So, you think reality is forced on you and you prefer religious fantasies, instead. Of course, indoctrination is what rules that kind of worldview, not choices.
The irrelevance of God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
So, you think reality is forced on you and you prefer religious fantasies, instead. Of course, indoctrination is what rules that kind of worldview, not choices.
Sorry dude, but your contrived story is not convincing in the least, it only serves to show how crazy you are.
Answer to what?
Of course not, what you say here is just insane fabricated nonsense. Only a moron would believe anything you say.
No problem, even if that were true, it's way better than being insane and showing everyone that insanity.
Oh yes, the insane are completely convinced their hallucinations are real.
The definition of atheist is someone who does not believe in God or deities. To them God is irrelevent by definition. Beyond that, atheism says nothing about having to be rational or capable of critical thinking. There is only a singular condition for membership. Conceptually, an atheist can do everything a religious person does, in terms of faith and dogmatic appeal and insistence, as long as it does not involve classic deities. It can involve human deities; idol worship.
Without classic Gods, which are above and therefore define what is right for humans, with atheists this is all done by humans who often appeal to the imagination.
The mistake theists make in arguing with atheist is assuming you are arguing with rational people. Even if most scientists are atheists not all atheists are scientists or b>>a. The vast majority are subject to all the conditions of religion minus the classic deities. You really need to approach them as people with relative religion without absolute deities; chance and chaos.
Without classic Gods, which are above and therefore define what is right for humans, with atheists this is all done by humans who often appeal to the imagination.
The mistake theists make in arguing with atheist is assuming you are arguing with rational people. Even if most scientists are atheists not all atheists are scientists or b>>a. The vast majority are subject to all the conditions of religion minus the classic deities. You really need to approach them as people with relative religion without absolute deities; chance and chaos.
Atheism is a mental-spiritual disease as you can see from many of their posts. It is a sign that something has gone wrong in their consciousness. Like something in their brain died. Atheists think their sane, but the opposite is actually true. They should be avoided by all normal humans.
Say you had a dream, which we all have had on occation. You recall this dream in detail and relate it to an audience. There is no way to prove the details you relate were the ones you saw in the dream, even if you saw these. The dreamer could be a top notch scientist who witnessed his own dream. He can be noted for perfect reproduction of observed data. But even though this is all true, it still can't be proven, using by the book techniques of science. Others can't directly witness it.
Others, who have had dreams and can recall their own details and patterns, may be able to infer your dream is both possible and probably since it is consistent with their own dream data. But again, it can't be proven like a tangible thing that others can directly see. There will be a disconnect, since science starts to break down within the realm of the mind and consciousness.
Someone can have a vision or hallucination, and this can be valid observational data of internal processes. But since science breaks down in the realm of the mind, it very difficult to prove using by the book procedures. The taboo that appears, when you relate this realm of data, is a smoke screen used to hide the fact science get soft.
LOL. Yes, thanks for pointing out that I'm not insane.
Haha no, You don't get it at all.
Some ideas are forced on humans, the data is so thorough and thoroughly testable, it is considered objective. Drop something, it will fall. Basic. There is no negative connotation to being forced in this way to see things. The problem for many people is that they think everything is this easy, that their philosophical ideas have the same accountability to data, which is actually way off the mark.
The point that seems to be missed around here is that my attaching certain special qualities to the dog is a type of philosophical faith, not based on data. The dog seeming to show affection that is more than just survival is easily explained AWAY by calling it pack survival behavior, so I have a choice to make regarding how I will view the animal, no matter how nice he is, one can always just say it was pure instinct and nothing more. It is an interpretation.The difference is that you're dog exists and also seems to show affection that is more than just survival. Now if you think that perhaps you dog is God and that's why it's more than survival that might be more applicable
and people not on the path of devotion see problems with that path anyway, whether they are worldly or less worldly. I know that is not my path, so I have issues imagining myself in the situation of a pure devotee. I think the yogic paths are a good example for different types of people to go along their way without being confused that they won't fit in on someone else's path. Some of us are better suited to the jnana path (for example) then the Bhakti path, although it does seem to be good to borrow from the less prominent abilities as well, and not just say, "I'm THIS, so I don't have to do any of THAT."
It just seems very odd to use the word 'forced' because it automatically asserts a negative connotation. But, I do get what you're saying.
That's why philosophical ideas are entirely subjective and often can't be distinguished from fantasy or delusion.
All you managed to accomplish is provide evidence as to why reasonable people reject your religion.