Uhhhh... no offense man but you could have argued much better points than that. If you're interested in Atheism and such go to rationalresponders.com. You'll find shitloads of info there.
Printable View
Uhhhh... no offense man but you could have argued much better points than that. If you're interested in Atheism and such go to rationalresponders.com. You'll find shitloads of info there.
well... i think there is not any number of arguments to prove (or disprove) the existence of god. any argument, is based upon one (or a set of) assumptions, which are arbitrary. so, any argument, if analised throughly until its roots, is just a statement about an arbitrary thing. as its arbitrary, you only can believe it or disbelieve it. all in all, like someone said, its just a matter of faith. even if your faith is in the logic and reason.
these days i only respond to specific questions on that subject, at least i'm trying to get to that point. the arguments for and against are far too circular and i'm into one of my "who gives a shit" phases.;) or maybe i've just gotten bored with this world and am ready to move on to my next assignment.Quote:
Originally Posted by CommanderChief
dude, no offense and all, but that argument kind of rambled off into some sort of vague redundancy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, you're probably super stoned ;) . I mean damn, I'm SOOOoooooo (and many "o's" so forth) stoned right now I may not even be reading it right LOL. AH man I love B.C. Bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
anywhoo..... I don't agree that every decision and perception is arbitrarily decided. We create many perceptions of our reality based on our societal, environmental, and genetic conditioning. But, we still have a tried and proven, and most of all consistant, method of determining the reality of things. As I said, consistancy. A brick wall is consistantly hard to the touch, everybody else you talk to experiences it in exactly the same way. Therefor, we consider the hardness of a brick wall a reality because it is experienced, percieved, and interpreted universally.
It is not a given that all assumptions are arbitrary in nature, because there's a distinct difference between assuming there exists an entity which nobody ever sees (god, santa clause etc.), and assuming a brick wall is hard which is experienced consistantly by all.
essentially, it's when we start thinking of reality in vaugue and non-defined terms that anything can be believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
LMFAO, hah, I think if ya are after disproving the existence of god you would suffer a fate worse than death. Anyways, I'm agnostic, that is, I'm not sure of what exactly I believe in as far as an after-life goes, however I know for sure that if I did not believe in life after death then It would be a paradox, ie, I would cease to exist, this i cannot imagine, obviously because it contradicts existence which is obviously a maintained thing. So i am going to use science to theorize with you in your terms the existence of time and space, which will prove life after death true. Essentially all things are real, whether it is a thought (abstract) or an object (tangible), now, let's say that everything is made of energy, (which has been proven, other than in absolute-zero temperatures, in which things cease to move and the energy is really then stored) electrons and neutrons fuel your brains thought process, much like an atoms core, the nucleus. electrons and neutrons are both fueled by negetive and neutral forces of energy. Ie energy, no matter exists without it, so there you have the physical aspect, right?
Next is the abstract, or the things you cannot 'feel', such as thoughts and, let's just say something like your soul. Energy stimulates your thought process, it should be considered as both a stimulant and conductor. If you will, fm and air waves the radio uses to send out signals, is the same thing as the energy you use to think and work that brain of yours.
I think of it this way, that energy used stores the thoughts you hold, and with the energy delivers the message to your brain. So, our bodies are made of energy just the same as a rock is, whether we die or not the energy is still there and the atoms still move. Now then, what about the energy fueling your brain and thought process? Well obviously it didn't come from no where, and it sure as hell isn't just going to cease to exist because you stop living. I think of all abstracts as products of a soul. Therefore when I die, I will continue to live in this world through that energy, as for my soul, well, all of this just now was theorized off of the top of my head and i believe that is what a soul truly is; energy. Something abstract. What is energy? Eternal. Whether i can think or feel when i am dead does not matter, I will continue to exist.
As for god, I hope there is a god, and maybe a jesus too, but there is no point in me denying it by trying to solve a conundrum and destroy my own happiness i have through faith.
Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with idealistic belief. Belief requires the absence of logic, that's why it's called belief. Einstein was lied to about what happens after we die at a very young age, and sadly it stuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieRich
I think the essence of what you were saying, then, is the part I bolded. But I have actually heard this before, it's the theory that because energy cannot be destroyed, our consciousness (as an energy) will live on forever. But what exactly is consciousness? Well first of all, you're right that it didn't come from nowhere... it came form chemical reactions which create synaptic energy. Energy coming from matter, just as matter comes from energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0ffspring
Consciousness, though, is not simply the energy itself. There is no single energetic neuron carrying a thought, but only RNA sequences encoded in your brain that are stimulated by certain firing neuron energy to trigger a collective action of several millions neurons. Each collective action, each stimulation of the molecular energy in millions of neurons, is what produces thought. Because consciousness is not a floaty ball of energy, but a massively complex collective response, your consciousness cannot continue after death. That is, the energy that makes up your consciousness and the patterns it worked through will fall apart into separate and unorganized forces. The collection of processes is torn apart, and consciousness ceases to exist. Interestingly enough, while this process is explained and understood through biology, chemistry, and physics, it was also the Buddha's explanation of the formation of consciousness and why there is no permanent self. Just billions of processes constantly arising and falling, blinking in and out of existence (you'll want to check out quantum theory on that last part).
I agree with what you are saying, and buddha for that matter, as I had said "Whether i can think or feel when i am dead does not matter, I will continue to exist." I realize that it would be impossible to think as energy alone. And you're absolutely right when it comes to the thought process, however i believe that emotions are not a genetic thing, in no way are they learned, even a month old child has emotion, though he or she may not be able to comprehend it as you or I would. I'll leave it at this; There is more to the living than can be identified accurately. And more to the point, I believe there is a spiritual side to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
well... i WAS stoned indeed... and could not transmit my points of view... i will try in the following posts...Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
what we call "real" is just a perceptual consense. if i touch the wall and say i feel it hard, and you touch and feel the same, and everybody feels the same, we just can conclude we share a common perception of the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
but it does NOT warrant the wall is indeed real.
i know it seems to contradic the common sense, but what is the common sense if not the-things-we-all-learn-to-agree-without-thinking-about?
i know it sounds like matrix too... but we have no arguments to prove (or disprove) we dont live into something matrix-like.
about the arbitrary nature of the arguments, i think is better give an exemple:
- why things fall?
- cause the gravitational atraction of the earth.
- but why the earth attracts things?
- because it have mass and mass atracts mass.
- why?
- because mass distorts the space-time, so the things "fall" bacause its the shortest path for them in the space-time.
- but why mass distorts the space time?
- (who knows??? until present it is an axiom... until proven false, or based upon another axiom...)
so... we have two options: stop to asking why when we arrive a thing we assume is correct (and this assumption is arbitrary), or we question every assumption ad nauseam, without arrive to anywhere, cause, like i said before, every assumption is: a)arbitrary, a dogma, an axiom which can not be questioned or, b)a assumption based upon another assumption or axiom.
as we can not question a axiom, we can only believe it or not, i said it was a matter of faith.
i expect ive made more sense now... sober :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
yeah.....this doesn't help either side, lmao, I think that everyone considers this at one point in time, but It's a bit out there if you know what i mean.