I asked atheists for objections to God(s), and then addressed them according to Setianism.

[paarsurrey]

Quoting the OP: "That's a biggie, but the empirical evidence for Setianism are the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the capability of the human mind to go against deterministic nature, as well as the empirical evidence that Mind and Body are separate substances..... As I said above this is not true, and there are more scientific reasons to believe in Setianism than many other positions. For instance we know through empirical science that the mind is something different from and capable of working against that natural, deterministic universe. Scientific evidence includes the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Self-Regulation, Cognitive Therapy, Placebos with or without Deception, the empiric fact that the mind and body have wholly different properties. That is quite a bit of scientific evidence. If the UPR is disprove, or self-regulation, or cognitive therapy, etc., then the question can be readdressed. "

Will you address any of this? Ignoring evidence is not "skepticism," and materialism is the least skeptical position one can hold.

If you don't have faith then what is your refutation of the presented evidence and arguments?

Set is Isolate Consciousness.

I'd say yes, if it's even "in" the body at all.

Cognition is an aspect of consciousness.

Spirit, Soul, Self, Mind, Isolate consciousness... these are all identical.

In a sense, and Set is just the egyptian version of something across cultures and time. My understanding of Brahman is that it is more something mystical like the Tao, and the goal is to lose the individual Self within Brahman. Am I misunderstanding?

It's in the OP, which I wish people would read before posting:

"but the empirical evidence for Setianism are the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the capability of the human mind to go against deterministic nature, as well as the empirical evidence that Mind and Body are separate substances. ....As I said above this is not true, and there are more scientific reasons to believe in Setianism than many other positions. For instance we know through empirical science that the mind is something different from and capable of working against that natural, deterministic universe. Scientific evidence includes the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Self-Regulation, Cognitive Therapy, Placebos with or without Deception, the empiric fact that the mind and body have wholly different properties. That is quite a bit of scientific evidence. If the UPR is disprove, or self-regulation, or cognitive therapy, etc., then the question can be readdressed. "

Can you address or refute this?

"Set is Isolate Consciousness."

Seth has following attributes as told by one:

~ Higher consciousness having an aspect of congnition.
~Isolate, implying no wife, no sons and daughters.

Right, please?

Regards

 

[`mud]

I do not think `gods` exist, the Cosmos is much too large.
Do `gods` exist beyond the Cosmos, I don't really know.
When I get there, I'll know, a very long trip isn't it ?
Paarsurrey wants to know how I know why I have a spirit.
Well...if there is not a `god`, that's all one has, isn't it ?
If it's not, then all life is a waste, that's my own faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, we are the individual consciousness that is "I"

Since Seth is "Isolate Consciousness", we are separate from Seth. Right, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not think `gods` exist, the Cosmos is much too large.
Do `gods` exist beyond the Cosmos, I don't really know.
When I get there, I'll know, a very long trip isn't it ?
Paarsurrey wants to know how I know why I have a spirit.
Well...if there is not a `god`, that's all one has, isn't it ?
If it's not, then all life is a waste, that's my own faith.

Please, not in poetry form.
Regards

 

[HonestJoe]

Can you address or refute this?

The Upper Paleolithic Revolution is something that happened but you've not even tried to explain how that is evidence for Setianism (or any non-naturalistic explanation for the process for that matter).

You've asserted that "Mind and Body are separate substances" but not supported that assertion in any way; I'm not aware of any kind of definitive answer to those kind of questions. And again, even if it were true, you've not demonstrated how that is evidence for the specific beliefs of Setianism.

You've gone on to list a number of concepts or ideas but not expanded on them or, again, explained how they're evidence for Setianism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"the empirical evidence for Setianism are the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the capability of the human mind to go against deterministic nature, as well as the empirical evidence that Mind and Body are separate substances..... As I said above this is not true ... Scientific evidence includes the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Self-Regulation, Cognitive Therapy, Placebos with or without Deception, the empiric fact that the mind and body have wholly different properties. That is quite a bit of scientific evidence

Sorry, but none of that is evidence that an entity called Set exists. You might as well have listed jogging and speed reading as evidence for Setianism.

For instance we know through empirical science that the mind is something different from and capable of working against that natural, deterministic universe.

No, dualism is one of four possible understandings of the relationship of mind and matter, none of which has been demonstrated. We don't know that consciousness isn't an epiphenomenon of matter.

If you don't have faith then what is your refutation of the presented evidence and arguments?

No refutation is needed as no argument has been presented.

 

[`mud]

As I said in post #6

 

[paarsurrey]

Set is consciosness, or perhaps specifically higher consciousness.



Sure maybe, that wouldn't really affect my beliefs.



Well Setianism applies to all cultures, Set is just the oldest.



He saod not bothering to address the OP....



Wrong, this crap has gone on long enough. Any position needs defense, atheism included. If there's no defense for a position we should not seriously consider it. We reject vampires and leprechauns for reasons, not just cause we feel like it, and can defend such rejections. Is your atheism simple faith?



And yet we just confirmed you apparently don't have reasons to believe and do so on faith, without even bothering to address the presented evidence and just screaming "NUH UH, ATHEISM!" So I don't believe this quote on shred.



I literally explain how I'm the op man. Let's keep this honest yeah?



The... The evidence I posted that you ignored. Set is simply the oldest solidified interpretation of this being. Setianism may instead choose Odin, Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl, Ishtar, Kali, Azazel, Coyote, The Devil... Any of the tons of Prince and Princesses of Darkness.



So address the evidence I have presented to start with yeah? This atheist game of screaming "there's no evidence!" when's it's literally blatantly provided isn't gonna fly.

"Set is simply the oldest solidified interpretation of this being. Setianism may instead choose Odin, Prometheus, Quetzalcoatl, Ishtar, Kali, Azazel, Coyote, The Devil... Any of the tons of Prince and Princesses of Darkness."Unquote

Does one mean that the Set-ism people don't insist on the name "Set" but they would go for any other name in any other culture/society of the Being which has sort of the same attributes?

Regards