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.

 

Religious people: You all tend to have the same reasons for believing...

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Ridicule comes into play a lot in this type of forum. But that is what is suppose to happen. It was said it would happen. They have no choice. It is ingrained in them.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You believe 'things' are real that do not exist in you experience?
How are you different than people who believe in god? Or faeries at the bottom of the garden?
Can you prove the realness of what you call the room behind you without experiencing it?
Each time you 'believe' something exists, you may be missing what is really real. Reality is real.
Reality will not be found in the part of the room you are not experiencing.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


That's the pseudo-philosophy that bogomil just so easily tore apart.

Standing by for reply.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


That's a pretty week post, what do you think bogomil is pointing at then in your opinion?
Do you have anything you want to add.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The reason people believe in god is because they are unhappy and scared.
They are frightened of the time after they die, they are fightened of yesterday and tomorrow.
Of course these things are scary because they are out of our control because they are not real.
If we stay present in the only moment that exists there is no fear.
God can be known directly and then you will never have to believe anything again.

The knowledge that is available is ever changing, the knowledge (the beliefs) that i know can't be relied upon.
We all know that, deep down. This terrifies us.

There is just one thing that we need to know and that is, that nothing can really be known.
When we come to the state of not knowing, god will be known.
Stay in this moment and don't give thought to any other time.
It is all being taken care of.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["How would you know if there was anything existing separate to your experience?
Your experience is the only 'thing' you know."]

Solipsism can be an interesting thought-experiement, but in reality it's a blind alley.

A few examples: My musical skills are at the level, where I can get away with playing blues on a mouthorgan (without risking physical harm), if my audience is sufficently enebriated, tonedeaf and without any sense of rythm. Nonetheless there exist symphonies, which only the special version of theist reasoning could explain as 'already exiting inside me', just waiting to come out.

Similarly it would take me some 10 years or more of specialist education to be able to run a nuclear power-plant, where people 'outside' of my mind would have to lead me a considerable part of the way through this education.

Quote: ["A 'soundwave' does not exist until a consciousness has named it 'sound'."]

First of all it doesn't matter if any phenomenon has a 'name'. Did you mean 'recognize' it as a sound?

Second: I can place a recorder in a forest, leave it around until a tree falls (or whatever similar), never listen to it all my lifetime and when I'm dead, some at the sound-producing-time unborn person listen to it without prior knowledge of the content. Admittedly this experiment has never been made, so maybe I can on request cook up a similar one demonstrating the same.

Third: Are there any specifications on the 'recognizer' of the sound. A sufficiently large boom would most likely move at least some ash, which isn't in possession of consciousness as we usually define it.

I'm aware of the more overall idea of a universe existing by and through other parts of the universe existing also, but my initial consideration on this only excluded any necessity of 'higher' consciousness to make existence possible. A basic particle or a force can exist with only another particle or force as counter-point.




edit on 14-5-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Until a 'wave of what ever it is' (potentiality) hits an eardrum, it can not be considered sound/noise.
You have a pc that plays music, if it has no speakers does it make a sound?
Equipment is needed to enable the 'waves' to become some 'thing' (sound).

"Second: I can place a recorder in a forest, leave it around until a tree falls (or whatever similar), never listen to it all my lifetime and when I'm dead, some at the sound-producing-time unborn person listen to it without prior knowledge of the content. Admittedly this experiment has never been made, so maybe I can on request cook up a similar one demonstrating the same."

I think this has been done but with light, double slit experiment and eraser.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


You wrote:

["The fact that you are questioning is good. I will try to answer some of your questions if I can. I believe that medicine does help some people. Sometime placebos help also."]

I may have expressed myself in uncertain terms, but the question I intended to ask was: Why and how do you search for and acquire SOME information (some of it of great importance), while you disregard other types of information. Choosing a religion, an ideology or possibly not choosing any at all is a pretty influential choice for many people. I'm curious as to your entrenchment in what I personally consider a rather rigid choice of doctrinalism on your part.

Quote: [" So you need the concept of design clarified? Okay here is what I believe. God made everything. How? By speaking it into existence. How did he do that? I do not know. That level of advancement is greater than my knowledge."]

To be quite honest, I'm overly familiar with the christian 'intelligent design' in it's basic form. I was interested in if you have something more than the standard clichées on it. And I believe, that I already had passed that point on the subject in my response to you.

Quote: ["My point? Christ was right."]

Reducing communication to this level: "No, Buddha was far MORE right. And the Jesus character presented in the bible is a fabrication, selling a non-sense world-view".

Quote: ["Solipsism is exactly right and it also gives meaning."]

So communicating with me, you are actually talking with yourself? Am I, as a figment of your imagination, necessary for this process? And why doing it at all?

Quote: ["Yes. Traffic-lights are very useful on streets that need them. Electric sockets can be lethal I agree. Good thing we know about them and books are written about them to teach us what their purpose is. What is your purpose?"]

Already answered above.

Quote: ["I think all knowledge is good. But wisdom and knowledge must go hand in hand for it to be so."]

That's just moving the question one step. But then, what criteria do you have for 'wisdom'?

Quote: ["Yes. I use I know what I know on everything. If I don't know something but the subject intrigues me I try to learn about it. I hope I have answered your questions."]

Obviously the question of causality's being or not being in different contexts only intrigues you enough to pass it on as general 'wisdom', but not so much as to search understanding enough to meet opposition to your postulates.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["Until a 'wave of what ever it is' (potentiality) hits an eardrum, it can not be considered sound/noise."]

That's the postulate, I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for from you. Just repeating it doesn't unfortunately make it more plausible.

Quote: [" You have a pc that plays music, if it has no speakers does it make a sound?
Equipment is needed to enable the 'waves' to become some 'thing' (sound)."]

We were talking about the recieving end of the phenomenon. Why do you jump to the producing part of the sound-process? It hasn't much relevance to the already off-topic topic.

Quote: [" I think this has been done but with light, double slit experiment and eraser."]

I can not directly see any parallels to the subject at hand. Some additional details may help me towards an understanding.

On more general lines I feel, that answers from you relating to the essentials in my posts (instead of picking out points of relatively minor importance) would create a more communicatively satisfying result. You have occasionally complained about my 'atttiudes'. Flitting around with postulated absolutes, ignoring inconvenient questions and bringing in unrelated information doesn't exactly create the impression of any serious debate intentions. Only of confused preaching.

There's no shame in admitting ignorance on some subjects, and then avoiding getting into debates on something one doesn't know much about. My own knowledge of biology and geology is e.g. rather small, so I never get into such debates. But to pretend knowledge where none exists, is foolishness and very soon reflects back on the pretender as being pompeous and loudmouthed.

If you don't mind, I would prefer to get closer back to the original topic of this thread.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Your list of reasons for belief omits direct perception, or personal revelation.

However, even with this reason included, your question remains very reasonable.


If people from an entirely different religion use the exact same arguments which you use with equal weight to their arguments, how can either of you claim it as a strength for your mutually exclusive religions?


Although I may be considered an agnostic theist, I agree with the implication of your observation that a seeming strength of a reason for belief is considerably weakened if that same reason points to a contradictory conclusion.

The one commonality with all these beliefs is the acceptance of the existence of a metaphysical reality. The manner of approach and foundation of belief in this metaphysical reality differs in minor or major ways between all the belief systems, yet it is fundamental and non-contradictory in its most basic proposition. From this basic position, one religion cannot reasonably claim superiority over another.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





I may have expressed myself in uncertain terms, but the question I intended to ask was: Why and how do you search for and acquire SOME information (some of it of great importance), while you disregard other types of information. Choosing a religion, an ideology or possibly not choosing any at all is a pretty influential choice for many people. I'm curious as to your entrenchment in what I personally consider a rather rigid choice of doctrinalism on your part.



Okay. Here is Why. I want to know the truth.
This is how. I listen, read, think, pray, and feel for the answers that make me understand it. The reason I believe in Christ is because of my experience with Christ. How do I explain that experience? I can't. The experience has to be lived through in order to understand it. Yes I questioned it afterward. Maybe a little to much, but I know what happened to me. So to deny it would be a lie.




To be quite honest, I'm overly familiar with the christian 'intelligent design' in it's basic form. I was interested in if you have something more than the standard clichées on it. And I believe, that I already had passed that point on the subject in my response to you.


Sometimes it is hard for me to understand your questions. Sorry for that. So anything new to add? Hmmm. Maybe. Take no man's word for it. Read for yourself and pray for understanding. Oh..I read to humble yourself before Him. Do you know how that...hmmm. Okay let's say you where going to meet the President of the United States. Well we know you can't just walk in to his office. You have things that you have to do in order to meet him. I am not sure what they are this is just an example. Well kind of the same thing with Christ. You have to prepare yourself to meet Him. Well that is what I could come up with.




Reducing communication to this level: "No, Buddha was far MORE right. And the Jesus character presented in the bible is a fabrication, selling a non-sense world-view".


Now now. You asked what was my point. Points should be clean and precise. That was as precise as I could make it. What kind of point are you looking for?




Quote: ["Yes. Traffic-lights are very useful on streets that need them. Electric sockets can be lethal I agree. Good thing we know about them and books are written about them to teach us what their purpose is. What is your purpose?"] Already answered above.


Enlighten me as to your purpose in this life please. If you think you have a purpose. If so, how did you realize your purpose?




That's just moving the question one step. But then, what criteria do you have for 'wisdom'?


Criteria for Wisdom. Well, the Bible teaches that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I am sure you will have questions about that or something to say. lol




Obviously the question of causality's being or not being in different contexts only intrigues you enough to pass it on as general 'wisdom', but not so much as to search understanding enough to meet opposition to your postulates.


Why do I need to meet opposition? If someone does not believe me it is not the end all be all worst thing ever. The only opposition that I have is me. If I do not think for myself and let others dictate the road that I take who would I be true to? I make up my own mind about the things I see around me and how it all fits together. Does that mean that I never listen to what other people say? No. But if I do not agree with them then why should I? As postulates of someone else, I can only answer what I know of. Take you for instance. Your mastery of English surpasses mine. How do I know this? I had to look up some words that you used just to know what they meant. As you can tell my grammar sucks.
I have found that simple reasoning holds the greatest wisdom.

As far as causality. I am assuming you mean cause and effect. If not please instruct me on your meaning.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






Yes, but those smells very immensely between people.


And? They still smell them.




Well, you are claiming things without actual evidence, so clearly you don't 'know' them.


You know I looked up at the stars the other night and they were beautiful. No wait. I don't have evidence for that. With your reasoning I must not have done that. lol. Seriously?




I don't think they all have to have a cause.


Hmmm. Interesting. But without a cause they would not exist. Do you know of something that exists, that does not have a cause?




...I'm sorry, but why is the absence of meaning from the universe illogical?


Because without meaning there is no logic. Because without meaning science would not make sense. Without meaning we would not be able to make the laws of countries. They would be meaningless. We need oxygen to breath, that makes oxygen have a meaning. The Sun enables us to live. It has meaning. The distance we are from the Sun sustains us. Distance has meaning. ect, ect. ect. Need I go on?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 



Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 






Yes, but those smells very immensely between people.


And? They still smell them.


What I'm saying is that numbers don't actually have the property of having a 'smell', as smell is a chemical reading produced by our nose. These people have an odd 'wiring' in their brain that perceives smell alongside sight and that is not consistent.





Well, you are claiming things without actual evidence, so clearly you don't 'know' them.


You know I looked up at the stars the other night and they were beautiful. No wait. I don't have evidence for that. With your reasoning I must not have done that. lol. Seriously?


Straw man. You don't know that they're beautiful as beauty is a subjective interpretation of items. You can think they're beautiful, you can feel that they're beautiful, it can be your opinion that they are beautiful, but beauty is a subject that cannot be known.

Of course, there's the other problem. You're missing the whole idea of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, if you claim to look up at the night sky...well, it doesn't take a whole lot of evidence to support that claim. Unless I knew you lived in an area where there was too much light pollution to see any stars, you were blind, or a whole host of other things that would prevent you from doing that, the claim doesn't require all that much evidence. It's mundane.





I don't think they all have to have a cause.


Hmmm. Interesting. But without a cause they would not exist. Do you know of something that exists, that does not have a cause?


Well, you're merely pointing out the logical contradiction in your argument. If your deity is not caused, then how can it exist? If you can only reconcile causality with something that violates it then there is clearly something wrong with the idea.

And possibly the universe exists without a cause as we know the term.





...I'm sorry, but why is the absence of meaning from the universe illogical?


Because without meaning there is no logic.


Again, how? Logic has nothing to do with meaning, it has to do with assessing the validity of statements.



Because without meaning science would not make sense.


Again, how? Science is an evaluation of the natural world.



Without meaning we would not be able to make the laws of countries.


Meaning is something applied by humanity or other thinking creatures. Without thinking creatures (which we know includes a massive swathe of the Earth's existence) there is no meaning. Meaning is only important to that which can think, but when there are no thinking things then meanings is meaningless.



They would be meaningless. We need oxygen to breath, that makes oxygen have a meaning. The Sun enables us to live. It has meaning. The distance we are from the Sun sustains us. Distance has meaning. ect, ect. ect. Need I go on?


No, I clearly see that you have a bizarre anthrocentric view of the universe. You somehow claim that because we find meaning in things that all things must have a meaning. What about black holes? What's their meaning? What was their meaning before we discovered them? What was the meaning of South America before humans migrated there? What was the meaning of uranium before we discovered it?

There is no meaning in the universe other than that which we give it. There is no meaning to life other than that which we give it. Meaning is something we create, not something we derive or discover.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


As pointed out, bogomil already ripped this 'conclusions jumped to from someone first learning about Descartes' level of philosophy.


Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You believe 'things' are real that do not exist in you experience?


Depends on how much evidence is there for them and how extraordinary the claim of their existence is.



How are you different than people who believe in god? Or faeries at the bottom of the garden?


Because I rely on evidential backing for my claims proportional to how likely the claims are based upon prior experience.



Can you prove the realness of what you call the room behind you without experiencing it?


Yes. I experienced it previously. To say that it doesn't persist to exist in my absence is to make the claim that I don't persist to exist in the absence of someone else when I exit a room.



Each time you 'believe' something exists, you may be missing what is really real. Reality is real.


I'm sorry, but what do you mean by this statement that is devoid or logic? How would I be missing something that is really real when I have a basis on it reasonably inferred from evidence?



Reality will not be found in the part of the room you are not experiencing.


Why not? What if someone else is producing results from an experiment in that part of the room and then I eventually experience those results indirectly from a scientific publication? Is that not reality?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The only thing that is true is the experience.
If it is not being experienced it is no more than a story ( a belief) about something that may or may not have happened. It might be true or might not be true.
The mind is believed to be a bag of information. This information can only be retreived in this present moment.
All thought appears one at a time in this eternal now.
Nothing can appear any other time.
This now is the only time that the waves of potentiallity become visible, hearable.
'This' is where they collapse, right in front of your eyes.

When i see your name on the screen i do not make up stories about a person, for all i see is words on a screen.
If i was to make images(imagine) up about you i know they are incorrect, they only exist in my head, you only exist in my head as a person.
There is no person here, yet i can make an image. The image is not real, it is imaginary. I could believe there is a person named madnessinmysoul but the only evidence i have is words on a screen, the rest i have made up, i have filled in the blanks with my own preconceptions, ideas, concepts. I would not be seeing reality, i would be seeing my personal belief.

Words on the screen appear to me, the words are seen and consciousness responds.
It is a dance.
I am the words on the screen, they only exist because i am present.
If i was not present they would not appear in my experience.
I can fight with what appears or i can dance with what appears.

If i make stories up about how life is bad and believe them i will most likely fight with life.
If i see life as it is then there is nothing to fight with, i will only be fighting myself.

The only 'thing' that is real is the experience.
Be with each experience and life will be full.
Miss this eternal now and life will be a constant struggle for survival.
It is missed because there is no faith.
Faith is 'knowing' that everything is being taken care of.
When this is known to be the truth there is no struggle, no fight.
Life is heaven on earth.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Soo...Repeat assertions; fail argumentation?

How is experience necessarily true? I mean, we have too many instances of experience failing at interpreting reality for it to be a useful tool. No, I'm not going to bring up the infamous Cartesian arguments against experience, I'll bring up the neurological ones. Witness studies, memory studies, etc all go to show us that experience fails miserably.

The only reasonably method we have for examining reality is reasonable inference based upon evidence. Experience is only a facet of evidence.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You have a microphone in your hand and you want to record yourself singing, it doesn't record you wonder why, when you do checks you realize that the microphone was not connected.
The microphone is like a loudspeaker but opposite, it has to recieve movement (of waves). Waves that are not sound until it makes a noise. The microphone may vibrate when you sing in it but if the cable is not connected to the other electrical equipment it will not make a sound. The microphone does not make a sound any more than your eardrum does. It is not the loudspeaker that makes noise either. The loudspeaker moves which create waves (still not sound though), the eardrum vibrates and a consciouness experiences 'sound'.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You do not think your own direct experience is a useful tool?
I find it's pretty useful when driving.

Everything is happening right now. If you stay here and now, you will know that you are here to see what is going on. If we make up stories and have other peoples beliefs we don't really know what is going on. We get lost, we feel lost.

I am the authority here and now.
This here and now is all there is.
I live here.
I don't feel lost because the truth is known.
I am home.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You do not think your own direct experience is a useful tool?
I find it's pretty useful when driving.


Again, like I said: "The only reasonably method we have for examining reality is reasonable inference based upon evidence. Experience is only a facet of evidence."

I never said it wasn't useful, I said it was only one facet of evidence. If my direct experience while driving conflicts with the speedometer I'm definitely going to say "Oh crap, I'm going 25 over the limit!"



Everything is happening right now. If you stay here and now, you will know that you are here to see what is going on. If we make up stories and have other peoples beliefs we don't really know what is going on. We get lost, we feel lost.


Empty sophistry. If you are worried about accepting other people's beliefs, toss your computer out your window because it's a product of the experiences of others.

Seriously, this sort of sophistry should have gone away with the written word, because through writing we can get another perspective on the world. I can understand how you perceive the world, and I can compare it to how I see things...and then I can make a synthesis.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Like you say : "The only reasonably method we have for examining reality is reasonable inference based upon evidence. Experience is only a facet of evidence."
This sentence doesn't make any sense, however i will try to respond the best i can.

Reality is not a method and there is no method required to see what reality is.
A method is a process where we cut reality into bits and try to explain it.
This is impossible but you can stay confused forever this way.
If you believe someone can tell you 'reality' (or what reality is) you are deluded.

Reality is what is happening.
What do you consider reality?

Accuracy of inductive inferences:
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations. Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations.

A conclusion is not reality.
A conclusion is made using given facts.
Given facts are not the complete picture.
If the primary fact is wrong no matter what you do with them you will not get truth.
The primary fact is consciousness.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join