It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A challenge for the brave

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




(i) If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has. (ii) If for any property x has, y has, and for any property y has, x has, then x is identical to y.

So with this in mind I'll ask again is there a difference between you and your body? If there is not, then how can one speak of free choice and reason?



What you just said if x=y then all properties of x also = y correct? The difference between mind and body is the same as software and hardware. You can't have one without the other if you do it is dead/broken. One instructs, One interprets and enacts.

I see the mind(software) as highly adaptive programming that responds to everything around you. But it is just ever changing instructions based on experiences and events. A boxer will be more likely to dodge a beer can thrown at him because he has forced his mind to interpret incoming objects as threats and trained his body to react.

I have the freedom to program myself or let others program me. Teach myself to question based on the logic of natural laws and experience or on the acceptance of given information.




posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: rockintitz




Truth is relative. You see it here everyday.


No, truth isn't relative. There is an actually fallacy for people who claim it is, the "relativist fallacy".


K. Give me a universal truth.


Do you mean an objective truth?

The Sun is mostly comprised of hydrogen.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Rex282
From my understanding epistemology is also how you know. Asking how are we to acquire knowledge is not a red herring, especially when it was the first question asked. What could I possibly be attempting to distract you from. I simply want to find common ground with the people I am talking to and move on from there.


It is a red herring because you have proven you are not interested in a persons response but are only interested in misleading the argument to your refutation based on your Belief System rhetoric.It doesn’t matter if it is intentional or not it is the method you are using.The evidence of your methodology for arguing is well documented on ATS and it is the same method you use over and over always with the same result…you using false leading questions and attempting to exploit your own religious rhetoric.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
How do you jump from lets start at the basics to quantum mechanics?


This is just another one of your rhetorical tactics to deflect a statement of an argument you can not answer.I started at a simple quantum physics statement because it is where my argument originates.I have zero obligation to explain the origin of my opening statement unless it is not pertinent(which mine are very pertinent) to the argument and if you believe it is not ,explain why.If you want to have an intellectually honest argument you should answer my statements not question why I made them.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I agree we as humans are very limited, but I do believe there a just a few things we can know with 100% certainty ………and the existence of an external material world would not be one of those things.


So far part of this statement(2nd part….) is the only reasonable thing you’ve stated yet your argument is in contradiction with your statements because it is based on the assumption you DO know of the existence of an external world populated by your God(though you purport it is not material which is even more assumptive).Please clarify if you can.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Rex282 said:
The main difference between a theist(God believer) and an atheist(non God believer) is the theist believes in a God that does not and cannot exist because it is a byproduct of their BS and the atheist does not believe in a God at all.Therefore it is incalculably more reasonable to NOT believe in a God that does not exist than to believe in a God that does not exist.
……
Well sure if you define a theists as someone who believes in a God who does not exists then of course it would be an irrational position. I don't think this is actually how I would define theist and it seems close minded to do so.


Once again you do not seem capable of following the simple logic of a simple statement in an argument without altering what has been stated to confirm your religious bias and then tag it with insinuations of the other person being closed minded.Let me make my clear statement again so you cannot alter it.

The definition I perceive is the most commonly agreed upon:
A theist is a person who believes in a God.(end of statement)

You can agree or disagree to this simple statement.If you agree…..

The core of my statement and further explanation is:

A theist who believes in a God believes in a God that does NOT exist BECAUSE humans are not capable of KNOWING anything beyond(meta) their very, very limited perception.In other words it is impossible for a human to know a creator God through limited perception(the nature of ALL humans).Therefore a God a human is perceiving is NOT a creator God it is a false God of their Belief Systems religion.

I very seldom make personal comments to people here on ATS yet I will because of your intellectual dishonesty I am positive you are not even aware of.I’m not sure how you will twist my statement into meaning something else however I’m pretty sure you will attempt to or not respond at all and that is the futility of having an honest intellectual argument with you.You are constantly moving the goal posts to suit your agenda(and poor logic).If you posit an honest question then to be honest you must honestly argue the statement in response to it and not dodge the issues with rhetoric.

edit on 20-8-2016 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




What assumptions does the scientific method make and how do they compromise its reliability?



Well it assumes basic laws of logic and that deductive reasoning is a valid form of determining what is true.. It assumes the principle of uniformity in nature. It assumes that an external reality exists and by studying it you can acquire knowledge about some unperceived instance within the future. How do we justify all these beliefs?


By employing the scientific method a bunch of times. that's how you know your car isn't going to mysteriously turn into a pineapple on your way to work. Do you have compelling evidence that the scientific method is unreliable or broken?
edit on 20-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


But as I don't have that (my personal experiences are simply anecdotal and circumstantial, not concrete to anyone else), the best I can do is speak with my own personal conviction and you will either accept that or you will not.


That's exactly it, though! You don't "know" - you admit you don't have that evidence to "know" -

so you are saying what you THINK. And because you have a brain that functions, you realize that you don't really KNOW.
We can't KNOW.

THAT is what it means to be agnostic.
To admit that you can't and don't KNOW. And that no one else does either.

I'm sorry it's so hard for you to accept.
(Also, do not underestimate the power of your cumulative posts to very clearly 'elucidate'* who you are, and what you are
like.)

*

e·lu·ci·date
ēˈlo͞osəˌdāt/
verb
make (something) clear; explain.
"work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter"



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko


But as I don't have that (my personal experiences are simply anecdotal and circumstantial, not concrete to anyone else), the best I can do is speak with my own personal conviction and you will either accept that or you will not.


That's exactly it, though! You don't "know" - you admit you don't have that evidence to "know" -

so you are saying what you THINK. And because you have a brain that functions, you realize that you don't really KNOW.
We can't KNOW.

THAT is what it means to be agnostic.
To admit that you can't and don't KNOW. And that no one else does either.

I'm sorry it's so hard for you to accept.
(Also, do not underestimate the power of your cumulative posts to very clearly 'elucidate'* who you are, and what you are
like.)

*

e·lu·ci·date
ēˈlo͞osəˌdāt/
verb
make (something) clear; explain.
"work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter"





Is there a word for people who believe that the whole debate between intelligent design and evolution is irrelevant to the practical aspect of who we are and what we're doing here?



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Well, I believe I just proved that this is not a serious thread.

I have one of two or maybe three replies/posts that actually answered the OPs question and OP did not respond to it at all. The OP seems more interested in keeping up other arguments (as well as ones from other threads) rather than the meat of this thread.

And again, if this was a serious thread, the OP would have started by answering their own question.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: WanderingNomadd




What you just said if x=y then all properties of x also = y correct? The difference between mind and body is the same as software and hardware. You can't have one without the other if you do it is dead/broken. One instructs, One interprets and enacts.


I like this analogy I write software for a consulting company
I think it is good for relaying the difference however it does seem possible to have one without the other in situations like the Pam Reynolds case.

Not only that, but it seems you and I can easily imagine scenarios in which our mind exists and our body does not. This seems to show us that our mind x is not identical with our body y via Leibniz's law.

Now where I think we would differ is I do not believe that matter can give rise to mind. Just like hardware cannot give rise to software. Without that which is abstract hardware is nothing more than useless material.





I see the mind(software) as highly adaptive programming that responds to everything around you. But it is just ever changing instructions based on experiences and events. A boxer will be more likely to dodge a beer can thrown at him because he has forced his mind to interpret incoming objects as threats and trained his body to react.

I have the freedom to program myself or let others program me. Teach myself to question based on the logic of natural laws and experience or on the acceptance of given information.


I seem to see a bit of a contradiction here, or I may just need a clearer explanation.

In one sense you describe the mind as something similar to AI. A boxer does not choose to dodge a beer can thrown at him, it is instinct. Just like a someone who trains jiu jitsu does not think about how to do a triangle, there is an opening, and you take the submission almost automatically. If one is aware of these sensations it is quite different than consciously choosing to take a drink. Or how about when you are falling asleep and your leg jerks. You can tell that movement was done by the body not the mind.

Then you say your have freedom to reprogram yourself. Which to me sounds like you believe biology changes based upon what the mind chooses. Where does this ability to actually choose come from? I cannot tell if you think actions are made by an external agent or if you think they are the result of a previous material cause such as an electro-chemical reaction in the brain.


edit on 21-8-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282




It is a red herring because you have proven you are not interested in a persons response but are only interested in misleading the argument to your refutation based on your Belief System rhetoric.


Oh, and how have I proven that by ignoring portions of peoples responses because they ignored me when I said this thread was not for people to come and reject my position but to present their own? The question is in no way a red herring.

All I have asked is how are we to acquire knowledge(because I think most people can agree here and its a good common ground to start on). Then I asked what are the things we can say we know with 100% certainty.

My answer would be knowledge is acquired thru following the 9 rules of inference and adhering to the basic laws of logic. These must be where I begin without these things reasoning cannot occur. With this as my tool there are only three things I would say I can know for certain that would be:

1) I exist.

2) Perception is a phenomena in reality, though I am not sure what I can say about the ontology of these perceptions.

3) Logical truths.





This is just another one of your rhetorical tactics to deflect a statement of an argument you can not answer.I started at a simple quantum physics statement because it is where my argument originates.I have zero obligation to explain the origin of my opening statement unless it is not pertinent(which mine are very pertinent) to the argument and if you believe it is not ,explain why.If you want to have an intellectually honest argument you should answer my statements not question why I made them.


The Copenhagen interpretation is a truth claim in and of itself. It says that it is true that physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured. It says that the act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This is what the Copenhagen interpretation claims as reality. But how did you get from ground zero to the physical systems I perceive are real? How did you get to the idea that the Copenhagen interpretation is the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics? Isn't this limited to physical systems? How do you gain knowledge about things that are abstract such as the numbers you use to measure? I am trying to understand how and why you believe what you believe and leaping straight to that without discussing certain things first isn't going to help.. The vast majority of your post was you ranting about how Christianity is stupid. I get you believe that or your wouldn't have responded. I have no need to respond to those portions of your response.




A theist who believes in a God believes in a God that does NOT exist BECAUSE humans are not capable of KNOWING anything beyond(meta) their very, very limited perception.In other words it is impossible for a human to know a creator God through limited perception(the nature of ALL humans).Therefore a God a human is perceiving is NOT a creator God it is a false God of their Belief Systems religion.


I didn't intentionally misrepresent what you said, and this is much clearer. Why are you so hostile?

Yes the human perspective is limited. I agreed to this in my first reply. We cannot even determine whether their is truly an external material realm based solely on nothing but the fact that we perceive it as we both said earlier. However it seems nonsequitur to say because humans have a limited perspective, therefore it is impossible for a human to know a creator God. Surely if we are using a similar definition of God, he could choose to reveal himself to us in a way we could understand? So it doesn't seem to follow that the limited perspective of humans means this is impossible. Maybe you could tell me by what rule of inference this follows and give my a logical syllogism so I can understand.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




By employing the scientific method a bunch of times. that's how you know your car isn't going to mysteriously turn into a pineapple on your way to work.


But this no longer could be called deductive reasoning. We are taking multiple specific instances of what we deduce via the scientific method, and coming to a general conclusion. That is inductive reasoning, and you have shown to use two of the assumptions I pointed out earlier. You have assumed because my car doesn't magically become a pineapple as I am driving to work in the past, that it gives you good reason to believe it won't do so in an unobserved instance in the future. You assume this because you assume nature is uniform and set up to operate in a specific way. I still don't see how I am supposed to logically justify these assumptions which means I cannot say that I know these with 100% certainty. I can't even say it with 1% certainty because the issue I am describing(problem of induction) also applies to probability.




Do you have compelling evidence that the scientific method is unreliable or broken?


Nope, but I can't say I have compelling evidence that a material world exists either. Nor can I say I have compelling evidence that the scientific method is reliable. All I can say my ability to gain knowledge is extremely limited.



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89




Well, I believe I just proved that this is not a serious thread. I have one of two or maybe three replies/posts that actually answered the OPs question and OP did not respond to it at all. The OP seems more interested in keeping up other arguments (as well as ones from other threads) rather than the meat of this thread. And again, if this was a serious thread, the OP would have started by answering their own question.


What you mean I should have let everyone derail the thread by talking about Christianity when the OP explicitly states that this is not a thread for people reject my reasons but rather to provide some of their own. Note I responded to the part of your post that was on topic and explained that I wasn't going off topic to you in that same response.
edit on 21-8-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




By employing the scientific method a bunch of times. that's how you know your car isn't going to mysteriously turn into a pineapple on your way to work.


But this no longer could be called deductiv reasoning. We are taking multiple specific instances of what we deduce via the scientific method, and coming to a general conclusion. That is inductive reasoning, and you have shown to use two of the assumptions I pointed out earlier. You have assumed because my car doesn't magically become a pineapple as I am driving to work in the past, that it gives you good reason to believe it won't do so in an unobserved instance in the future. You assume this because you assume nature is uniform and set up to operate in a specific way. I still don't see how I am supposed to logically justify these assumptions which means I cannot say that I know these with 100% certainty. I can't even say it with 1% certainty because the issue I am describing(problem of induction) also applies to probability.




Do you have compelling evidence that the scientific method is unreliable or broken?


Nope, but I can't say I have compelling evidence that a material world exists either. Nor can I say I have compelling evidence that the scientific method is reliable. All I can say my ability to gain knowledge is extremely limited.


You are talking about inductive reasoning. The assumption is that if it happened once it can happen again and probably under similar circumstances. It's called probability, the reason that I assume whenever I log into this website that my account will still be here. Or the reason I assume that the sun will rise every morning. As for the material world there are plenty of extreme sports if you want something compelling. You have no compelling evidence that the scientific method is reliable? Do you live under a rock? Do you know what the scientific method is? Of course you do this isn't your first Rodeo. You have to take this seriously to expect me to.
edit on 21-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



In one sense you describe the mind as something similar to AI. A boxer does not choose to dodge a beer can thrown at him, it is instinct. Just like a someone who trains jiu jitsu does not think about how to do a triangle, there is an opening, and you take the submission almost automatically. If one is aware of these sensations it is quite different than consciously choosing to take a drink.


Ahhh, but what could be more like programming than instinct? An animal smells something in the air, feels a vibration unconciously, and that in turns sets his fight/flight mode into effect. Also programming would be heriditary. Certain programming is passed down and then built upon and potentially changed. A lion has a base set of instructions passed down through generations. Think of it like ROM. I breath, always have done, always will unless physically stopped.


Or how about when you are falling asleep and your leg jerks. You can tell that movement was done by the body not the mind.

I don't know about you but most programs I use have some ability to go wrong. Glitches in games are a good example of this

Edit


Then you say your have freedom to reprogram yourself. Which to me sounds like you believe biology changes based upon what the mind chooses. Where does this ability to actually choose come from?

Ahh but you could reprogram the way you look. It would take incredible control over your perceptions for it to be positive though, and you would also need to manipulate the way you percieve the world views you.
A negative form of this, is BDD, Body dismorphic disorder www.nhs.uk...

In the same way a monk can push a car with a pole, using his neck as the driving force. If I put a metal pole against the back of a car and pushed It would go through my throat. Simple. regardless of how blunt it is. But if you can program you body to manipulate itself to provide the strength, I don't know how chi would work biologically, but im not a scientist I am a philosopher if anything. Perhaps certain cells in the body can be manipulated with electronic signals from the brain to harden themselves.
edit on 21-8-2016 by WanderingNomadd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


Is there a word for people who believe that the whole debate between intelligent design and evolution is irrelevant to the practical aspect of who we are and what we're doing here?


Yes. There are several words for those people, depending on which lens they are using to view the whole picture.

The main one is: Philosophers
There are also:

Anthropologists

Buddhists

Social Scientists

Psychologists (especially Evolutionary Psychologists)

and many other terms. The primary thing they have in common is EDUCATION, and a willingness to LEARN [something besides "the Bible", e.g. using the Bible as an artifact reflecting ONE family of Religious thought (the Abrahamics) to illustrate one aspect of the human condition, not as an instruction book]. (Unlike your average Christian.)

The main problem with the religious is they think everyone outside of their own little cult group is wrong. They are unable, literally unable - as in blinded - to see beyond their own noses. This is a function of early, repetitive, and authoritarian indoctrination which is synergistically, exponentially worsened by the self-sustaining cycle of guilt and relief.

An excellent book by one of those people is
The Evolution of God

by Robert Wright. He is described thusly on that website (above):

ROBERT WRIGHT is the author, most recently, of The Evolution of God, which was a New York Times bestseller and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

His other books include

The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, which The New York Times Book Review named one of the ten best books of 1994....


one would think that any student of literature would be interested in reading ALL of these books, by the way.


....
, and

Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, which Bill Clinton called “astonishing” and instructed White House staff members to read.

In 2009 Wright was named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 global thinkers.

Wright has written for
The Atlantic,
The New Yorker,
The New York Times Magazine,
Foreign Policy,
and the op-ed pages of
The New York Times,
The Washington Post, and
The Financial Times.

His books have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and his awards include the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism.

Wright has been a visiting lecturer in Princeton University’s religion department and

has taught in the psychology department at Penn.

He is Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York,

and is editor-in-chief of the websites Bloggingheads.tv and MeaningofLife.tv.


He's one of the people you're describing.
I highly recommend ALL of his books. I have read (and own) them all. (Mom has the latter two; I retain The Evolution of God at my house, on my philosophy/religion/spirituality shelf.

I also can't recommend highly enough William James'
The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature

He is described as a psychologist and philosopher.

Hope you have the time and interest to check out ALL of these links, and all of the titles I've referenced here. I can guarantee that fewer than 1% of people on this forum have done so, putting them at a distinctly lower level of understanding. They could learn, if they wanted to - every one of them is literate. Sadly, they just can't be bothered to do so - they're too busy feeling like sinners, viewing everyone else as sinners, and hoping they won't go to hell.

Pathetic.

Lastly (since I had to come in and edit to get the formatting right):

The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture
by Darrel Ray.

Dr. Darrel Ray, psychologist and lifelong student of religion, discusses religious infection from the inside out.

How does guilt play into religious infection?
Why is sexual control so important to so many religions?
What causes the anxiety and neuroticism around death and dying?
How does religion inject itself into so many areas of life, culture, and politics?

The author explores this and much more in his book The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture. This second-generation book takes the reader several steps beyond previous offerings and into the realm of the personal and emotional mechanisms that affect anyone who lives in a culture steeped in religion.

Examples are used that anyone can relate to and the author gives real-world guidance in how to deal with and respond to people who are religious in our families, and among our friends and coworkers.


Give that one a read, for sure - it's a fairly slender volume, readable in one sitting - while the others are far more in-depth and cast a wider net.

Dr Ray is the founder of Recovery from Religion, as well....
and guess what? He lives in my neck of the woods!!!




edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


@ OP:


Boom!

There, it didn't take any bravery at all to meet your "challenge."
All it took was some typing and linking of things and ideas that show you why my view is "rational", and yours is ridiculous.

edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is what Servant said in the OP:


To these people I pose a Challenge. Come and show that the way you view the world is coherent. Show us the world view of those who are truly "rational".

I am not asking for you to come and show that you do not like the evidence given for Christianity. I am asking for you to come and give evidence for your own beliefs.


I believe I have answered that "challenge" and gone above and beyond any requirement of 'thoroughness'. Now, Servant - I challenge YOU to read those books. If not all of them, at least two of them. You can choose whichever two you want of those five I have provided for you.

For the most fun, read Evolution of God, and The God Virus. For deeper (think graduate level text) exploration, try the others. Go on, I DARE YOU.

Then come and make another of your tedious run-on threads.

*mic drop*


edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

*Mic Drop* ? Lol, are you serious? Is this a joke? You have proven nothing at all. Nada. All you've shown is how vicious and animal like anti christian people can be.

Being foul mouthed does not win a debate. Insisting you're right does not win a debate. Haven't you figured out that this debate is unwinnable for you? You can't prove anything on either side. You either believe or you don't. At this point after all your attacks you should just call it a day and refrain from the discussions. Let it be.

STM

ETA: The only proof I can provide is this advice: Pray everyday from the heart for answers.
edit on 21-8-2016 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seentoomuch

being foul-mouthed?

When was I foul-mouthed?

He asked for information that backed up our views. He asked for the EVIDENCE that backs up our own beliefs. I provided them.
Period. If reading and learning hurts you all too much, that's not my fault.

You're right, though.

It's unwinnable when people are too lazy (or too brainwashed, or too scared) to do any research or question their own beliefs.

You people are hopelessly lost. Excuse me for trying to shed some light on your dark world of doom and gloom and worthlessness.
I've been part of this never-ending debate on this very forum for YEARS, now - and you just pop in to stick your tongue out at me?

That's hilarious.

Read the books, then drive by again.

edit on 8/21/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


(post by seentoomuch removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Duplicate post
edit on 21-8-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Duplicate post
edit on 21-8-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join