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.
Entire thread only proves how box minded the esteemed posters are.
Respectfully of course.
WDF IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE GOD? Why it simply can not be Consciousness? It's "god" or aliens. Is that how far your minds go? Science proves cosmic Consciousness and it is immediately labeled as god?
Seriously, people....
You have consciousness and that makes a significant difference from anything else that exists. It means you have a personhood. If our entire reality is consciousness, it has a personhood, and that would be God.
Entire thread only proves how box minded the esteemed posters are.
Respectfully of course.
WDF IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE GOD? Why it simply can not be Consciousness? It's "god" or aliens. Is that how far your minds go? Science proves cosmic Consciousness and it is immediately labeled as god?
Seriously, people....
We are not fighting just atheist here right? We are fighting people that have some kind of axe to grind too. So I am just an atheist that answers to observation, not a belief statement.
That being said.
If we claim we are in something alive that doesn't mean its a "god" as defined by the many religions. Just because the system itself is alive doesn't mean jesus walked on water or that we need to be saved.
"god", are my parents "gods" because they are the reason I am here? is the universe "god" because it is the reason I am here?
Basically, and I think you would agree, we feel religions have some really stupid rules. We also understand that we can believe we are in something alive or thinking and not have to follow a religion or anything like praising it.
Some atheists attack these notion because they are not looking for truth, they are looking to push a belief statement on others.
You have consciousness and that makes a significant difference from anything else that exists. It means you have a personhood. If our entire reality is consciousness, it has a personhood, and that would be God.
As you know, I tend to agree that we are little processors in a bigger processor. No separation between the two.
Do we need to praise this thing like religions do? Or is it something that interacts with you like you interact with one of your inner thigh cells?
Entire thread only proves how box minded the esteemed posters are.
Respectfully of course.
WDF IT ALWAYS HAS TO BE GOD? Why it simply can not be Consciousness? It's "god" or aliens. Is that how far your minds go? Science proves cosmic Consciousness and it is immediately labeled as god?
Seriously, people....
Of course we (atheists at least) consider that the most probable - indeed the default - belief, I think we may say, just as we take natural working rather than Cosmic -mind directed - as the most probable - indeed the default - belief; until some persuasive evidence comes to light.
NDE's is at the moment tipped as the most likely source of that evidence. Indeed those who already believe consider it proof and are getting petulant because we unbelievers say that it in't proof - yet.
"But what else could it be":, , and ?
Many things, some of which have been suggested. We reserve belief in the Heaven -claim until we know what's going on.
Indeed, your point is correct - why should that be proof of a god, even if of a heaven? Why proof of a heavem if an after life?
That we can't be clear about what NDE is proof of, even if it is demonstrably afterlife -ish, shows that we can't logically or honestly regard it as proof - yet.
For the believers, logical and honest isn't to do with rational view of the data. It is about accepting whatever they believe on Faith.
And that is of course a sideline to the question: if it turned out to be a god (and NDE's in themselves don't prove that) it would depend on which god iy seemed to be, and what it said.
That's why I said, if it said (communicated) some ideas that a believer didn't like, would they change their views or say "That's can't be God - if it was really God, it would agree with the god in my head."
"No, no, it is God, because it agrees with the god in my head."
"Well your god is a false god - and so is that one. And all the others. Only the one I have in my head is the true one."
"Well, then, why hasn't YOUR god proven itself?"
"Because that would nullify Faith".
I'm so glad I'm an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
Such a discovery would happen well after I'm dead. So put me (a Christian) down as a "no" since I'll be in no shape to be accepting (or rejecting) scientific evidence.
(I've no plans to have my head frozen and be put in a jar next to Ted Williams' cabeza in Scottsdale, AZ.)
We'll put that down as 'avoidance of question'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-17-2017 at 04:32 AM..
You have consciousness and that makes a significant difference from anything else that exists. It means you have a personhood. If our entire reality is consciousness, it has a personhood, and that would be God.
And if our entire reality is not conciousness, that would Not be God.
We already know that. We already know that Our Consciousness is not that unique. It is shown in the higher animals, though our problem solving is of such a high order, that I can see why that is gap for God argument.
It is also a reason why extrapolating our unique reasoning powers to the entire cosmos is a claim that not only has no shred of decent evidence, but all the evidence (tracing of animal consciousness back to very basic reactions in worms and bugs and even plants, and thus back to chemicals and particles) is against it.
You want to worship worms and bugs, be my guest. I certainly think they are amazing, just as I think atoms are amazing. But I don't use the term God, and I don't think the worms and bugs had Jesus nailed up to show us what Agape Love is.
That should just about cover the impending derail...
We are not fighting just atheist here right? We are fighting people that have some kind of axe to grind too. So I am just an atheist that answers to observation, not a belief statement.
That being said.
If we claim we are in something alive that doesn't mean its a "god" as defined by the many religions. Just because the system itself is alive doesn't mean jesus walked on water or that we need to be saved.
"god", are my parents "gods" because they are the reason I am here? is the universe "god" because it is the reason I am here?
Basically, and I think you would agree, we feel religions have some really stupid rules. We also understand that we can believe we are in something alive or thinking and not have to follow a religion or anything like praising it.
Some atheists attack these notion because they are not looking for truth, they are looking to push a belief statement on others.
I call those types religious atheist.
Arach old mate, I agreed with everything you said until the end bash of atheists.
I really cannot get my head around why, since we say just the same as what you say, you regard that as an "atheist religion".
The only clue perhaps is here: " We also understand that we can believe we are in something alive or thinking "
They can. We call it agnostic -god, God as nature, pantheism, perhaps, Deist -god or I say "Sorta-god".
Do you believe in it? I think you do and you refused to say No before. That would make you the Theist ("Religion" is a red herring) and not we atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
As you know, I tend to agree that we are little processors in a bigger processor. No separation between the two.
Do we need to praise this thing like religions do? Or is it something that interacts with you like you interact with one of your inner thigh cells?
Ahhhhh That looks like a "Yes". Mystic, could you tell us where to send his atheist membership card so you can rubber -stamp it ?
Arach old mate, I agreed with everything you said until the end bash of atheists.
I really cannot get my head around why, since we say just the same as what you say, you regard that as an "atheist religion".
The only clue perhaps is here: " We also understand that we can believe we are in something alive or thinking "
They can. We call it agnostic -god, God as nature, pantheism, perhaps, Deist -god or I say "Sorta-god".
Do you believe in it? I think you do and you refused to say No before. That would make you the Theist ("Religion" is a red herring) and not we atheists.
Ahhhhh That looks like a "Yes". Mystic, could you tell us where to send his atheist membership card so you can rubber -stamp it ?
yeah, of course you agree. I am right.
You don't like some parts of it, yeah so what, I am still right. My stance is more valid then your stance because I address people first. You stance is less valid because your stance answers to a statement of belief, not observation.
Mine makes more accurate predictions. get over it.
now, where you have me beat is in rhetoric. You can sell you less valid stance to people via pretty writing. I concede, I can only talk about "how the universe works", or how people behave. I don't have the "my personal need is better than your personal need parts down so well.
You also are a better marketer. "sortagod" is marketing to support your belief statement. If "how the universe works" is considered to you as a "sortagod", that is your problem. You can'y admit that we are in a living system is just silly to me.
My problem is stopping a belief statement from telling people how the universe works.
You have consciousness and that makes a significant difference from anything else that exists. It means you have a personhood. If our entire reality is consciousness, it has a personhood, and that would be God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And if our entire reality is not consciousness, that would Not be God.
But that would leave our consciousness nowhere to exist within the unified field, Arq. I realize you must actually think our equations can derive the state we experience as subjective experience, but I cannot even begin to imagine how we might do that.
Quote:
We already know that. We already know that Our Consciousness is not that unique. It is shown in the higher animals, though our problem solving is of such a high order, that I can see why that is gap for God argument.
It is also a reason why extrapolating our unique reasoning powers to the entire cosmos is a claim that not only has no shred of decent evidence, but all the evidence (tracing of animal consciousness back to very basic reactions in worms and bugs and even plants, and thus back to chemicals and particles) is against it.
Consciousness, itself, in whatever manifestation it exists within various species is what is unique compared to all the other processes and phenomena in our reality, Arq. There is no other phenomenon that we know of that can produce subjective experience (not chemicals, particles or whatever).
Quote:
You want to worship worms and bugs, be my guest. I certainly think they are amazing, just as I think atoms are amazing. But I don't use the term God, and I don't think the worms and bugs had Jesus nailed up to show us what Agape Love is.
You really cannot extricate yourself from this disparate individualistic view of reality. The concept of oneness seems to escape you completely.
Quote:
That should just about cover the impending derail...
How can such an open-ended OP be derailed, Arq????
But that would leave our consciousness nowhere to exist within the unified field, Arq. I realize you must actually think our equations can derive the state we experience as subjective experience, but I cannot even begin to imagine how we might do that. Consciousness, itself, in whatever manifestation it exists within various species is what is unique compared to all the other processes and phenomena in our reality, Arq. There is no other phenomenon that we know of that can produce subjective experience (not chemicals, particles or whatever). You really cannot extricate yourself from this disparate individualistic view of reality. The concept of oneness seems to escape you completely.
How can such an open-ended OP be derailed, Arq????
A derail in a discussion of your synthesis, Mystic. And I am afraid that I cannot rule out that subjective experience can be essentially a bio -mechanism. That you or I cannot imagine how doesn't mean that it can't be. There is no good reason to "extricate (myself) from this disparate individualistic view of reality." Because that is what we know. What we don't is simply unexplained.
I get the concept of One-ness. I also get the concept of equivocation and speculation.
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.
Of course we (atheists at least) consider that the most probable - indeed the default - belief, I think we may say, just as we take natural working rather than Cosmic -mind directed - as the most probable - indeed the default - belief; until some persuasive evidence comes to light.
, 
, and 
? 
That looks like a "Yes". Mystic, could you tell us where to send his atheist membership card so you can rubber -stamp it ?
