14
   

The tolerant atheist

 
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 12:32 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
It may be that what we call 'consciousness' refers to some emergent aspect of that dynamic system in combination/communication with another to the mutual evolutionary advantage of both.

Or, it may be that what we call matter refers to some emergent aspect of a dynamic system not originating or rooted in physicality.
Quote:
Whether or not we consider reductionist 'systems definitions' to be viable as an explanation of consciousness, the fact remains that as far as most peoples experience goes, the living body is a necessary condition for consciousness even if not yet understandable as a sufficient one.

Yes, this becomes the chicken and egg thing: Which came first, matter or consciousness? Some of us have had experiences that involve non-corporeal personalities. Those who have not will maintain their speculative idea that consciousness requires a physical body in order to exist. My experience indicates that consciousness is not dependent on matter. This, of course, will be interpreted as merely anecdotal on my part, but I don't require anyone's validation of my experience.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 12:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Yes, I'm sure.

They always are . . .
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 01:46 pm
@Glennn,
I see where you are coming from. On the one hand we have esotericists like Rudolf Steiner ( or maybe yourself) who advocated a 'non corporal spiritual reality' based on personal experience ;on the other we have the 'drug culture' in which non corporal experience can be chemically induced. In that respect it is not a really straight 'chicken and egg argument' because 'spiritual highs' ( or epiphanies) seem to be more psychologically attractive than Shakespeare's ' "..life .. is..full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Susmariosep
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 01:55 pm
Dear readers here, as usual the posting guys here go off on a tangent into irrelevancies.

I tell them to think on the basis of their very own personal experiences of reality, and write as to contribute some worthy message to the advancement and enhancement of man's knowledge of reality.

What I observe is that you guys dare not think from experiences, because it takes work and concentration, and you guys are not accustomed to undertake concentrated work.

You prefer to just go into evasiveness and cultivate your knack for what I call the Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

Okay, dear readers here, this is my challenge to posters here, tell me what you know about what is existence, from your experiences, okay?

From my part, I learn and am still learning for better and better knowledge of reality that is outside and independent of my mind, learning from thinking on my experiences.

And I have come to the ultimate foundation of reality which I formulate into this statement:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness, that posters here will again go into irrelevancies and worse, flippancies, and worst, HATREDS!

Instead of working honestly and productively from their experiences of life and the world, as to formulate what should be for them the ultimate foundation of man's knowledge of reality, namely, something similar to the following:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

And these are the corollary statements to the above from yours truly:

"Existence is from oneself or from another."

"Existence is in the mind and/or outside and independent of the mind."

Please, posters here, no more of flippancies and hatreds.

THINK AND THEN WRITE!

And for guys who imagine that they are thinking already by just presenting a link to the internet, PLEASE! don't just present the link without first telling readers what in concise abstract is the link all about.

Why?

Because there are witless folks who give links to the internet that either are into nothingness of any connection to the issue of concern, or they are wilfully into misleading naive folks: because such simple folks imagine that because something is linked to the internet it must be what: truthful, factual, logical, and to the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence?

In most instances the links are into nothing but more of stupidity and vacuity from unthinking regurgitators of empty words from empty minds.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 02:08 pm
You are a big phony. From my personal experience, there is absolutely no reason to believe in your imaginary friend.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 09:30 pm
@fresco,
Well, I'm not an esotericist, as I am not talking about special acquired knowledge. Nor am I talking about a non corporeal reality. And I'm not talking about chemically induced experience, or spiritual epiphanies. I'm talking about first hand interaction with non corporeal personalities. I don't expect you to relate to this or to identify with it because that which serves as the basis for one's core beliefs concerning the nature and extent of reality turn's out to be--not surprisingly--one's own experience.

That being the case, the source of the "no consciousness without matter" point of view is a view based on limited experience wherein the belief that nothing exists outside of one's experience in time is the core assumption upon which all possibilities are weighed and judged.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 01:50 am
@Glennn,
Who are "they"?
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 04:17 am
@Glennn,
Dear Glennn, we have some unfinished business, last time I replied to you I asked you to present your objections to my explanation on how and why I have come to the certainty of God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

See Annex below.

So, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to read the objections from Gllennn to my explanation on how and why I have come to the certainty of the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

See Annex below.

Annex
Quote:
Post: # 6,486,217 | Susmariosep | Thu 17 Aug, 2017 03:22 pm

@Glennn,
Dear Glennn, refer to Annex below, in other words you comprehend things by your experiences of things, i.e by being first and before anything else a conscious being, capable of thinking and rethinking over your experiences, thereby coming to what we might call templates of things: by which now you can understand i.e. comprehend things, like how you have a baby - if ever you have had one at all.

Now, in regard to your question, namely:
"Now why don't you describe that being, and then tell me all about it?"

Are you referring to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

Here is how and why I know God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning:

1. I have experiences all the time of things which were not existing previously and then they have begun to exist and are still existing, for examples, you and me.

2. You and I, we search for the chain of things giving existence to things which were not existing previously, like you and me we were not existing previously; then respectively your and my papa and mama, entities already existing prior to our existence, they brought us to existence.

3. We can go on and on and on...

4. Then we come to the inevitable conclusion that going on and on and on is senseless, because that is all inside our mind: for outside our mind and independent of our mind, there exists a first being in existence without deriving its existence from still a previous existing being.

5. That being is the entity existing from from itself.

6. And all others with a beginning, they owe their existence to that one being which exists from itself.

7. I call Him God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.


Okay, dear Glennn, let us all readers here, read your objections to my explanation on how and why I come to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
Quote:
From Glennn:
Quote:
From Susmariosep:
Tell me how you get to comprehend something to exist at all, okay?

As I function, I encounter this and that. Why do you ask?

Now why don't you describe that being, and then tell me all about it?
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:15 am
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
I replied to you I asked you to present your objections to my explanation on how and why I have come to the certainty of God existing

Your explanation consists of a declaration that, since existence is a reality, and no one can explain how it came about, it was therefore created by a great being who happens to be male who also happened to have a son. You want me to believe you, but you haven't offered anything to substantiate your claim.

So, in your next post, offer me something to show that your explanation is valid.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:50 am
@Susmariosep,
Quote:
I call Him God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Call it anything you wish but you haven't demonstrated that this creator had any reason to stick around for the next fourteen billion years. It could have set things in motion and returned from whence it came — the Void — and let the process of evolution do the work.

And why try to explain the "cause of everything" in the first place? Why not accept that there are some things which as yet we can not fully understand and leave it alone? Why is a universe created and controlled by a supreme personal being any more desirable or believable than one whose origin, given our knowledge at this time, remains unknowable?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 09:12 am
@Susmariosep,
In Mono Lake near Needles Calif, scientists had discovered an entirely NEW Kingdom of extremophiles. These extremophiles are more like Rickettsia than Bacteria and their DNA has taken on Arsenic in its phsphate "bridges". Pwptide linkages of Phosphate ion are responsible for the connecting of theAGC&T in DNA and U in RNA. So now we have a life form that incorporates As in its DNA. Now, were these all here at the beginning of life? Mono Lake and the Salton Sea are relatively recent water bodies that have been drying up since the 1940's .

God around doing the Creating? or what
Susmariosep
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 02:28 pm
@Glennn,
Dear Glennn, this is a fact not an insult on you, namely: You can't read at all correctly.

You say to me: "Your explanation consists of a declaration that, since existence is a reality, and no one can explain how it came about [ WRONG! ], it was therefore created by a great being..."

Okay, dear Glennn, first go to your neighborhood grade school and request the language teachers to test you on your comprehension of English.

When they certify to you that you comprehend English, report back here and read the following write-up from me, in Annex below, in particular the lines in big font, okay?

The deficiency in your abuse of language is that as I have told you already, you are always talking in the third person personal anonymity mode, as in limbo, with no connection at all to the reality of the common experiences of mankind.

For you never bother to link up with the common experiences of mankind, like that you and I we both came forth from our respectively papa and mama, and the chain of causation cannot go backward on and on forever, except in your naive mental thinking all in your self-blinded naive mind.

And that naive backward regression in your mind will stop because you will sooner than later depart from this side of the grave, there no more of your naive mind with backward regression of the same question, on and on until you depart from this side of the grave.

Now I challenge you, namely, that you owe it to your self-respect as a thinking organism, that when you reject an explanation of something by your opponent thinker, you are obligated to proffer your alternative explanation; otherwise, you should commit seppuku* from shame.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await to read the reaction of Glennn to my present post, I tell you there is almost 100% certainty he will talk again in the third person personal anonymity mode, i.e. nothingness in regard to the common experiences of mankind.

*Urban Dictionary: Seppuku
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Seppuku
The samurai committing seppuku would shove a dagger such as a tanto into their stomach while another samurai acted as their second by lopping off their head.

Hehehehehehehehehe...

Annex
[quote starts]From Susmariosep:

Are you referring to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

Here is how and why I know God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning:

1. I have experiences all the time of things which were not existing previously and then they have begun to exist and are still existing, for examples, you and me.

2. You and I, we search for the chain of things giving existence to things which were not existing previously, like you and me we were not existing previously; then respectively your and my papa and mama, entities already existing prior to our existence, they brought us to existence.

3. We can go on and on and on...

4. Then we come to the inevitable conclusion that going on and on and on is senseless, because that is all inside our mind: for outside our mind and independent of our mind, there exists a first being in existence without deriving its existence from still a previous existing being.


5. That being is the entity existing from from itself.

6. And all others with a beginning, they owe their existence to that one being which exists from itself.

7. I call Him God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.[quote ends]
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 02:55 pm
@Susmariosep,
I understand that you believe you have answered my question, but you did not. I honestly don't know how you could have missed it. But, for your benefit I will repeat it.

Your explanation of how all that is came to be consists of a simple declaration that, since existence is a reality, and no one can explain how it came about, it was therefore created by a great being who happens to be male who also happened to have a son.

You want me to believe you, but you haven't offered anything to substantiate your claim. So, in your next post, offer me something to show that your explanation is valid.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 07:43 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Indeed some writers argue that 'self awareness' is a socially acquired existential state which emerges via language acquisition.
I suppose they think Hellen Keller, silent Monks, etc. are not self aware.

But yeah, it takes a special kind of 'faith' to think matter springs from their consciousness. Some call that solipsism. I'd call it their own personal 'God delusion'.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 07:52 am
@Susmariosep,
Susmariosep wrote:
Okay, dear Glennn, first go to your neighborhood grade school and request the language teachers to test you on your comprehension of English.


This is why you got kicked off those other forums, not because of 'hate' but because whenever you're challenged you say something downright nasty and insulting.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 07:59 am
@farmerman,
Since arsenic is a suitable substitute for the 'glue' in DNA/RNA, it does not seem unrealistic to think that some existing life form could make that substitution in that environment. Creation is in the order, not the materials.

How old is Mono Lake anyway? Stopped by there last year on CA trip.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 09:05 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
But yeah, it takes a special kind of 'faith' to think matter springs from their consciousness. Some call that solipsism. I'd call it their own personal 'God delusion'.

You've expressed your own personal god delusion in these forums. It is rather humorous to hear you criticize the god delusion of others.

But just for the record, why don't you point out where anyone said that matter springs forth from their consciousness.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 11:47 am
@Glennn,
[ Postscript: Dear Glennn, this is a lengthy post, but just read the end text, in bold font, and produce your reaction.]


Dear Glennn, I don't think it is productive to talk with you further, because all you do is to not read correctly, and also to just stubbornly insist that I am missing your message.

Dear readers, let you judge Glennn and me.

Okay, Glennn, here is what I like very much for you to tell me what you want me to concur on with you, namely, you tell me something in regard to the issue God exists or not, that you know to be true or a fact or in accordance to logic or even to science, and I will see whether I can concur with you on that.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what Glennn will produce from his own brain and by his own writing what he knows to be true or a fact or logical or according to science in the issue God exists or not.

Still I tell you, dear readers here, he will tell me that he has already told me.

Okay, then Glennn, tell me again in not more than 50 words.

Dear readers here, I will tell Glennn again for the nth time, what I like for him to concur with me about, namely, that:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

From there all implications follow to the end conclusion, God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Most likely to that statement from me, he will say that he can't understand what I am trying to tell him, or that he does not know the answer, wherefore he does not have to concur with me over it, etc., etc, etc.

But that just goes to show everyone that he is above all into perpetual evasiveness from the issue God exists, or not.

In fact all who deny God exists, they always in the final analysis even though they deny it, they always support themselves foolishly with claiming to not know the answer to that question; so they don't have to occupy themselves with it, and wherefore in their psychology there is no God [wrong psychology!].

For example with one Krumple, who does not even admit that he exists at all, he will insist that he is not denying God exists and neither admitting, but he is just not certain.

Of course he is not certain, how can it be otherwise when he is not even certain that he exists.

Now, to make him admit that he exists, do something like the following:

When next time he has to go to the toilet otherwise he will shame himself with soiling himself, you tell him to not bother with going to the toilet because you are not certain to be in any great urgency to go there, you are not even certain you exist; so why should I tell you where to go or let you use my toilet?

And I will tell him with a loud voice: Just you scram, get away from me, and pronto!

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to read Glennn's reaction to my proposal to him:

"Tell me in less than 50 words what you want me to concur with you on, that you know to be grounded on truths, facts, logic, science, or even the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence - and don't forget to also factor in your experiences, okay?"

Addendum: This Glennn, the way I see him, he is now like Fresco who does not think but sticks to his stubborn hold to a thread by interjecting nonsense one word reply to my posts, into forever just to be defiant against my demand that he think on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

You see, Fresco is a master of names dropping and technical terms dropping, and nothing from any personal self-thinking on any issue at all.

Alas, that is my observation on the generality of posters here who do write something in their posts.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 03:29 pm
@Susmariosep,
In order to answer your question concerning whether or not the god you believe in actually exists, you would first have to describe that god, and then you would have to tell me what evidence you have that it is what you say it is. So, we will get started on that.

What is it that convinced you that the god you believe in is male? And what is it that convinced you that the (male) god had a son? Now, in as many words as is necessary, give me the answers to these questions. If you fail to do so, I will be forced to assume that you do not wish to disclose that information. But keep in mind that if you do not wish to disclose that information, I will be forced to ask you why you wish to keep it a secret.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2017 03:50 pm
@Glennn,
Now, just a minute there, Glennn. You're asking about the gender of god, but god, such as it is, is a unique being. Why on earth would such a being have gender of any sort. If you maintain it's going to be breeding, I think you are obliged to tell us with what it might breed.

Obviously, the question does not apply to the old Greek gods. Those goats would breed with anything.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 02:15:29