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.
I see, you "no comprendo." Not to worry, we completely understand your intellectual limitations. No one is judging you.
More (arrogant) psychobabble. You are, to a degree, amusing, however. Next thing you know, green kryptonite will be your true god of the altenate universe in the inverse alternate universe of nutlandia. I suggest you dismount your high-horse and stop trying to fool people with your gibber-speak. Nobody is.
BTW. there is NOTHING in most of your posts to comprehend.
With all DUE respect, your posts belong in a science fiction forum.
Actually, I not only do not wish to live forever, but I also have trouble contemplating living that long without boredom setting in eventually. I just know enough about the composition of our Reality currently that makes it extremely difficult to imagine how the energy I am transforming into "ME" can die. I actually exist as a cohesive energy field produced by the resonant synaptic firings into the spacetime field by my brain. Like the flames of a fire, those firings do not remain in the matter of the brain any more than actual flames remain in the matter of the combustibles that produce them. They reside in the spacetime field.
Given that, I know of no death processes by which they can ever be dissipated by anything, absorbed by anything, decomposed by anything, reflected by anything, or otherwise transformed from its existing consciousness form. Apparently, you can with your knowledge of the relevant science.
All well and good except that you then imbue this energy field with "Beliefs about this god"....just what you rant about that others are only objecting to.
Your "beliefs about god" include that this energy field is filled with agape love and, not only that, but able to assimilate only those bits of undissipated energy that coalesces with it.
Seems like the negative energy disappears into that "black hole" that so conveniently exists??
(I don't always write well....maybe someone else can understand and pick this up?)
All well and good except that you then imbue this energy field with "Beliefs about this god"....just what you rant about that others are only objecting to.
Your "beliefs about god" include that this energy field is filled with agape love and, not only that, but able to assimilate only those bits of undissipated energy that coalesces with it.
Seems like the negative energy disappears into that "black hole" that so conveniently exists??
(I don't always write well....maybe someone else can understand and pick this up?)
The only problem is ... He doesn't actually ignore the negative energy part. He seems to, he told me as such when I asked about it, choose focusing on the positive energy part and address the bad stuff quite clearly. It seems that our side ignores the totality of what he saying.
Yes, we are all guilty to a degree about our beliefs. So what process do you have to sort out who may telling us some reliable beliefs?
Odd how easily you atheists ignore your complicity in the repeated conflicts and explanations from YOUR intransigence, pretending that only the theists are unjustifiedly intransigent in their views. Since you identify as an atheist, your atheism becomes a significant part of how you identify yourself, which leaves no room for the existence of God. Thus. your demand for an atheist default, rejection of the panentheistic and other such evidence-based religious beliefs about God, and your continued intransigence and need to repeatedly confront those boring confrontations with your explanations of your default.
Interesting...
I wonder how you would expect any atheist to "allow room for the existence of God." How do you expect someone to "allow room" for a belief in something for which no valid evidence exists? In the same way do you expect a person who believes the Earth to be round, to "allow room for the existence" of a flat Earth? Might as well ask we all "allow room" for whatever anyone wants to believe.
Some of us just can't do that as easily as it seems you can. Some of us require a bit more than mere say so...
All the rest of your heavy rhetoric only seems to forever demonstrate you don't really understand where the fundamental issue or disconnect really exists. It's all about what evidence people like you consider valid as compared to atheists like me. Nothing personal. No intransigence. Not how we identify ourselves. Not a default. Simply a difference in how we establish, understand and/or confirm what is valid evidence and what is not.
actually regarding bold above, i disagree.
it was not the science that caused him to believe. Rather, it was the experience he had during his encounter that is the cornerstone of his belief. That was the catalyst.
the science he sought later as an "explanation." but his belief is founded, grounded, and rooted in his first-hand individual experience.
that is how I understand it from reading his posts over the years.
perhaps he can check in and let us know if that is represented accurately. we're talking about MstcPd, right?
There is no question whatsoever that my belief emanates from my experiences. The science simply confirms those experiences by providing plausible explanations for how they could possibly be real. Without the science, I would still believe but would have no clue how the hell it could possibly be real.
There is no question whatsoever that my belief emanates from my experiences. The science simply confirms those experiences by providing plausible explanations for how they could possibly be real. Without the science, I would still believe but would have no clue how the hell it could possibly be real.
What you mean is you had an experience, and sought out supporting kibbles and bits of unrelated and inapplicable sciencey nuggets that you cobbled together into a bias confirming stew. Your irrationally was trowled on to the bathroom wall, you sought out the tiles to finish the job. Nice color scheme! All mixed up.
I wonder how you would expect any atheist to "allow room for the existence of God." How do you expect someone to "allow room" for a belief in something for which no valid evidence exists? In the same way do you expect a person who believes the Earth to be round, to "allow room for the existence" of a flat Earth? Might as well ask we all "allow room" for whatever anyone wants to believe.
That is really obtuse. It is NOT a question of whether or not God exists. You are rejecting that what DOES EXIST is God with no conceivable way to make any such determination, especially given its inscrutable ontology. It is why science uses neutral terms, refuses even to address its ontology, and deals only with its discoverable attributes. Your puerile attempts to associate theistic views of what DOES EXIST with nonsense like Flat Earth or any other easily refuted beliefs is disingenuous.
It is NOT and can NOT be established that what DOES EXIST is NOT God relative to us, especially as long as our attribute of sentience EXISTS as part and parcel of it. We are not attributing an attribute that is not known to exist. Your measurement burden is to establish that a known attribute of our existence is NOT an attribute of the whole. Your composition fallacy nonsense ASSUMES everything is separate. My view ASSUMES everything is ONE and you have no way to substantiate your assumption over mine since we do NOT know its ontology. The problem for you is that we cannot directly measure the presence of sentience in any particular manifestation or volume of spacetime let alone its entirety because we must query it.
Quote:
Some of us just can't do that as easily as it seems you can. Some of us require a bit more than mere say so...
Horse manure! Our Reality is NOT comprised ONLY of what science can MEASURE. All your assumptions about the ontology of what science IS measuring are your say so because science is mum on its ontology. It is and must remain NEUTRAL on the issue.
Quote:
All the rest of your heavy rhetoric only seems to forever demonstrate you don't really understand where the fundamental issue or disconnect really exists. It's all about what evidence people like you consider valid as compared to atheists like me. Nothing personal. No intransigence. Not how we identify ourselves. Not a default. Simply a difference in how we establish, understand, and/or confirm what is valid evidence and what is not.
You are the one who is oblivious to the fundamental issue or disconnect. It's NOT about the validity of evidence. It is about what it is evidence OF!!!! Your ASSUMPTION is no more valid than mine about its ontology. Your quibbling about the validity of some of the attributes in the myriad religious BELIEFS ABOUT God has no bearing on the purely empirical issue of the ontology of what science is collecting evidence about.
That is really obtuse. It is NOT a question of whether or not God exists. You are rejecting that what DOES EXIST is God with no conceivable way to make any such determination, especially given its inscrutable ontology. It is why science uses neutral terms, refuses even to address its ontology, and deals only with its discoverable attributes. Your puerile attempts to associate theistic views of what DOES EXIST with nonsense like Flat Earth or any other easily refuted beliefs is disingenuous.
It is NOT and can NOT be established that what DOES EXIST is NOT God relative to us, especially as long as our attribute of sentience EXISTS as part and parcel of it. We are not attributing an attribute that is not known to exist. Your measurement burden is to establish that a known attribute of our existence is NOT an attribute of the whole. Your composition fallacy nonsense ASSUMES everything is separate. My view ASSUMES everything is ONE and you have no way to substantiate your assumption over mine since we do NOT know its ontology. The problem for you is that we cannot directly measure the presence of sentience in any particular manifestation or volume of spacetime let alone its entirety because we must query it. Horse manure! Our Reality is NOT comprised ONLY of what science can MEASURE. All your assumptions about the ontology of what science IS measuring are your say so because science is mum on its ontology. It is and must remain NEUTRAL on the issue. You are the one who is oblivious to the fundamental issue or disconnect. It's NOT about the validity of evidence. It is about what it is evidence OF!!!! Your ASSUMPTION is no more valid than mine about its ontology. Your quibbling about the validity of some of the attributes in the myriad religious BELIEFS ABOUT God has no bearing on the purely empirical issue of the ontology of what science is collecting evidence about.
C’mon, you can’t believe this nonsense. You just can’t. There’s no evidence of souls or spirits or deities or afterlives. Everything is not oneness. There is no mystery ontology. There are no ineffable entities. Grow up already. The scientific methodology handles EVERYTHING. If it doesn’t interface with reality in an observable and detectable and measurable way, just stop talking about it, because it doesn’t exist.
It’s really ok and cool to be a temporary entity. Because no matter how much woo trash you pile up, you’re still left with a garbage dump.
I mean, really already... between you and the arachnid. C’mon people wake up. Your soul is the creative force you apply while you are alive and functional. That’s it. There ain’t nothing beyond this little party. It’s now or never. Grow up and do stuff. The minute you die, your soul is like a driver’s license from 1966. It’s EXPIRED!!!
C’mon, you can’t believe this nonsense. You just can’t. There’s no evidence of souls or spirits or deities or afterlives. Everything is not oneness. There is no mystery ontology. There are no ineffable entities. Grow up already. The scientific methodology handles EVERYTHING. If it doesn’t interface with reality in an observable and detectable and measurable way, just stop talking about it, because it doesn’t exist.
It’s really ok and cool to be a temporary entity. Because no matter how much woo trash you pile up, you’re still left with a garbage dump.
I mean, really already... between you and the arachnid. C’mon people wake up. Your soul is the creative force you apply while you are alive and functional. That’s it. There ain’t nothing beyond this little party. It’s now or never. Grow up and do stuff. The minute you die, your soul is like a driver’s license from 1966. It’s EXPIRED!!!
arachbid phobia. You sound just like a person that has an unrealistic fear of spiders. The simple fact is that we are part of a larger more complex system than just marc. We act more like a system than isolated parts.
That is just the facts marc ... Forming a belief by ignoring those facts means you are just using blind faith.
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.
