Evidence of the Non-Physical

[joelr]

I am an atheist, but not like you, so stop trying to project unto me, that there are only atheists like you and the rest are theists.

No, not like me. You don't seem to know how to make a point? You seem to talk all vague until an opportunity arises to present a belief and announce how special you are and how I'm projecting.
Yet you primed the conversation with cryptic vague non-informations, zero points, as if waiting to show us how unique you are when I make an assumption in an attempt to wade through this literary nonsense.
Not impressive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a strawman. A Vague nonsense strawman.

Science is proven. The scientific method is also proven.
You can cross the street with the scientific method. Look both ways. Empirical evidence. Or you can pray to a God for your safety and run into traffic.

100 people can pray to Jesus for 10 years and 100 other people can pray to a broomstick. Then we can compare results and we will likely see things happen by rules of probability. No better/worse for either.
You are making no point so I cannot respond to a specific point. So those are a few examples of science vs superstition. Science and evidence based thinking already works better than superstition.

Yeah, if you can show me the scientific theory of being a human in totality I will listen. If not, I will do it differently that you in some cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not like me. You don't seem to know how to make a point? You seem to talk all vague until an opportunity arises to present a belief and announce how special you are and how I'm projecting.
Yet you primed the conversation with cryptic vague non-informations, zero points, as if waiting to show us how unique you are when I make an assumption in an attempt to wade through this literary nonsense.
Not impressive.

Well, you are special as right and I am special as wrong. But we are still both here.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, if you can show me the scientific theory of being a human in totality I will listen. If not, I will do it differently that you in some cases.

Do you listen to medical advice? Or is it just subjective opinion?

NB note the word just in there....

 

[joelr]

Yeah, if you can show me the scientific theory of being a human in totality I will listen. If not, I will do it differently that you in some cases.

And that has nothing to do with the topic. Psychology, philosophy, personal morality, personal codes, relationships, secular spirituality, nothing. I am talking about believing myths and using empirical evidence to show they are not true. These other things are not part of the discussion. Some of those do use forms of the scientific method when studies are done and evidence is reviewed.
These have nothing to do with "non-physical".

 

[joelr]

Well, you are special as right and I am special as wrong. But we are still both here.

uh-huh.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you listen to medical advice? Or is it just subjective opinion?

NB note the word just in there....

Yeah, I listen to objective evidence, but I am still weird and read obscure and ridiculous texts. But off that is all objectively true like gravity including your personal evaluation of cases of meaningless.
I get you now. You and I are differently subjectively and you don't know how to deal with that other than using your subjectivity as an objective standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that has nothing to do with the topic. Psychology, philosophy, personal morality, personal codes, relationships, secular spirituality, nothing. I am talking about believing myths and using empirical evidence to show they are not true. These other things are not part of the discussion. Some of those do use forms of the scientific method when studies are done and evidence is reviewed.
These have nothing to do with "non-physical".

Yeah, you control the world and all understanding of what is relevant. Got you!

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, I listen to objective evidence,

Good, you know it's also their opinion right, but that opinion is based on objective evidence.

But off that is all objectively true like gravity including your personal evaluation of cases of meaningless.

Sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say there?

I get you now. You and I are differently subjectively and you don't know how to deal with that other than using your subjectivity as an objective standard.

I don't know what that means either sorry, what are claiming I've been subjective about? What objective standard are you talking about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good, you know it's also their opinion right, but that opinion is based on objective evidence.



Sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say there?



I don't know what that means either sorry, what are claiming I've been subjective about? What objective standard are you talking about?

All variants of meaningless are not the same, because there are different ways of understanding different parts of the world.
We are doing the objective part versus limited cognitive, moral, utilitarian and cultural relativism. I don't doubt that you can do basic objective evidence. But I have my doubts based on your posts in general that you can catch when it is not about objective evidence in all cases.

In short you seem to be a variant of western culture, where you are unaware when you are doing culture and not objective evidence in some cases. But that just means that you are human like the rest of us. Not that you are any negative for your being a human as such.

So here is your stick. You are in a culture where theism is a problem. I am in a culture where that is not the problem. The problem are secular humans, who claim reason, rationality, evidence, proof, truth and all the rest of that jazz, where it is not relevant because we are doing different subjective value worldviews. So my stick is different than your.s And I don't have be like you or in reverse.
That is it. So I had to read a lot of books about aspects of being a humans, that you didn't have to read, because you have other problems.
I get you and I get that you don't get me. That is okay.

 

[Sheldon]

All variants of meaningless are not the same, because there are different ways of understanding different parts of the world.
We are doing the objective part versus limited cognitive, moral, utilitarian and cultural relativism. I don't doubt that you can do basic objective evidence. But I have my doubts based on your posts in general that you can catch when it is not about objective evidence in all cases.

In short you seem to be a variant of western culture, where you are unaware when you are doing culture and not objective evidence in some cases. But that just means that you are human like the rest of us. Not that you are any negative for your being a human as such.

So here is your stick. You are in a culture where theism is a problem. I am in a culture where that is not the problem. The problem are secular humans, who claim reason, rationality, evidence, proof, truth and all the rest of that jazz, where it is not relevant because we are doing different subjective value worldviews. So my stick is different than your.s And I don't have be like you or in reverse.
That is it. So I had to read a lot of books about aspects of being a humans, that you didn't have to read, because you have other problems.
I get you and I get that you don't get me. That is okay.

Which culture are you assuming I'm from? You also claimed I was being subjective, and I asked you quote that, and you didn't. Your post makes a very little sense, it just seems to leap from one sweeping unevidenced generalisation to another, basically claiming that you know better about something in some vague esoteric way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which culture are you assuming I'm from? You also claimed I was being subjective, and I asked you quote that, and you didn't. Your post makes a very little sense, it just seems to leap from one sweeping unevidenced generalisation to another, basically claiming that you know better about something in some vague esoteric way.

Well, you are likely Western with a problem of theism, where you live. And you view other ways, outside of you versus theism, as weird. I.e. obscure and weird books/tomes.
So I am prepared to apologize and admit that I was wrong on the following condition: You admit that there is more to the world what your world view and theism. And that even your view of theism is not the only form of theism around.

There you go. That is how simple I can do it.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, you are likely Western

You've described almost half the globe, cultural diversity in that half of the hemisphere makes your claim a rather meaningless assumption.

with a problem of theism,

I am an atheist, so that assertion again tells us very little.

you view other ways, outside of you versus theism, as weird. I.e. obscure and weird books/tomes.

Do I, are you telling me what I think?

So I am prepared to apologize and admit that I was wrong

I neither sought nor require any apology, I just find it amusing that a self professed sceptic can hold and express so many unevidenced assumptions about me.

on the following condition: You admit that there is more to the world what your world view and theism.

What is "my worldview" exactly? Where have I claimed there isn't more to the world than whatever it is you are assuming my worldview is? As to there being more to the world than something that forms only one small part of my worldview, and that I demonstrably don't believe, that's a bizarre thing to ask me to admit?

And that even your view of theism is not the only form of theism around.

What are you assuming my "view of theism" is? Why do you assume it doesn't encompass other forms you think exist?

There you go. That is how simple I can do it.

Make sweeping unevidenced assumptions, about people you know virtually nothing about you mean? For someone that professes to be a sceptic, you seem to enjoy believing things you have little to no evidence for?

 

[DNB]

As close to nothing as it's physically possible to achieve, possibly, I don't know, it's one hypothesis amongst many. Literally nothing is not a state that can exist (as far as I can see) because space-time is not nothing so there can never have been a time or a place at which nothing existed.

As I said before, something from nothing is not an idea atheism leads to, as you claimed.

Yes, it is. You are not addressing the required explanation, as to what was the catalyst behind the creation of the known universe.

 

[DNB]

Yes. But it has nothing to do with sharing sentiments. It's about evidence. Information is free. Evidence can be studied by anyone. I am familiar with apologetics from C.S. Lewis to Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.
It's incredibly easily debunkabe and bends the truth to such absurd degrees.

You say it as if there are 2 camps. Religious and non. Except Billions of Hindu, Islamic, Mormon, and other religions not yours are exactly as deluded by a fictional fantasy in your world view as well. Not to mention the alien abduction believers, ghosts, Law of Attraction, mediums and all sorts of new-age crank that people spend money on and shape their entire belief system around. Billions of people who have been deluded into a fantasy. You also believe that. You just make an exception for 1 belief you also happen to have fallen for. You are giving yourself a pass. So by your own world view we can demonstrate that the majority of people are in fact living a delusion. You just think that your version is the not deluded version.
But the point is that even in your view billions of people are in fact deluded. There are at least 1 billion Hindu. 2 billion in Islam. So what you just described as being a bit elitist and possibly unlikely turns out to be exactly what each religion thinks of itself.
On top of that, yes, each religion completely rejects historicity, uses concepts of "faith" that can be applied to ALL belief systems (even racist ideologies) and literally often lies. For example in "Historical Jesus" Bruce Chilton, an apologist scholar actually wrote that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was "new evidence proving the historical Jesus" then goes on to create a fictional childhood biography because "it must have been that case".....then people quote this guy as if it's good scholarship? The historicity studies are a complete and utter mess. Carrier covers all of this evidence in his historicity study and details all of the evidence.
Another apologist wrote a book "debunking" a historians work detailing dying/rising savior demigods prior to Jesus. Out of 35 similarities he debunked 5 but didn't really? "Osirus wasn't like Jesus because he was hung on a tree not a cross..." Yeah, no one said savior demigods had to die on a cross? That was a Roman means of execution and the Jesus story was right at that time and place?
Osirus was not. But it's still the same myth?
Yet apologists will wave this stuff around as if it's proof? It's all confirmation bias.

Thank you joelr for your very well informed response. I agree with all the facts that you presented, and to some degree, the conclusions also.
My point has always been to merely prove the spiritual dimension within man, and not the veracity or accuracy of the conclusions. No other creature on earth has such a capacity that allows themselves to act in a manner that is in defiance to their intellectual capacity. Man will drink himself to death, smoke cigarettes, have racist and bigoted sentiments, etc... - in short, convictions and desires that have absolutely no rational justification whatsoever. But, also, his incessant reverence for the gods, whatever they may be.

There is clearly a spiritual warfare going on within the heart of man, that no other creature on earth is susceptible to. Even the creatures with a fraction of the intelligence of a human, are more pragmatic and functionally sound than man has proven to be. Nor are animals capable of comprehending morals or religion.
There is a spirit within the constitution of man, and this spirit has a source that was not derived from stardust and protoplasm but from a spiritual entity.

 

[DNB]

Well I'm not a theoretical physicist. I don't cut my own hair, or do my own dental work either, it's for the best. Or the mistakes would resemble your clumsy unevidenced assumptions here.

I don't know what preceded Planck time, nobody does, using a god of the gaps polemic explains nothing.

Without refutation, there is a devil in this world and he has influenced man since the beginning of time.
You fail to recognize the overt evidence of the spiritual realm.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, it is.

No, it is not. Atheism is just not believing in god(s). There is no atheist creation story.

You are not addressing the required explanation, as to what was the catalyst behind the creation of the known universe.

Nor is anybody required to give an explanation. I don't know is the answer, and I also don't know if it's even the right question. And, as I said before, inventing a god doesn't help with an explanation as to why things exist and are as they are.

 

[ratiocinator]

You fail to recognize the overt evidence of the spiritual realm.

What evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, it is. You are not addressing the required explanation, as to what was the catalyst behind the creation of the known universe.

You are again using a begging the question fallacy, simply assuming creation with the word used in your argument.

There is no objective evidence anything was created. Also the claim has no explanatory powers, so asking anyone to address the "explanation" is nonsense sorry. Claiming a deity did it, is not an explanation, precisely because it has no explanatory powers.

 

[DNB]

No, it is not. Atheism is just not believing in god(s). There is no atheist creation story.


Nor is anybody required to give an explanation. I don't know is the answer, and I also don't know if it's even the right question. And, as I said before, inventing a god doesn't help with an explanation as to why things exist and are as they are.

You're not following either the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments for the existence of God. All are based on empirical evidence. No one invented anything.