Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

I have never said that everything is a guess. That is just something frustrated people bring up because they have no where else to go.

FRANK...on things for which no reasonable, unambiguous evidence exists...all we can do is to guess. You can certainly call it an estimate, an intuition, or any of those other words...and you would be correct.

But to use the word "believe" the way theists and atheists do...is an attempt to disguise a guess.

Nobody knows if there are NO GODS. NOBODY. That is not a guess...that is an assertion. NOBODY knows if there are no gods. An assertion that there are no gods is ABSOLUTELY A GUESS.

As for whether or not anybody knows there are gods (or is a GOD) well...that would have to be a guess. If there is a GOD...that GOD could choose to make ITSELF known to anybody. So a person asserting that he/she knows there is a GOD...MIGHT be telling the truth.

I would be willing to guess they are deluding themselves. But it would be a guess.

If the fact that I feel that way really bothers you...or if it makes you uncomfortable...or if it requires that you think I am a hypocrite, stupid, a liar...or anything else...I understand and I will accept that you feel that way. (All those "you's" in there were universal, FRANK, because you personally seem to be understanding and not bothered as much as some of the others here)

But I have seen nothing from anyone here that persuades me I ought to change my perspective on this.

And I truly do not understand why it bothers ci so much that he mocks me and the thoughts with the straw men he builds...or causes igm and some of the others to go through what they go through about it.

Does it scare them?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Gotta go to work. Be back this afternoon to respond to any responses.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If the fact that I feel that way really bothers you...or if it makes you uncomfortable...or if it requires that you think I am a hypocrite, stupid, a liar...or anything else...I understand and I will accept that you feel that way. (All those "you's" in there were universal, FRANK, because you personally seem to be understanding and not bothered as much as some of the others here)

There are no personal judgments in my statements here. Sure, I may fall into the human habit of making fun of something someone says that strikes me as humorous, but I do not mean to demean anyone. I value your opinion even when I disagree.

I appreciate the fact that we have this place where we can come and discuss these issues. They are not things you would discuss with other people, outside of a classroom. It's good to have this place and you and the others for conversation. I've also found useful information in the links some provide here.

This internet thing is a wonderful tool that allows us to get together on such a personal level while being so far apart physically. I attach some value to that and those on the other end of the 'pipe'.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Nobody knows if there are NO GODS. NOBODY. That is not a guess...that is an assertion. NOBODY knows if there are no gods. An assertion that there are no gods is ABSOLUTELY A GUESS.

We've been over this several times. No, you cannot prove a negative. But, I think the burden of proof falls on the statement of the positive. It is not necessary to prove a negative, that there is not something. There is not something until it is something, by definition. If you want to say 'I guess anything is possible' then I guess that is ok.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

The cognitive map (worldview) that guides most of my daily actions consists of assumptions, understandings, values, memories, and so on that are minimally meaningful, i.e., they make subjective sense. They are certainly not "adequate" in the neurotic sense that they have been objectively proven to be absolutely true.
Theism, the belief in a Creator God whose origins are impossible even to conceive (forget prove) and who is obviously an anthropomorphic projection of ourself writ infintely large IS MEANINGLESS--at least to me.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLN, Humans do the best we can with what we have. Our reality is based on our biology and environment. What any individual does with their life is predicated on these limits, but to say "it's not absolutely true" is without merit.

Most people have the freedom to choose what they do with their lives - with the limitations inherent in what we call life. Our perceptions and decisions of how we "control" our lives is the reality within the limits as described earlier. Nothing else matters.

We have "chosen" to participate on a2k. We made that choice out of the many options available to us. That's reality!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cis you give many if not most of us more credit than we deserve. We are all to some extent victims or prisoners of Cause & Effect

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5308558)
Quote:
Nobody knows if there are NO GODS. NOBODY. That is not a guess...that is an assertion. NOBODY knows if there are no gods. An assertion that there are no gods is ABSOLUTELY A GUESS.

We've been over this several times. No, you cannot prove a negative. But, I think the burden of proof falls on the statement of the positive. It is not necessary to prove a negative, that there is not something. There is not something until it is something, by definition. If you want to say 'I guess anything is possible' then I guess that is ok.

When it comes to gods...or the true nature of REALITY...I never ask for proof from anyone on either side.

I am interested in the evidence...if there is any. I am satisfied with the evidence to validate the assertion.

The statement "There is a GOD" is a positive assertion about what is.

The statement "There are no gods" is a positive assertion about what isn't.

Both those statements accrue a burden of proof...or in my case, evidence.

I agree with you that someone asserting there is a GOD...accrues a burden of proof (eviddence) for that assertion...and it can be demanded. But if someone goes beyond that to make a positive assertion that there are no gods...then a burden of proof falls on them with the same weight as the burden involved with the other side.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We have "chosen" to participate on a2k. We made that choice out of the many options available to us. That's reality!

Well, if that is what you think I am talking about when I write the words "the true nature of REALITY"...then you have become even more petty than I think you have become...and quite honestly, ci, I think you have become very petty.

I've not always felt that way about you...quite the contrary at one time. But I do feel that way now.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I can't control other people's feelings about me or anyone else.

Mr. Green

1 Reply

I believe it is superior to say that for example, 'I don't believe there is a creator god' and leave it there. To continue after this and then to say there is also no evidence that there isn't a creator god adds nothing in my opinion. Not only that but to go that far depends on a subtle belief that what the people who describe a creator god say has some credence - without any evidence being put forward by those who say there is a creator god. Why else would what they say give rise to being open to the possibility that it would be a blind guess to say that a creator god didn't exist?

To go further than just saying 'I don't believe there is a creator god' is to subtly step into contradicting oneself by being influenced by the arguments of theists who have not been able to produce any evidence for those arguments.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5308780)
I can't control other people's feelings about me or anyone else.

On that we can agree, ci. Neither can I.

Your roof looks great. Good job.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

I believe it is superior to say that for example, 'I don't believe there is a creator god' and leave it there. To continue after this and then to say there is also no evidence that there isn't a creator god adds nothing in my opinion. Not only that but to go that far depends on a subtle belief that what the people who describe a creator god say has some credence - without any evidence being put forward by those who say there is a creator god. Why else would what they say give rise to being open to the possibility that it would be a blind guess to say that a creator god didn't exist?

To go further than just saying 'I don't believe there is a creator god' is to subtly step into contradicting oneself by being influenced by the arguments of theists who have not been able to produce any evidence for those arguments.

Except for those first two words, igm...I agree with the thrust of what you wrote here.

Most atheists do stop after the "I do not believe..."part...rather than going on to the "I believe there are no gods."

I think that is a prudent and logical step.

That was sorta what I was trying to say in my thread that caused such a stir earlier, when I said, "I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods. " The "I do not believe gods exist…" stood alone...it did not go on to "I believe there are no gods"...and the "I do not believe there are no gods"...stood alone...it did not go on to "I believe there are gods."

It is enough simply to state that you are not one of the people who "believe" there is a god...or that you are not one of the people who "believe" there are no gods.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I believe it is superior to say that for example, 'I don't believe there is a creator god' and leave it there. To continue after this and then to say there is also no evidence that there isn't a creator god adds nothing in my opinion. Not only that but to go that far depends on a subtle belief that what the people who describe a creator god say has some credence - without any evidence being put forward by those who say there is a creator god. Why else would what they say give rise to being open to the possibility that it would be a blind guess to say that a creator god didn't exist?

To go further than just saying 'I don't believe there is a creator god' is to subtly step into contradicting oneself by being influenced by the arguments of theists who have not been able to produce any evidence for those arguments.

Except for those first two words, igm...I agree with the thrust of what you wrote here.

Most atheists do stop after the "I do not believe..."part...rather than going on to the "I believe there are no gods."

I think that is a prudent and logical step.

That was sorta what I was trying to say in my thread that caused such a stir earlier, when I said, "I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods. " The "I do not believe gods exist…" stood alone...it did not go on to "I believe there are no gods"...and the "I do not believe there are no gods"...stood alone...it did not go on to "I believe there are gods."

It is enough simply to state that you are not one of the people who "believe" there is a god...or that you are not one of the people who "believe" there are no gods.

I'm not sure it can 'stand alone' because it depends on the, 'concepts without evidence' put forward by the theists to, 'not be certain there are no gods'.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I would agree with your assessment about God, and the observation about an anthropomorphic God. But that could just mean that the common vision of a God is wrong. Not that there isn't one. Just as most Americans see Jesus as a white dude, which is very unlikely. I don't concern myself much with the existence question. I don't think I am in a position to know either way. That's ok with me. Good thing, it's the way it is. I think we said the same thing.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

You ALMOST agreed with Frank, that you are not in a position to know either way. Wink

.
You're right, that I objected only to the view of an anthropomorphic god. That was my intention. I do not disagree, say, with Spinoza's pantheistic "god" because it is not a supernatural being, it denotes a natural universal process--the totality of logical entailments constituting the nature of Reality.

0 Replies

A man's sperm and a woman's egg unite and a person believes (especially theists and agnostics) that somehow that produces something ( a self or soul) that owns the union of those two... it seems absurd to me... it is just something 'made up' by mind... how could it be anything else? The problem is it leads to extreme egotistical selfishness, war, rape and suchlike....

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

A man's sperm and a woman's egg unite and a person believes (especially theists and agnostics) that somehow that produces something ( a self or soul) that owns the union of those two... it seems absurd to me... it is just something 'made up' by mind... how could it be anything else? The problem is it leads to extreme egotistical selfishness, war, rape and suchlike....

Scientists and doctors also think that when sperm and egg unite...it produces something. A gamete or a zygote...at very least.

What is wrong with you today?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

A man's sperm and a woman's egg unite and a person believes (especially theists and agnostics) that somehow that produces something ( a self or soul) that owns the union of those two... it seems absurd to me... it is just something 'made up' by mind... how could it be anything else? The problem is it leads to extreme egotistical selfishness, war, rape and suchlike....

Scientists and doctors also think that when sperm and egg unite...it produces something. A gamete or a zygote...at very least.

What is wrong with you today?

My point is, it doesn't produce a self or a soul... that then becomes selfish. By the way I'm absolutely fine, hail and hearty ... thanks for asking.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

A man's sperm and a woman's egg unite and a person believes (especially theists and agnostics) that somehow that produces something ( a self or soul) that owns the union of those two... it seems absurd to me... it is just something 'made up' by mind... how could it be anything else? The problem is it leads to extreme egotistical selfishness, war, rape and suchlike....

Scientists and doctors also think that when sperm and egg unite...it produces something. A gamete or a zygote...at very least.

What is wrong with you today?

My point is, it doesn't produce a self or a soul... that then becomes selfish. By the way I'm absolutely fine, hail and hearty ... thanks for asking.

Well...the gamete or the zygote, if allowed to develop, does become a self...although I know you non-dualists assert there is no self. But if the gamete or zygote develops to term...something comes along that can be itemized on a tax return for deduction purposes.

So your comment "it doesn't produce a self"...although correct for a short term...ultimately is incorrect.

Right?

Glad all is well with you. All is fine with me also...except that we have lots of snow...and snow mean no golf. No golf means more time on A2K.

2 Replies

Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know