Do you believe in God?

[Ghost Lap]

The only thing you can ever truly be sure of is your own existence, this reality could be all smoke and mirrors just like the dreams you experience at night. They seem all so real as you experience them, only for the illusion to gradually slip away upon waking.

So maybe the question we should all be asking ourselves is where did my own existence come from, the consciousness or awareness that "I" am, where did "I" truly come from? Look to the one thing you can be sure is real and exists, look to within and to your own existent being and follow the root back to its beginning.

 

[TexRex]

Whole lotta words to say absolutely nothing. Very Dotinian.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Repeat after me:

I will die. My body will decay. There will be nothing just as there was nothing prior to my birth. And that's okay.

Priests and cannibals.
Prehistoric animals.
Everybody happy as the dead come home.
Big black nemesis.

Gotta be better than spurting out nice little nursery rhymes though right?

 

[TexRex]

Gotta be better than spurting out nice little nursery rhymes though right?

Wait so you used the forum's quote function to "quote" a post of mine and then copy-pasted the text of a different post of mine into it? What purpose does that serve?

You didn't even use the forum's quote function to copy the text of the other post, because fully quoting and removing extraneous material would retain text color while highlighting and multi-quoting specific text would retain neither color nor bolding; you selectedand "CTRL+C" copied, which captured the bolding but not the text color.

Here's the post you quoted using the forum's quote function:

Repeat after me:

I will die. My body will decay. There will be nothing just as there was nothing prior to my birth. And that's okay.

The purpose of this response (which is to say that it was a direct response to part of another's post, which I quoted to make clear to what it was in response) was to address the afterlife fantasy, which is irrational and serves no purpose but that of a carrot or stick to coerce adherence to religious doctrine.

 

[Danoff]

The only thing you can ever truly be sure of is your own existence, this reality could be all smoke and mirrors just like the dreams you experience at night. They seem all so real as you experience them, only for the illusion to gradually slip away upon waking.

So maybe the question we should all be asking ourselves is where did my own existence come from, the consciousness or awareness that "I" am, where did "I" truly come from? Look to the one thing you can be sure is real and exists, look to within and to your own existent being and follow the root back to its beginning.

If you're truly interested in this subject, you'd be open to the very straightforward explanation that "I" came from the decision making layer of a neural network that controls a body to enhance its likelihood to survive and replicate. This is a really SUPER straightforward answer which follows DIRECTLY from all of our observations of biology. No smoke and mirrors required.

If you're interested in the subject, you might find this video quite interesting.

 

[TB]

Wait so you used the forum's quote function to "quote" a post of mine and then copy-pasted the text of a different post of mine into it? What purpose does that serve?

You didn't even use the forum's quote function to copy the text of the other post, because fully quoting and removing extraneous material would retain text color while highlighting and multi-quoting specific text would retain neither color nor bolding; you selectedand "CTRL+C" copied, which captured the bolding but not the text color.

Seripusly? Berating someone over how they quote you?

 

[TexRex]

Seripusly? Berating someone over how they quote you?

Not berating. I was inquiring about the purpose of "quoting" me in such a way. It was more difficult than quoting the actual post that was meant to be highlighted. It's hard to imagine it was an accident and even smacks of deception.

I wouldn't have even noticed but for my following it back so that I could quote the original post myself and explain that it wasn't intended as any kind of argument but merely that a word someone else used made me think of that song.

 

[Ghost Lap]

If you're truly interested in this subject, you'd be open to the very straightforward explanation that "I" came from the decision making layer of a neural network that controls a body to enhance its likelihood to survive and replicate. This is a really SUPER straightforward answer which follows DIRECTLY from all of our observations of biology. No smoke and mirrors required.

So this explanation basically equates "I" to a layer of the brain or rather the activity observed from that area of the brain, suggesting that consciousness or "I" is a purely physical phenomena with no other apparent cause or source of origin?

 

[Danoff]

So this explanation basically equates "I" to a layer of the brain or rather the activity observed from that area of the brain, suggesting that consciousness or "I" is a purely physical phenomena with no other apparent cause or source of origin?

Yes.

I do understand that you imagine other sources or origins, but it's not necessary to imagine these things, and they don't follow from evidence.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Yes.

I do understand that you imagine other sources or origins, but it's not necessary to imagine these things, and they don't follow from evidence.

Okay then, that's all well and good but I would ask you this.

When you mention "from all of our observations of biology", I would ask who or what is it that is doing the "observing". For something to be observed, it must be observed by something that is beyond itself. The thing that is observing must be beyond the thing being observed basically.

What this explanation in the video suggests is that physical matter is essentially observing itself, when I would argue that the thing that is observing (what is commonly called consciousness) is actually beyond what it is observing. That consciousness can observe the physical because consciousness is beyond the physical.

The video seems to be centered around the idea of free will, but isn't true free will in it's absolute form the ability to act or think independently of anything else? As human beings we don't have that luxury, we're literally at the mercy of the universe and everything else around us.

 

[Danoff]

Okay then, that's all well and good but I would ask you this.

When you mention "from all of our observations of biology", I would ask who or what is it that is doing the "observing". For something to be observed, it must be observed by something that is beyond itself. The thing that is observing must be beyond the thing being observed basically.

What this explanation in the video suggests is that physical matter is essentially observing itself, when I would argue that the thing that is observing (what is commonly called consciousness) is actually beyond what it is observing. That consciousness can observe the physical because consciousness is beyond the physical.

The video seems to be centered around the idea of free will, but isn't true free will in it's absolute form the ability to act or think independently of anything else? As human beings we don't have that luxury, we're literally at the mercy of the universe and everything else around us.

They discussed that point in the video - where they explained that you want the constraints partly because they give you identity. If there is truly nothing that informs your thought process, there is no thought process, and "you" are nothing. In a sense, you are the constraints. That you think is not what makes you you, HOW you think is what makes you you. The kinds of thoughts, and the kinds of processes, are what gives you a unique personality, and those are constraints.

There is no need for something to be "beyond" (whatever that means) what it is observing. In a very real sense, I am observing you by reading this. Am I "beyond" you? Are you "beyond" me when you observe me by reading this?

What's more, observation is two-way. When you observe something, it observes you. So for example, when you observe a photon, the photon also observes you. There is no meaningful sense that anything is "beyond" anything in this discussion of observation. It is simply observation, and always two-directional. Think of observation as interaction. You could also call it "entanglement".

Whatever your life consists of, and whatever mine consists of, they are now entangled in the most minute way - because we have interacted, bumped thoughts off of each other. You have changed, however minutely, and so have I. Some part of your bran remembers this interaction, and mine, and both brains are physically altered as a result, storing the memories physically via changes in matter.

In the strictest possible sense, your observation of me must be two way in that at least the photons that carried the message were altered in their course.

 

[Exorcet]

Whatever your life consists of, and whatever mine consists of, they are now entangled in the most minute way - because we have interacted, bumped thoughts off of each other. You have changed, however minutely, and so have I. Some part of your bran remembers this interaction, and mine, and both brains are physically altered as a result, storing the memories physically via changes in matter.

You could say that observation forbids rather than requires "being beyond" in that it requires physical interaction between all parties.

 

[feral and bad]

Facts:
Someone posted a question.
I supplied a link to a common answer to that question complete with relevant parts.
A bunch of people didn't like the answer or made an attempt at refuting the answer.
As yet, no one else has attempted to answer the question.

So:

Here are some more links for you,
as I eagerly admit that I am nowhere near smart enough to argue with unbelievers.

I hope that you find some answers here.

Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think

‘I don’t believe in God, I believe in science,’ atheists often argue. But that doesn’t mean their thinking is evidence-based.

theconversation.com

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Fool - Five Reasons Why it is Foolish Not to Believe in God

God reveals himself in four ways, and the Bible calls a fool anyone who says there is no God.

www.simplybible.com

How People Become Atheists

Testing three theories of religious non-belief.

www.psychologytoday.com

Ten quick responses to atheist claims

Delusion, science and other gods... how to respond to some of the main claims against religion made by atheists.

www.christiantoday.com

13 Atheists Explain Why They Don’t Believe In God

“I must have prayed for something like 25 or 30 years. Not one single prayer was ever answered.”

thoughtcatalog.com

 

[Famine]

Here are some more links for you,

The first of which disingenuously contains a false equivalence right in the excerpt...

 

[TB]

So the book about the guy says it's foolish to not believe in the guy. Got it.

"There are all kinds of different kinds of teams in football, but they all play football," said Prof Lennox.

That's evidence that there's a god? Because football teams, that have defined rules that they all have to abide by and have a group of people that are there to enforce said rules somehow equates to religions with its various sects that have different rules and beliefs and largely don't get along?

I'm not about to read through all the rest of them.

 

[TexRex]

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!

 

[TB]

Baby's bounce, right?

 

[Imari]

For something to be observed, it must be observed by something that is beyond itself.

I present to you the concept of a mirror. Self-observation is easy and fun.

Here are some more links for you,
as I eagerly admit that I am nowhere near smart enough to argue with unbelievers.

So you think that you have the answers, but you don't understand them well enough to debate them with anyone who might disagree.

How do you know that they're the answers if you don't understand them yourself?

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!

Be thankful that someone invented automatically activating reserve chutes so that even insane skydiving babies can live to spout philosophy at terminal velocity another day.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hasta la vista, baby.

 

[Northstar]

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!

I like how modern Quora is just one giant game of "bait post or genuine idiot".

 

[Ghost Lap]

They discussed that point in the video - where they explained that you want the constraints partly because they give you identity. If there is truly nothing that informs your thought process, there is no thought process, and "you" are nothing. In a sense, you are the constraints. That you think is not what makes you you, HOW you think is what makes you you. The kinds of thoughts, and the kinds of processes, are what gives you a unique personality, and those are constraints.

What does that even mean really, I can simply be still and just observe all the thoughts and processes going through my mind, does that mean I am these thoughts or does it mean that I am something that is beyond all of those thoughts and is able to observe them? Or am I simply a matter of "constraints" as you so put it?

By reading my posts you are merely observing the digital footprint I have left on this online database, you are not observing the "me" or "I" in any real sense.

 

[feral and bad]

The first of which disingenuously contains a false equivalence right in the excerpt...

As I already said, I probably lack the skill and education to properly debate this.
Could you dumb this down to help me out as to what exactly is the problem?
Is it the title

"Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think"​

Which given context could be read as an opinion.

or

"Many atheists think that their atheism is the product of rational thinking."

Which again given context should be read as opinion.

The title uses the word "some" as opposed to some fixed percentage so as not to be an absolute.

The sentence uses the word "many" to the same end.

According to wikipedia:

A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

If you are saying that the two groups are two different groups of atheists, rational and irrational, I don't think it would be hard to make
the case that both groups exist on each side of the G-d argument.

Wouldn't the existence of both groups on (in this instance) the atheist side, make the equivalence real and not flawed?
Or is it your position that if one happens to be an atheist, they are, by definition, rational?

Please help me out here.

Thanks for your time.

So you think that you have the answers, but you don't understand them well enough to debate them with anyone who might disagree.

How do you know that they're the answers if you don't understand them yourself?

I do not recall saying that I had all the answers, please show me where I said that.

If I recall decades ago correctly, it was a requirement for journalists, teachers, etc, to pick the opposite side of their belief when debating.
One cannot debate something if they don't understand both sides of it. I simply cannot believe that someone does not believe in God.
That would put me in a significant disadvantage in a debate.

I would put forth the generalization that people know a lot of answers to things without understanding them in their entirety. There are probably entire shelves in libraries (if libraries still exist) that deal with this.

I didn't join the conversation to debate, it was only my intent to try and help someone with a question.

Best Regards.

 

[TB]

You're not sure if libraries exist but you're certain that god does?

 

[Famine]

Is it the title

No, otherwise I'd have said it's the title. It's the excerpt, as I said.

'I don't believe in God, I believe in science,' atheists often argue.

False equivalence to create a faulty premise for the "article".

Clearly disingenuous, and not worth even clicking on if that's the standard.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

But if we were to say there was a god, or some other being....where did they come from.

This is an interesting question on every level. How do you know the beginning of eternity/infinity?

I doubt we will ever be capable of answering this in this life.

 

[UKMikey]

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!

Snick Markerberg

Following 30 people. Asked 2129 questions.

www.quora.com

Quora appears to be kind of a joke platform if it lets people like this log multiple sock puppet accounts to continually repeat the same bait questions.

 

[feral and bad]

No, otherwise I'd have said it's the title. It's the excerpt, as I said.

False equivalence to create a faulty premise for the "article".

Clearly disingenuous, and not worth even clicking on if that's the standard.

I'll take your word for it being a false equivalence. I guess I passed right over the excerpt. The author is quoting an often used reply. I have seen this reply many times.
The author of the article is "Richard Dawkins, author, evolutionary biologist and emeritus fellow of New College, University of Oxford, is one of the world’s most prominent atheists." The standard must be different in the UK.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Famine]

I'll take your word for it being a false equivalence.

Why?

The author is quoting an often used reply. I have seen this reply many times.

I too have seen it many times, although from those proclaiming to be atheists less often than in question form by those proclaiming to be theists.

Why does it stop being a false equivalence if used more?

The author of the article is "Richard Dawkins, author, evolutionary biologist and emeritus fellow of New College, University of Oxford, is one of the world’s most prominent atheists."

No, it's not.

The standard must be different in the UK.

The standard for what? Why?

This is a very, very Dotini-esque response.

 

[Ghost Lap]

I present to you the concept of a mirror. Self-observation is easy and fun.

Again that would merely be "I" or consciousness observing the reflected image of my physical self (body), "I" cannot directly observe "I" with my physical eyes or senses, try again.

 

[Famine]

Again that would merely be "I" or consciousness observing the reflected image of my physical self (body), "I" cannot directly observe "I" with my physical eyes or senses, try again.

If you think your "physical eyes or senses" are directly observing anything, boy do I have some news for you...