Others might jump to the piano instead.
You're not a Christian? You're not pushed enough to arrive at that? Ok. You're something else, then. The universe indifferently manifests differently to people.
...
So, my brain has an accumulated response for forming a belief in God. Your brain does not."
Again apologies for snipping. The intention is not to quotemine, but to note the essential argument.
I skipped a lot of it because in fact I agree with it. This effect is in the universe and we now of it as evolved instinct. I didn't want to get to arguing about that as yet , because I first wanted to check the Gd -idea.
Can it possibly be that you see this 'push' to become religious (usually based on local conditions, rather than a varying degree of cosmic 'push') as a material physical process (not involving a god) which has 'pushed yo to the degree of being a Christian, even though you know it was just a physical process? I am agog for elucidation.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-11-2016 at 08:14 AM..
That's ok, and I would like to discuss as I seem to have the impression that you had a god -belief. Do you or not?
I believe in the God of the Christian bible. And Jesus, so I am Christian. I was baptized a while back. It is faith that I have, faith being a choice that spites and annoys logic and science, doesn’t it? I am knowingly putting all of my eggs in the faith basket. I also believe in the model of reincarnation. Ok, maybe it’s an avocation, like following sports. I am also a guy who can detach from my beliefs to enjoy the mental gymnastics of a good conversation, when I am able, and I have a playful imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Can it possibly be that you see this 'push' to become religious (usually based on local conditions, rather than a varying degree of cosmic 'push') as a material physical process (not involving a god) which has 'pushed yo to the degree of being a Christian, even though you know it was just a physical process? I am agog for elucidation.
Someone had asked me in this thread what is my reason for believing in God. This got me to thinking that, for as long as this question will ever be asked, and instead of going the usual and expected route in response that other Christians no doubt have offered before, I will explore if an atheistic model can explain to atheists my reason for believing in God. I am not saying I actually believe the proposal I wrote and to which you are referring. Rather, I am exercising my imaginative mind to set aside my own Christianity and embrace for discussion what I assume is an important atheistic concept model that the universe just IS.
I wrote that proposal to suggest that what befalls people’s minds (their very thoughts and conclusions) are the result of, yes, a material physical process. This means we are not responsible for our own thoughts and conclusions. In this atheistic model I have attempted to describe, how can we ever be responsible for them?
I’m going to try to add onto my proposal, rambling on some more, by offering the following. Again, I am typing unrehearsed on this Reply screen:
If a number of random people on earth find they have a liking for volleyball as common among their individual list of notions, such that I'll call them Group A, while Group B all prefer the color blue, and Group C all hate cheese, and Group D has no opinion on any of that but all are compelled to study rocks, it is easy for us to see how none of these disparate notions, these variations, need to be compared. Neither do we particularly try to prove or negate the fact of the existence in these people of these variations. So, then, maybe Group C also has notions of a God among its list of notions while Groups A and B do not. This is just more variation. The universe manifests itself as it does and answers to no one.
I gently ask, how can an atheist ask for more than this as explanation for a Christian's notion of God, without expecting more from a universe that just IS?
Last edited by sylvianfisher; 06-11-2016 at 03:54 PM..
I believe in the God of the Christian bible. And Jesus, so I am Christian. I was baptized a while back. It is faith that I have, faith being a choice that spites and annoys logic and science, doesn’t it? I am knowingly putting all of my eggs in the faith basket. I also believe in the model of reincarnation. Ok, maybe it’s an avocation, like following sports. I am also a guy who can detach from my beliefs to enjoy the mental gymnastics of a good conversation, when I am able, and I have a playful imagination.
Reincarnation is not a Christian doctrine so you are borrowing that from elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I [am] suggest[ing] that what befalls people’s minds (their very thoughts and conclusions) are the result of, yes, a material physical process. This means we are not responsible for our own thoughts and conclusions. In this atheistic model I have attempted to describe, how can we ever be responsible for them?
By choosing to be. Part of that choice is our need as social creatures for social reciprocity and empathy from others. If I am irresponsible then I will be sanctioned and shunned in various ways, so it's in my rational self interest to be responsible. And that is only if I'm a sociopath. If I'm not, then I also have my own conscience to answer to.
Philosophically of course we can debate the merits of determinism and the existence of free will and the difference between that and relative freedom of choice. But practically speaking, I choose to be a responsible actor to the best of my ability because it helps produce the sort of civil society I prefer to live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvianfisher
I’m going to try to add onto my proposal, rambling on some more, by offering the following. Again, I am typing unrehearsed on this Reply screen:
If a number of random people on earth find they have a liking for volleyball as common among their individual list of notions, such that I'll call them Group A, while Group B all prefer the color blue, and Group C all hate cheese, and Group D has no opinion on any of that but all are compelled to study rocks, it is easy for us to see how none of these disparate notions, these variations, need to be compared. Neither do we particularly try to prove or negate the fact of the existence in these people of these variations. So, then, maybe Group C also has notions of a God among its list of notions while Groups A and B do not. This is just more variation. The universe manifests itself as it does and answers to no one.
I gently ask, how can an atheist ask for more than this as explanation for a Christian's notion of God, without expecting more from a universe that just IS?
We can't, and don't. Such questions only arise when a Christian tries to make their notion of god normative, binding or incumbent on people outside their group, or when they attempt to argue that we should believe as they do, or when they condemn or stereotype people who don't believe as they do.
Reincarnation is not a Christian doctrine so you are borrowing that from elsewhere.
I'm not being a smarta** but I am aware I did not read about it in the Christian Bible. Only later did I hear discussion of bible verses that are suggestive of reincarnation. At this time I am reminded that the 66 books of this Bible were selected for inclusion by editors who had a larger body of information from which to select.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
By choosing to be. Part of that choice is our need as social creatures for social reciprocity and empathy from others. If I am irresponsible then I will be sanctioned and shunned in various ways, so it's in my rational self interest to be responsible. And that is only if I'm a sociopath. If I'm not, then I also have my own conscience to answer to.
Philosophically of course we can debate the merits of determinism and the existence of free will and the difference between that and relative freedom of choice. But practically speaking, I choose to be a responsible actor to the best of my ability because it helps produce the sort of civil society I prefer to live in.
In my proposed model, you choose nothing. What you deem as choices are the physical product of an endless swirl of physical motions. You have no creative force that you initiate. There are no creators. Not in the universe of IS. Rational self-interest is a natural effect of the swirl, not random or selected, but exactly caused in you.
If there is debate about this model, it is the swirl doing that to you/us, in accordance with the model.
I'll even continue to say that our thoughts that persist in our thinking are merely surviving the onslaught of addition motions. Some thoughts do get modified. Other thoughts just fade away, not necessary overwritten in our brain matter but have receded from immediacy by the effects of other motions.
Ha, The Persistence of Memory. Somebody stop me before I have a good time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
We can't, and don't. Such questions only arise when a Christian tries to make their notion of god normative, binding or incumbent on people outside their group, or when they attempt to argue that we should believe as they do, or when they condemn or stereotype people who don't believe as they do.
Best answer ever, well said. And in that answer I do not find friction with my model. I suggest it be acknowledged that my Christian beliefs cannot be voided with well-known reasoned secular thinking, as they are a fact of the universe, borne of the universe. In the model of the Universe-of-IS, that is. Science. They exist. Accept them as real, not delusions or fiction.
Now, I can hear anyone saying at this point, "So, ok, you have argued to justify the existence of your beliefs, but not their content. What of that?"
Continuing my model, I note you are referring to the idea of influence in your last answer above, and as I type these motions on this keyboard to have a possible influencing effect of reducing ego (among its other effects), you and I do not exist as agents of influence on each other. We "think" we do, but we don't! We are just motions in the swirl. For us to be agents, we'd have to own creative power outside of the physical cause and effect of the physical universe. We do not own anything. We cannot. It's a physical universe. What we call influence and choice and responsibility is merely the mindless power of the universe doing its thing.
Unless you wish to argue for an extra-universe force at work...
Last edited by sylvianfisher; 06-11-2016 at 11:00 PM..
I believe in the God of the Christian bible. And Jesus, so I am Christian. I was baptized a while back. It is faith that I have, faith being a choice that spites and annoys logic and science, doesn’t it? I am knowingly putting all of my eggs in the faith basket. I also believe in the model of reincarnation. Ok, maybe it’s an avocation, like following sports. I am also a guy who can detach from my beliefs to enjoy the mental gymnastics of a good conversation, when I am able, and I have a playful imagination.
Someone had asked me in this thread what is my reason for believing in God. This got me to thinking that, for as long as this question will ever be asked, and instead of going the usual and expected route in response that other Christians no doubt have offered before, I will explore if an atheistic model can explain to atheists my reason for believing in God. I am not saying I actually believe the proposal I wrote and to which you are referring. Rather, I am exercising my imaginative mind to set aside my own Christianity and embrace for discussion what I assume is an important atheistic concept model that the universe just IS.
I wrote that proposal to suggest that what befalls people’s minds (their very thoughts and conclusions) are the result of, yes, a material physical process. This means we are not responsible for our own thoughts and conclusions. In this atheistic model I have attempted to describe, how can we ever be responsible for them?
I’m going to try to add onto my proposal, rambling on some more, by offering the following. Again, I am typing unrehearsed on this Reply screen:
If a number of random people on earth find they have a liking for volleyball as common among their individual list of notions, such that I'll call them Group A, while Group B all prefer the color blue, and Group C all hate cheese, and Group D has no opinion on any of that but all are compelled to study rocks, it is easy for us to see how none of these disparate notions, these variations, need to be compared. Neither do we particularly try to prove or negate the fact of the existence in these people of these variations. So, then, maybe Group C also has notions of a God among its list of notions while Groups A and B do not. This is just more variation. The universe manifests itself as it does and answers to no one.
I gently ask, how can an atheist ask for more than this as explanation for a Christian's notion of God, without expecting more from a universe that just IS?
Thank you. It may seem a redundant query but are you also a believer in a god as well as in Jesus and the Bible (believe me, one does not guarantee the other ) and what does 'God' mean to you?
The thread is about evidence, and the evidence through the databank and the logic circuits will be accessed as soon as we are sure what the claim is.
I'm not being a smarta** but I am aware I did not readonn the grounds that it contradicts Genesis.ut it in the Christian Bible. Only later did I hear discussion of bible verses that are suggestive of reincarnation. At this time I am reminded that the 66 books of this Bible were selected for inclusion by editors who had a larger body of information from which to select.
Ah. Interpretation. That bodes well for not rejecting valid evidence (e.g for evolution) o the grounds that ii contradicts Genesis.
Quote:
In my proposed model, you choose nothing. What you deem as choices are the physical product of an endless swirl of physical motions. You have no creative force that you initiate. There are no creators. Not in the universe of IS. Rational self-interest is a natural effect of the swirl, not random or selected, but exactly caused in you.
If there is debate about this model, it is the swirl doing that to you/us, in accordance with the model.
I'll even continue to say that our thoughts that persist in our thinking are merely surviving the onslaught of addition motions. Some thoughts do get modified. Other thoughts just fade away, not necessary overwritten in our brain matter but have receded from immediacy by the effects of other motions.
Ha, The Persistence of Memory. Somebody stop me before I have a good time!
In my model (science is gradually coming around to it, but I don't anticipate a Nobel nomination ) all this is explainable in terms of evolved instinct, or what is yet unexplained.
Quote:
Best answer ever, well said. And in that answer I do not find friction with my model. I suggest it be acknowledged that my Christian beliefs cannot be voided with well-known reasoned secular thinking, as they are a fact of the universe, borne of the universe. In the model of the Universe-of-IS, that is. Science. They exist. Accept them as real, not delusions or fiction.
Now, I can hear anyone saying at this point, "So, ok, you have argued to justify the existence of your beliefs, but not their content. What of that?"
Continuing my model, I note you are referring to the idea of influence in your last answer above, and as I type these motions on this keyboard to have a possible influencing effect of reducing ego (among its other effects), you and I do not exist as agents of influence on each other. We "think" we do, but we don't! We are just motions in the swirl. For us to be agents, we'd have to own creative power outside of the physical cause and effect of the physical universe. We do not own anything. We cannot. It's a physical universe. What we call influence and choice and responsibility is merely the mindless power of the universe doing its thing.
Unless you wish to argue for an extra-universe force at work...
I'll leave this one to Mordant. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "I have no idea what you just said".
I'll leave this one to Mordant. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "I have no idea what you just said".
It's word salad to me, too, particularly this late at night.
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.
) and what does 'God' mean to you?
) all this is explainable in terms of evolved instinct, or what is yet unexplained. 
