God exists only in your mind!!!

[wesmorris]

The problem with the mind as the sole and final arbiter is notoriously that there are as many minds as there may be right or wrongs, which on occasion is wonderfully convenient. Saves having to wonder what a fair trial would consist of.

No I wouldn't say so, more like it exposes that the notion of "fair" is largely based in fantasy and irrelevant - however suckish that may seem.

If therefore I simply do not wish to worry for your burden of the decision I shall reserve the right not to bother.

"My" burden isn't in question. You made a general statement, I replied generally. You don't have to make weak excuses to cop out of an argument where your beliefs are challenged, but you can obviously reserve the right to do so.

*smirk*

Do have fun though, in the mean time.

--- Ron.

For some reason I can't help thinking you basically just said "so long, and thanks for all the fish".

So long then.

If you wouldn't mind terribly before you go... I'm more curious about your reaction to what I considered the more substanitive points made above:

“ Originally Posted by perplexity
Pertinent to who or what? ”



A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.


“ One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it. ”



One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.


“ Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong. ”



Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?

How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?

 

[perplexity]

“Pertinent to who or what? ”

A clear comprehension of the organizational relationship in question.

“ One may just as well say that a notion of mind requires a God to create it. ”

One may not if one has no mind with which to formulate such a statement.

“ Seems to me that mind is preferred because of the sheer vanity of it, the claim of the self to make and own the mind, hence of course the convenience of being the sole and final arbiter of all that is right or wrong. ”

Or it could be simply that implicit to every word ever uttered is a source of the utterance. Hehe, you even need a "self" for self-loathing, no?
How is asserting "god" less vain that asserting self, eh?

My proposition was that so long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

If you are now proposing that a sufficiient number assert, that is another kettle of fish to sniff at.

It is not so bad to be selfless or mindless. Some people practice diligently to achieve it as an end.

--- Ron.

 

[wesmorris]

My proposition was that so long as a sufficent number people accept something as a truth, then it stands as such.

Isn't it really just "truth" to those who comprise the sufficient number? Doesn't "truth" require context?

If you are now proposing that a sufficiient number assert, that is another kettle of fish to sniff at.

If something is accepted as in, proven subjectively to be "truth", is that not license to assert?

It is not so bad to be selfless or mindless. Some people practice diligently to achieve it as an end.

--- Ron.

There is no such thing as "selfless" or "mindless" so long as one makes claims to either - for such a state is extinguished upon its proclamation.

For instance to say "I am selfless" is self-negating as I'm sure you could see. There must have existed a self to make the proclamation.

The same would follow for "mindless".

The selfless or mindless have nothing at all to say.

 

[perplexity]

It's a bit like evolution (another thing theist idiots like yourself refute due to emotional connections with your imaginary friend), we don't understand everything about evolution and how it works, but we know that it happens.

I am not a theist, nor did I say that I am.

I think deep down, you yourself know that you only believe in this 'soul' crap because you have an emotional need to. You won't admit it to me, or anyone here, but we both know it is the truth.

I do not believe in any soul crap, nor did I say that I do.

Saying that the "mind" is immaterial is like saying that the workings of a computer are "immaterial".

If I may suggest it is more like saying that when you tap the keyboard to speak your mind the current within the transistors is a negligible factor.

--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

Isn't it really just "truth" to those who comprise the sufficient number? Doesn't "truth" require context?

Yes.

For most intents and purposes the context is the truth.

If something is accepted as in, proven subjectively to be "truth", is that not license to assert?

No.

There is no such thing as "selfless" or "mindless" so long as one makes claims to either - for such a state is extinguished upon its proclamation.

For instance to say "I am selfless" is self-negating as I'm sure you could see. There must have existed a self to make the proclamation.

Don't worry.

No need to say "selfless" for my benefit.

The same would follow for "mindless".

The selfless or mindless have nothing at all to say.

Yes indeed.

That is one of the very best things about it.

Imagine the relief...!!!

--- Ron.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Blimey, I've been away for a day and the discussion has moved on some!

Having "true awe and respect for nature" doesn't make me anything... druid, theist or otherwise.

So, what are you having 'true awe and respect' for? The inevitable outcome of a blind inanimate process? Or the 'ingenuity' expressed in nature? Whatever - I'm glad.

the same could be said about smoking crack.

Smoking crack generally has a negative effect on people's lives, hence I would discourage anyone from doing it. Taking some exercise generally has a positive effect, so it's a good thing to do. Spirituality/religion follows the same rules. If it enhances your life, then do it!

prove this. I was under the impression that people observed phenomenon, used their existing knowledge to produce a hypothesis, devised tests that would likely disprove their hypothesis if it was wrong, and peer reviewing their hypothesis until it was reasonable to use it as a model of reality until a better theory could replace it.

Well, that's the neat classical model of progress they teach you at school. In reality it's not quite like that! There's a lot more argument in science, and imagination! A good example is Murray Gell-Mann's theory of quarks, which even he at one time believed was just a mathematical abstraction it was so unbelievable.

Another is Dirac's equation which predicted the existence of antimatter. Again he thought this so unbelievable (and so did everyone else) that he ignored the prediction, presuming his equation to be just a useful mathematical tool unrelated to reality. He famously said after antimatter was observed that his equation was "cleverer than he was".

A current example is "Brane Cosmology", which is really out to lunch with the fairies, and what is more it may never be "provable". However, it's elegant and coherent and fantastical!

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to. All of the atheists I have ever talk to are of the same point of view here. atheists don't believe in things before they are proved. they also don't disbelieve things. atheists, like myself, simply keep on open mind about all things, but wont accept them as reality/truth until evidence is provided. the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.

Well, as I keep having to say (yawn), there is plenty of evidence for theism, the problem is it is in the area of individual subjective experience. Such evidence cannot be shared - it's the problem of qualia! Science is crap at evaluating any evidence that is not objective and not predictably repeatable!

It doesn't matter whether or not the scientific community accepted the ideas in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Constructing new dogma is not the goal of a good scientific treatise. Presenting new models and theories about our world is. Presenting supporting rationale and evidence is even better.

Believe it if you want Godless, I won't stop you! 'Hearing voices' is not my idea of religion but if it is yours, and Jayne's theory helps you in dismissing them, then great! As I said, if something enhances your life - do it!

 

[c7ityi_]

All the stuff 'outside the mind' forms our mind in the first place...

how do you know? it could be the opposite: the mind forms the "stuff outside our mind."

 

[Provita]

Why are people so afraid to let "God" go???
... because its burned in your mind!!!,..and its been transferred from generation to generation through a series of mind programming ..yet its still only in our heads!!! and wars are still waged over it!!!,..why can't we face reality and conclude that the mathematical probablilty of finding "God",..in person is far less than finding aliens on a another world in our own galaxy !!

So u admit God exists

 

[KennyJC]

how do you know? it could be the opposite: the mind forms the "stuff outside our mind."

Despite the obvious power of the brain, I don't think it can simulate an entire universe.

So, what are you having 'true awe and respect' for? The inevitable outcome of a blind inanimate process? Or the 'ingenuity' expressed in nature? Whatever - I'm glad.

I wouldn't call it 'inanimate', but why can't it be both blind and ingenuitive? (if that is a word)

 

[cato]

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.

I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.

 

[Godless]

Believe it if you want Godless, I won't stop you! 'Hearing voices' is not my idea of religion but if it is yours

I don't believe in anything, the evidence has been shown, god's origin comes from hearing voices in ancient men heads. Read your godamn bible, and see how many pathetic quotes go from "hearing the voice of god" to having visions of angels and gods"

Thus truly proven, the origins of god, religion, and the ilk comes from premature developed minds.

Godless

 

[cato]

I would not say that the evidence is conclusive, or even credible. however, the accounts of "visions" and the like, are consistent with mental illness.

 

[c7ityi_]

Despite the obvious power of the brain, I don't think it can simulate an entire universe.

I don't think the brain created the universe, brain is "matter" too, you know. I think the mind creates the brain. The brain is a tool for consciousness to express itself more, it's not the source of consciousness.

 

[cato]

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.

I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.

still waiting

 

[LiveInFaith]

Brain; didnt form mind, it is merely a machine where works of mind take place, controlled by mind (concious neuron). At an instance of time before one dies, and at an instance of time after one dies, the same brain is there. But it cannot be ignited anymore, since the mind has gone. Indeed, the whole body system off (concious and subconcious), and never could be on again. Computer could be turned on again.

This begs a question of dead person's mind: gone somewhere, totally lost into nothing, or converted?

If mind is a matter, into what form it is converted? (as matter could not be totally lost but only be converted into other form of matter/energy).

As for the brain (and most of the body parts), they will obviously be decomposed, but then I wonder, why bones not so easily be decomposed? Because it contains material not easily be decomposed. Yes, but why would it contains that material? Why should the material there, forming the bones?

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence? atheists tend to believe what evidence and cogent reason point them to.

still waiting

Atheist live in the world of 'HOW", because science can explain the "HOW" based on observation upon repetitive events and symptomps (defined as evidence); thus after events.

But when it comes to "WHY", the before events things, how could we observe ? Everything will be speculative then, so what would you consider criteria for something being true?

Evidence, all it has to do is regarding HOW.

You could find evidence when regarding HOW IT WORKS. But WHY IT WORKS THAT WAY.... what evidence should be presented ?

We just take for granted why universe works it's way.

 

[Sarkus]

Brain; didnt form mind, it is merely a machine where works of mind take place, controlled by mind (concious neuron).

Evidence please.

At an instance of time before one dies, and at an instance of time after one dies, the same brain is there. But it cannot be ignited anymore, since the mind has gone.

You have this the wrong way round. The "mind" has gone because the brain has deteriorated to such a point that it can not work.

This begs a question of dead person's mind: gone somewhere, totally lost into nothing, or converted?

If you insist on seeing the "mind" as a physical entity, then you are the one who must provide the evidence to support it.
If, however, you see "mind" as an abstraction to describe the processes that go on inside someone's head, then it is quite clear that this "mind" does not exist and thus does not need to go anywhere - it IS the processes of the brain. No brain - no mind. No brain processes - no mind.

As for the brain (and most of the body parts), they will obviously be decomposed, but then I wonder, why bones not so easily be decomposed? Because it contains material not easily be decomposed. Yes, but why would it contains that material? Why should the material there, forming the bones?

It's called EVOLUTION.

Atheist live in the world of 'HOW", because science can explain the "HOW" based on observation upon repetitive events and symptomps (defined as evidence); thus after events.

Yes - and our observations of "How" also lead to predictions of future events.

But when it comes to "WHY", the before events things, how could we observe ? Everything will be speculative then, so what would you consider criteria for something being true?

Evidence, all it has to do is regarding HOW.

You could find evidence when regarding HOW IT WORKS. But WHY IT WORKS THAT WAY.... what evidence should be presented ?

We just take for granted why universe works it's way.

Why is it not sufficient to say: It works... because it does?
Why must there be a "Why"?

It is because people are not content with just being that they come up with the "why" for themselves - with zero chance of ever finding evidence to support that "why".

So what makes one such person's "why" any more valid than another person's "why"?

And why do you need a "why"?

 

[perplexity]

Why is it not sufficient to say: It works... because it does?
Why must there be a "Why"?

It is because people are not content with just being that they come up with the "why" for themselves - with zero chance of ever finding evidence to support that "why".

So what makes one such person's "why" any more valid than another person's "why"?

And why do you need a "why"?

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.

---- Ron.

 

[LiveInFaith]

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.

---- Ron.

could just that be, one needs, or needs not, the "why". But fact is, somehow "why" questions appear in people's mind. It may deserve answer, although some people may think it's not needed to.

So because there is zero chance of having objective answer, then just ignore the "why" question?

 

[Sarkus]

Because of choice.

If follows from why do this or that instead.

We're not talking about micro-situations of "why have brown bread instead of white?" - or even "why do I need to follow rules?". These can be answered simply enough.

But answers to all those can be answered with further "why do this?" - and ultimately you'll boil it down to the most fundamental question:

"Why are we here?"

Even if there was evidence that there is a "why" (which there isn't), such questions can never be answered - and thus it is futile to ask.

You can feel free to impose your own subjective reasoning for your existence if you so wish.
But without evidence to support it...

 

[cato]

what would you consider criteria for something being true? evidence?...

I am still waiting for theists to answer this question. I think it is fair.
”

still waiting

you didn't answer my question. I want to know by what criteria you judge something to be truth/real. your religion for example.