"Lack of belief"

[Aupmanyav]

I would have participated in the discussion but the posts are too long for my liking.
I cannot concentrate for that long period.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would have participated in the discussion but the posts are ....

I lost you at that point.

By the way, I also suffer from attention deficiency dis... oh, look! A squirrel!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not get distracted by squirrels but by words. After a time start loosing interest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe I already did say what the concept of god means, but you disputed that as circular reasoning.

No, I asked you if you were using the word "divinity" in a way that made it not circular. And so far, you haven't told us what you meant by the word.

This is one of those incidental points that makes me want to question it each time an atheist on the forum uses the word "gods" and then debate that they probably don't have concept of that word for it to be meaningful. If they suggest they do, I'll respond with please take it up with 9-10ths_Penguin who seems to think the concept is not widely understood.

I've told you this several times: the only way I've found to define "gods" is with a list of various gods. This lets me talk about the gods I'm aware of; it just doesn't let me make conclusions about all of them. I've never found a defining characteristic that's shared by all of them. If you have one, please share... but since we're inferring things from each other's posts, by the way you dance around the question every time I ask it, I'm inclined to infer that you don't have an answer to give.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

An illusion.

I can get more specific, but it would be utilizing spiritual and/or psychological terminology

I'd stipulate what you are calling "natural" universe with (perception of) physical existence. I believe the underlying Reality is God, or put in other words that I may use: God's Mind, God's Kingdom, Heaven. I routinely just reference it as Reality (with a capital R).

No need. More on this later, so I don't repeat myself...

No. I'm asking how it is said "actual evidence" exists without the conscious awareness of observer in determining it is a) evidence and b) existing.

Of course it takes an observer to be aware of and interpret the evidence. More later...

By (spiritual) Knowledge regarding (perception of) Self.

What does this mean?

We don't know this by seeing answers within the illusion, I'll grant that. We can know this by looking within. Thing is, it doesn't need outer acceptance / agreement for it to have strong basis. In essence, finding the answer within overcomes conviction in all ideas of separation from a) Reality (aka God) and b) other selves. It then provides acute understanding of what the world (physical existence) actually is, and full restoration of Divine Insight is possible. Might not be simple as a dimple, but that has to do with willingness and attachment(s) to physical existence. Part of reason I bring up night dreams is because the analogy works on a few levels, though the restoration of Divine awareness, not so much.

Looking within for answers. Fine advice for soul searching, but for discerning objective reality? Subjective conceptualizations do not help us understand the nature of objective reality until these ideas can be demonstrated as real, independently of the imagination.

I see the evidence as quite Self-evident. I do think it is quasi-rational to assume physical world is real, but disagree it makes the most sense given present pool of evidence and knowledge about reality. If physical sciences wish to close themselves off to available evidence based on broad assertions that have not overcome own existential quandaries regarding fundamental nature of (physical) existence, that's up to each individual scientist. Asking me to give into that sort of ignorance because of such naive assertions is, how you say, utterly ridiculous in terms of Knowledge and Reason.

Here's the problem I see with your approach. Rather than accept the evidence of physical reality (i.e. what we understand from science, from discerning objective facts about existence), you instead rely on subjectively determined concepts. You thereby introduce, via these subjective concepts, several unnecessary layers to your perceptions of reality (i.e. God as Self, etc.) and then using those subjectively discerned concepts to "demonstrate" that physical existence is unreal.

Why unnecessary? Because existence is soundly and validly explainable without them.

I've already explained this above. And same holds true for perception of physical existence. One might say there's millions that hold this to be 'true' and yet if same thing is said about God, that is met with a lot of 'yeah but' type assertions.

I know better than to make a popular appeal fallacy. The "yeah but assertions" though are based on the best evidence we presently have.

It's not like the assertions I'm making are the first time conscious awareness has presented them openly to anyone wishing to understand. Nor do I think one would get vastly different understandings going within their own consciousness. I do think there would be definite differences that could be found, just as two scientists might argue over 'objective' differences of phenomenon. But ultimately, a lot of this comes down to 'what is this for.' And at that level, it is lots of personal, self justified but highly speculative justifications as to what makes for meaningful criteria and determinations of 'advancement.' IOW, I don't benefit personally from discussions / assertions about origins of the universe and life as we know it (in physical existence). I entertain them, and they entertain me. But without making rather huge leaps, they tend not to benefit my daily life or greater understandings of my being. When I first was transforming from agnostic to theist, I was very much hung up on this type of question. But given the parameters of how I routinely see it being discussed, it is not the ways in which I would even speculate, nor do I see much of that serving purpose of greater understanding. But that, I do identify, is on me and if for another it is their 'purpose for living' or 'how they find their livelihood,' I do my best to refrain from judging that either way (positively or negatively). If anything, it strikes me as awesome that there is so much wonder in our collective consciousness to entertain such paths.

To address your earliest point in the above quote, going with one's "own consciousness," which I take to mean individuals' subjective speculations, the world is filled with a great variety of speculations that do not match the reality we've objectively discerned as real to date. There are people who believe in fairies, in unicorns, in murderous yet all-loving deities. In some cases, it gets truly dangerous.

My point is, I think it is evident that subjectively imagining what is real, as opposed to taking an objective approach to discernment, does not do us any great service. It only seems to serve to fill our heads with individually-pleasing fantasies.

I've experienced union of God and Self in acute way, and then routinely (read as daily) get glimpses (for lack of a better word) of that union. For me, God equals Love. When I had acute awareness of the union, there were a number of things that have stuck with me to this moment, and from the perspective of "I sure as heck feel separate from this notion of God, whatever that vague concept means" it is challenging to put those in what I would call proper perspective. Like one thing that I quickly understood during union was it is literally the perspective that is underlying reality (with a little r) all the time. As if, I've always known it. On the other side of that awareness, it shows up as "I have no idea what that union is like, if its possible and I highly doubt anyone alive (ever) does." Which is another thing that was crystal clear to me, that everyone does know this. Such that even from the ignorant mindset, it makes as much sense to me to assume everyone does know union with God right now than personal assumption that concludes no one does, because I'm self determining that is the how things are in this world. For all anyone knows, full union is happening or already has and essentially we are all waiting on you (or me) for it to be complete. All this is how I speculate from ignorance. From union perspective, it was a knowing or self evident that regardless of how things may appear to my physical eyes, all are "in the know." These 2 things along with the exponentially increasing joy factor are my hugest takeaways from my experience that lasted at least 3 weeks and up to 3 months. But I also recall experiences of being able to heal anyone at any time as if that was literally no problem. One might think that would be the hugest takeaway from such an experience, but it really wasn't cause, I think of how "natural" and "knowledge" were put in what I'd call proper perspective. I didn't see it as I need to physically be present for healing to occur, and yet did understand that this is how I am plausibly being perceived and so "why not." Every single instant of every single waking moment was me welcoming the moment as a wonderful opportunity to share / grow joy. In my less conscious awareness, I have many instances during the day of not looking forward to something that is on my daily schedule and looking more forward to other things. As if I am best judge of what will make me happy and what won't.

I too have had such experiences. I had one that lasted for a few months, and got glimmers for a time after that. This was during my pantheistic phase many years ago...

I hesitate to say more on the topic, as to be honest, I don't really want to discourage someone from experiencing what I recall was a very blissful and satisfying experience that seemed quite real to me at the time.

But...

Anyway, I feel I've said enough and yet don't mind bringing up more. I do factually know physical existence is unreal, but besides telling one to go within to what I identify as spiritual awareness, I admit it is challenging to use physical existence to suggest physical existence is unreal. Same holds true in a night dream. Would be very challenging for a character in a night dream to convince me that I'm dreaming, though I'd probably be much more convinced if I had (self determined) awareness that I am in fact dreaming.

...but facts are objective, not subjective. Interpreting the facts and discerning the evidence is necessarily an objective process, rather than subjective.

And the problem I ran into was that I realized, in brutal moments of honesty, that I could not demonstrate the pleasant feelings and experiences to be caused by something other than my own imagination and physiology. It felt great, perceiving that I had a deeper and more profound understanding of reality. My entire psyche had altered, I felt like a different person. But for me, following what is pleasant and superficially meaningful was never enough, and when reality collided with what I was pleasantly perceiving as real, and I couldn't account for the pleasing yet unreal fantasies I had imagined to be real...

I will leave it at that.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Aupmanyav,

I do not get distracted by squirrels but by words. After a time start loosing interest.

Me too, actually. I don't really have the time to go on like this, lol. I'm putting off work atm just being here...

But I made an exception in this case as it's a topic of especially personal interest to me.

And generally speaking, when I read up on ACIM (A Course in Miracles) which I think may be Acim's views judging by the forum name (correct me if I am wrong?), personally I found it far too wordy and overly intellectualized. And when it described things more meaningful, Buddhism and Daoism say the same things more succinctly and profoundly imo. But to each one's own.

Alright, time to get back to making the doughnuts...

 

[Acim]

No, I asked you if you were using the word "divinity" in a way that made it not circular. And so far, you haven't told us what you meant by the word.


I've told you this several times: the only way I've found to define "gods" is with a list of various gods.

What do you mean by "various gods." See, you haven't presented that concept either.

This lets me talk about the gods I'm aware of; it just doesn't let me make conclusions about all of them.

So, that's all on you. How am I supposed to know what gods (currently undefined concept) is on your list?

I've never found a defining characteristic that's shared by all of them. If you have one, please share...

But you also aren't defining the concept in anything you've said here. Not saying what you mean by "gods."

but since we're inferring things from each other's posts, by the way you dance around the question every time I ask it, I'm inclined to infer that you don't have an answer to give.

I believe in this thread and several others I've provide various definitions and/or understandings for God / gods.

I also observe you dancing and not defining.

Why are you singling me out when I believe others in this thread have used the word "gods" and I'd be very surprised if on reread they defined it in a way a) that wouldn't lead you to further questions or b) couldn't be scrutinized in several ways by anyone.

Such that when anyone claims "I lack a belief in gods" and doesn't specify what that concept means, then if "gods" is a rather meaningless concept, so would "I lack a belief in gods" be meaningless.

Definitions of gods that I believe I have provided in this thread:
- divinity
- an adored, admired or influential person or entity

Depending how you choose to respond to all this, I'll decide then whether or not to go back to how this tangent of you attempting to question me as if I'm missing something by way of explanation, got started. IMO, you are missing out on that, but we'll see how you come at me after points in this post have been addressed (or ignored).

 

[Acim]

What does this mean?

Knowledge regarding (perception of) Self.

It's already the sound bite version of how I would explain how one doubts the reality of physical existence. But since your further responses deal with this in another manner, I'll continue on. If you feel it is still lacking in explanation feel free to come back and ask what specifically you are not understanding.

Looking within for answers. Fine advice for soul searching, but for discerning objective reality?

Yes. Not sure what you mean by "soul searching," but it reads to me like you are attempting to take notion of "going within" and pigeon hole it into something simplistic and unimportant in discernment (for you). For me it includes the following, and more: insight, contemplation, meditation, understanding, knowledge, awareness. Such that "objective" and "reality" and "objective reality" are all going to be ultimately understood by going within. Ultimately known. Ultimately aware of.

Subjective conceptualizations do not help us understand the nature of objective reality until these ideas can be demonstrated as real, independently of the imagination.

I highly disagree. You go about "demonstrating conceptualizations as real" and I'll see how you hold up with not using subjectivity in the process of that.

Not even sure why you are interjecting "imagination" into the discussion, but it strikes me as a way to take down a few notches what literally occurs within consciousness with regards to all ideas, and suggest it is faulty faculty of discerning reality. As if, because we can verify things outside of your (general you) made up delusions, we therefore know there is more to 'reality' than this.

Here's the problem I see with your approach.

Let's pause right there and observe the subjective wording being explicitly asserted. Now, you could've left this off and attempted to say what you follow this with, but I think anyone a) being honest and b) having understanding of such assertions (that follow) would realize it is a subjective conceptualization attempting to pass itself off as "objective truth." But continue....

Rather than accept the evidence of physical reality (i.e. what we understand from science, from discerning objective facts about existence), you instead rely on subjectively determined concepts.

It is not an either-or proposition for me, when it comes to intellectual discourse on such topics. I have numerous times stated (and pretty sure I've stated in this thread) that I have faith in physical existence. Thus I am accepting of evidence of said existence, but don't position that acceptance as occurring independent of my consciousness in a quasi-objective manner that I notice is routinely under explained in such assertions. Just assumed. Quite like blind faith.

The "discerning objective facts about existence" are not something I see science as remotely concerned with. In a practical sense, I don't think it needs to be. The rational correlations and verifiability, experimentation, analysis and seeking consensus of understanding explanations are all fine without dealing with the existential questions that science hasn't touched and apparently doesn't care to touch with a proverbial ten foot pole. But if fans of science are going to attempt to make philosophical assertions, I think that needs to be put in check, with the FACT that science does fundamentally rest on faith. Not religious faith. Dictionary definition of faith (minus the entries dealing with religious correlations). The objective kind of faith. I'm relying on that in such a discussion on these matters.

You thereby introduce, via these subjective concepts, several unnecessary layers to your perceptions of reality (i.e. God as Self, etc.) and then using those subjectively discerned concepts to "demonstrate" that physical existence is unreal.

So, my use of the word "faith" of which science fundamentally rests on, and is found in the dictionary, is my subjective concept? I actually see some degree of truth in what you are getting at, but am very clear on the idea that I am not doing this alone and that it is clearly a we occurrence. Again, I challenge you to provide your conceptualizations of reality, without engaging in subjectivity. I believe without me stipulating anything, you can write in a manner that would come off as 'objective' but is very likely to take many assumptions for granted. Such that if I were to ask a whole bunch of "what do you mean by this (concept)" type inquiries, suddenly you'd have to a) explain from subjectivity your meaning, b) use dictionary definitions or b) use quasi-objective language that is riddled with assumptions. I kind of hope you go for the latter cause the other two are so obvious in what is being done (via subjectivity) that it is not really a challenge to see how what you are suggesting I'm up to, is in fact what you/we are always up to. The latter one, makes it less clear. But given my philosophical approach and attention span, I'm not going to suggest we do a one-off on such scrutiny and feel it has been reasonable / objectively addressed. So, I really do wish you the best of luck in demonstrating such things as "discerning objective facts about existence" that won't rely on subjective assumptions.

 

[Acim]

Because existence is soundly and validly explainable without them.

Laughable, and I mean that in a good way. I find this truly humorous. I think its the subjective determination around "validly" that humors me. To the degree you don't take this humorous, I'll eagerly await your non-subjective explanations which validly explain existence.

To address your earliest point in the above quote, going with one's "own consciousness," which I take to mean individuals' subjective speculations, the world is filled with a great variety of speculations that do not match the reality we've objectively discerned as real to date.

This humors me as well. Because you are using your subjective speculation regarding "own consciousness" to suggesting that what words I chose do not match the reality of we (via our own consciousness) have objectively (though that is highly debatable) discerned as real to date.

With regard to (collective) consciousness we have yet to objectively discern the reality of physical assistance. We've assumed our faith in it (and acceptance thereof) has rational considerations and workable understandings to assist with practical matters, but not truly dealt with existential or fundamental assumptions in a meaningful way, except by way of philosophy and theology.

You keep using "objectivity" and "discernment" in ways that I'm calling you out on as "highly speculative subjective assertions." Feel free to correct me on this if you feel up to the task.

There are people who believe in fairies, in unicorns, in murderous yet all-loving deities. In some cases, it gets truly dangerous.

My point is, I think it is evident that subjectively imagining what is real, as opposed to taking an objective approach to discernment, does not do us any great service. It only seems to serve to fill our heads with individually-pleasing fantasies.

Am I bringing up fairies and unicorns and magical beings to address Spiritual Reality? If you comb through my posts, do let me know if you find such assertions and if you think I rely on such things as conveying understandings of existence, Reality, truth and fact.

So, to me, when you say "there are people" you using another subjective speculative point to essentially tie me to that as if that's what my understandings are ultimately getting at. I'm quite comfortable talking in scientific terms and understandings, along with philosophical paradigms. I'd prefer to stick to that type of understanding/language.

But do wish to be clear that "individually-pleasing fantasies" is nice as a retort to essentially attempt to single out a person as isolated in their delusions, but reality of consciousness / collectively consciousness is filling our heads with individually-pleasing fantasies that may try to pass themselves off as "objectively shared by discerning people." I find science (research and analysis) is filled with this. I find religion is. I find many endeavors are and have varying degrees, but not such that one is far better, inherently than another, but more like each endeavor will vary in its reliance on individually-pleasing fantasies. When those fantasies are asserted as truth and/or fact, and it goes the other way, I notice each endeavor has its own version of getting around 'mistaken fantasies' to reset itself for further progress. Like if a scientists makes a prediction based on all the available data that in 2013, there will be lots of coastal flooding across the planet, and here in 2016 we know that didn't occur, we understand that as a mistaken fantasy (or whatever terms we wish to use to note error of the prediction). Science doesn't lose faith by its devotees, it just gets reset and such mistaken 'facts' are brushed aside. New day, new data to work with. Let's all just forget about that and sweep it under the rug. Heck, let's just use ad hoc reasoning that allows science to be put at pinnacle of understanding, but if mistakes like this occur, let's suggest that science is wonderful because it allows for mistakes. It's fanciful imagining are to always be treated kid gloves, for science is that precious.

...but facts are objective, not subjective. Interpreting the facts and discerning the evidence is necessarily an objective process, rather than subjective.

It is both objective and subjective. The aim is objective and not the process. Which gets back to Knowledge of Self. That Knowledge is objective, ultimately. But due to perception, is a process that is apparently still playing out in coming to terms with what Self even is. As I explained from my previous experience, it is technically fully known and known by all, such that there isn't really any doubt about what it means to be a Self That Is All Knowing. But because of the perceptual order, there could be fantasies (for lack of better word, or I'd say illusion) that the self is not all knowing. In essence, the self is seen as separated from a being (any being) that is actually All Knowing. Thus from the unknowing perspective and beliefs around coming to terms with (full) Knowledge, concepts like "super natural" must be part of the picture and seen as THE process by which such knowledge could be obtained. Yet all of this is assumptions about reality (or full knowledge) and ultimately is assertions about Self. It is invoking faith of another sort, that truly amounts to self doubt. Which is the nice way of putting things. I find / observe the self doubting perspective actually has acute fear around All Knowing. How that looks for each individual would perhaps be challenging to account for, nor do I see it as necessary to understand for each person.

Honestly, in all such diatribes by me (like paragraph above), I'm holding back. Partially cause it is long winded to convey what I would call fuller understanding, and partially cause I do get that each has direct link to Full Knowledge, such that the intellectual understandings are entertaining, but do fall short of what is direct route to getting there. But I do recognize that some are perhaps so reliant on intellectual understandings to grasp what is being conveyed that they may desire further intellectual understandings.

I will just add that Knowledge of Self does realize that the entire physical existence / universe is a projection of consciousness. Not individual consciousness and is not the way to understand that, for that is reinforcing fundamental error that leads to self doubt. Self is always a We proposition. The physical universe is fundamentally neutral in all possible conceptions of anything physically occurring, but made out to be highly personal given the fundamental error - separation from the All Knowing Self. That Self is found within, in a place where it could never truly be lost.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you mean by "various gods." See, you haven't presented that concept either.

I can't give a one-paragraph description of a god. I can list some examples of things that are and aren't gods if you would find that helpful.

So, that's all on you. How am I supposed to know what gods (currently undefined concept) is on your list?

Pick a thing and ask me. That's pretty much the only way.

... just as the only way to really know who is and isn't an employee of General Motors is to check their personnel list. This doesn't make "employee of General Motors" a meaningless concept; it just means that employees of General Motors don't have any shared characteristics that differentiate them from people who aren't GM employees.

But you also aren't defining the concept in anything you've said here. Not saying what you mean by "gods."

That's right. But I'm not the one saying "concept of god" as if it means something; you are.

I believe in this thread and several others I've provide various definitions and/or understandings for God / gods.

All the definitions I've seen have ended up being inherently contradictory or had other fatal flaws... but I admit one may have slipped by me in the thread. So that I know which one you had in mind, can you quote it or at least give me a post number?

I also observe you dancing and not defining.

I'm not defining, but that's because it isn't my job.

Why are you singling me out when I believe others in this thread have used the word "gods" and I'd be very surprised if on reread they defined it in a way a) that wouldn't lead you to further questions or b) couldn't be scrutinized in several ways by anyone.

I have other things going on in my life besides RF, so I can't read every post of every thread.

... but are you really trying to suggest that I shouldn't ask you what you mean by your posts unless I ask the same of everyone else? Do you think this is a reasonable demand?

More to the point: do you think that me being somehow unfair in my choices of who to reply to would mean that you somehow have less of an obligation to be rational?

Such that when anyone claims "I lack a belief in gods" and doesn't specify what that concept means, then if "gods" is a rather meaningless concept, so would "I lack a belief in gods" be meaningless.

... or obviously true. We can't believe what we haven't conceived.

"I lack belief in gods" is true even if "gods" is undefined. In fact, if "gods" is undefined, then "I lack belief in gods" is *necessarily* true.

Definitions of gods that I believe I have provided in this thread:
- divinity
- an adored, admired or influential person or entity

- I already pointed out the problems with "divinity". You're still welcome to address them. Until then, I'm disregarding it.

- Unless we're going to call a Christian with three kids who adores all of them a "polytheist", your second definition doesn't match what this thread is about.

Depending how you choose to respond to all this, I'll decide then whether or not to go back to how this tangent of you attempting to question me as if I'm missing something by way of explanation, got started. IMO, you are missing out on that, but we'll see how you come at me after points in this post have been addressed (or ignored).

You said "concept of god"; I asked what you meant by "concept of god." If you want to leave your post effectively meaningless, that's your problem.

 

[Acim]

I can't give a one-paragraph description of a god. I can list some examples of things that are and aren't gods if you would find that helpful.

Wouldn't this just be according to you? If I find those examples debatable or meaningless, does that take away from (all) conceptualizations of 'gods'? Or put another way, are your examples the only way for the rest of us to conceive of gods and what that word means?

Pick a thing and ask me. That's pretty much the only way.

I can't believe you are being intellectually honest to suggest the only way for concept of gods to be understood is to see if it matches with your list. We're on open forum, you are asking me provide meaning for gods. I have. You find that disputable and wish for me to consider your list as way for the concept to have meaning, but aren't actually specifying concept. I get you have a list. We all probably do, but who is being 100% clear with the concept and using it in such a manner than no one can possibly dispute that?

... just as the only way to really know who is and isn't an employee of General Motors is to check their personnel list. This doesn't make "employee of General Motors" a meaningless concept; it just means that employees of General Motors don't have any shared characteristics that differentiate them from people who aren't GM employees.

So who holds the personnel list for 'gods?' You? In your analogy "employee of General Motors" is a meaningless concept, though I guess we could use online resources (i.e. dictionary) to have understanding of "employee" and "General Motors" - ya know, like I did with the concept of "gods."

That's right. But I'm not the one saying "concept of god" as if it means something; you are.

Do a word search on the term "gods" for this thread. Lemme know what you find. I show over 10 pages of instances using that word. What started this tangent you and I are now on is my stating in post #744:

I know of no adult atheist that is unfamiliar with the concept of gods.

So if going with absence, then babies may be atheists (if that is what it truly means to be atheists). But no adult atheist would actually be atheists, if being rigid in this understanding.

If being less rigid, then default position is going to need further explanation as it would seem pretty clear that adult atheists are no longer at the default position.

And you chose to quote only the first line from this post and challenge me on "concept of gods" as if I introduced that into the thread where no one has used that term previously. My main point of that post being that babies don't have concept of gods (or any concepts that we know of) while adult atheists do. How do I know this? Well, of the 100+ posts I found on search one says:

All it takes to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god or gods. It is no more complicated than that. How this thread has reached 17 pages is beyond me.

This from post #335 of this thread. Given what you are getting at, the assertion is meaningless for atheists haven't (in this quote, perhaps all other places) explained the concept that they have no belief in. Because there are posts in this thread (probably dozens) and posts on this forum (likely thousands) where atheists have argued about conceptual understandings of god / gods, then what you are getting at strikes me as perhaps profound, but about as profound to me as suggesting no word has any inherent meaning (zero zilch) except for what we individual/collectively give to it, such that no one source would be inerrant truth on any particular term. And more like, all concepts/terms would be inherently subjective. Even 2+2=4 would be inherently subjective, with no actual objectivity for understanding.

Still, with that stated, I would assert that adult atheists do have concept of god/gods, whereas babies arguably do not, or are unable to communicate it, discuss it.

All the definitions I've seen have ended up being inherently contradictory or had other fatal flaws... but I admit one may have slipped by me in the thread. So that I know which one you had in mind, can you quote it or at least give me a post number?

The inherently contradictory and fatal flaws are on you. I could make same assertions about any concept you can possibly think of. Not hard to make such assertions. But that's not even what I see you attempting to do. Perhaps partially what you are doing, but you are seemingly suggesting it is entirely subjective. I wouldn't rule that out, but would note that is true for all plausible concepts, including the word "concepts."

I'm not defining, but that's because it isn't my job.

And yet you use the word "gods" without presenting a definition of it that will work for everyone, without question.

I have other things going on in my life besides RF, so I can't read every post of every thread.

... but are you really trying to suggest that I shouldn't ask you what you mean by your posts unless I ask the same of everyone else? Do you think this is a reasonable demand?

More to the point: do you think that me being somehow unfair in my choices of who to reply to would mean that you somehow have less of an obligation to be rational?

I think the argument tactic you've taken, that so far I haven't shied away from, is sidetracking. Again, what I stated was along the "babies are atheists" tangent and you are suggesting the concept of "gods" is inherently meaningless. I see it as inherently subjective, like ALL concepts (without exception). I've provided definitions, you dispute those and return to "still meaningless." I see that as plausibly irrational on your part, but to the degree you feel it is not, I could easily play same game with whatever concept you come up with. Go ahead, give it a try and we'll see if my contentions show up as rational or irrational.

... or obviously true. We can't believe what we haven't conceived.

More like, we've conceived otherwise and are disbelieving in our alternative conception. Because we are prejudice like that.

"I lack belief in gods" is true even if "gods" is undefined. In fact, if "gods" is undefined, then "I lack belief in gods" is *necessarily* true.

Disagree and is where things get profound, in my book. "I" is not defined, "lack" not defined, "belief" not defined, "in" not.... well you get the point. "Gods" can be/has been defined in this thread. You might not agree with that definition, but once you read it, you have a conception. A baby cannot do the same. You have assertions of "inherently contradictory" - guess what? That demonstrates you have conception of "gods." So, you're playing a rhetorical game. One that I'm not unfamiliar with. And one that I feel capable of doing with whatever concept you can possibly think of. If you disbelieve this, go ahead and test me on it. I'm game.

You said "concept of god"; I asked what you meant by "concept of god." If you want to leave your post effectively meaningless, that's your problem.

If you don't wish to play the game you are introducing into the discussion, then I view the points you are trying to get across as your problem. You wish to claim meaningless around concept of "god" and/or "gods" while clearly having own concepts of it, but then resorting to "still undefined" which is irrational. Thus your argument is effectively meaningless, but if you think otherwise, then play the game. Choose a concept any concept and we'll see how well you fare under quasi rational assertions that seek to undermine all notions of "objectivity" with the word/concept you choose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We're on open forum, you are asking me provide meaning for gods. I have.

No, you haven't.

You find that disputable and wish for me to consider your list as way for the concept to have meaning, but aren't actually specifying concept. I get you have a list. We all probably do, but who is being 100% clear with the concept and using it in such a manner than no one can possibly dispute that?

I can't parse this sentence. Can you re-phrase?

So who holds the personnel list for 'gods?' You? In your analogy "employee of General Motors" is a meaningless concept, though I guess we could use online resources (i.e. dictionary) to have understanding of "employee" and "General Motors" - ya know, like I did with the concept of "gods."

Which dictionary definition did you have in mind? Most dictionary definitions for "god" that I've seen only work for monotheistic gods, or are figures of speech (e.g. "Wayne Gretzky is a hockey god").

Do a word search on the term "gods" for this thread. Lemme know what you find. I show over 10 pages of instances using that word.

I don't care. If you think it's unfair that those other people haven't been challenged, you do it.

And you chose to quote only the first line from this post and challenge me on "concept of gods" as if I introduced that into the thread where no one has used that term previously.

I challenged you on it. I never claimed that you were the first person to use the term.

But you did use it, and presumably you meant something by it. Not only that, you tried to argue that "the concept of gods" is such a straightforward thing that every adult atheist must know what it is.

The longer you refuse to explain what "the concept of gods" means, the less reasonable your claim that every adult atheist knows "the concept of gods" becomes.

My main point of that post being that babies don't have concept of gods (or any concepts that we know of) while adult atheists do.

And my point is that any self-described atheist will probably know of at least a few god-concepts, but won't have a concept of "gods" that covers all - or even most - gods.

I think the argument tactic you've taken, that so far I haven't shied away from, is sidetracking. Again, what I stated was along the "babies are atheists" tangent and you are suggesting the concept of "gods" is inherently meaningless.

No, I'm not saying that "the concept of gods" is inherently meaningless; I'm saying that if it is meaningful, you're doing a horrible job of explaining what it means.

I'm also saying that the label "gods" applies to many concepts. Some of these concepts are meaningful, others aren't, but each of them only captures a narrow slice of what "god" means.

What this is all getting back to is how people become atheists. If it's possible to articulate a concept of "gods" that really does apply to all gods, then it would be possible to become an atheist by rejecting the concept as a whole.

... but doing this requires a concept. And so far, you've refused to define this concept properly.

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not get distracted by squirrels but by words. After a time start loosing interest.

I get even more distracted squirrels uttering words... They freak me out!

 

[Willamena]

And my point is that any self-described atheist will probably know of at least a few god-concepts, but won't have a concept of "gods" that covers all - or even most - gods.

1. The RF online editor is ****ed.
2. Why not? Why wouldn't the few god-concepts that they have form a concept of "gods" as David Hume proposed it would?

Are you proposing that "the concept" is something external to them?

 

[Kartari]

Hi Acim,

I really do not have the time to continue a very wordy debate at present. I'll just say this for now.

Basically, I continue to find it bizarre for someone to question the reality of physical existence. I can understand questioning our broader perceptions about reality, perceptions about the realities of physical existence vs. what our sensory perceptions tell us about it, or more deeply questioning what we think we know about reality. We don't know everything, that's a given.

Yet, while we are limited beings living in limited ways in a universe we do not fully understand, everything in our knowledge and experience points to physical existence as real: as matter, energy, and forces interacting in ways entirely independent of human imagination. These facets of physical reality even behave in ways we can reliably predict to a great extent. These are not subjective fantasies we have about physical existence, but are actual, real phenomena we can measure and test independently of our imaginations.

Gravity is a real force, for instance. We understand its relationship to space-time, and can measure its strength with respect to mass and distance. We do not generally expect to begin floating up into the air and tumbling about, as in a dream. We do not expect that the power of our imagination can overcome gravity, as in a dream. Do you think otherwise? Do you believe gravity is only in our minds, an imagined reality that is really unreal, like a dream? Do you think that you can throw an apple up into the sky and through the power of faith make it never fall back to the Earth since you believe physical existence is unreal?

Alas, whether you want to imagine it to be otherwise or not, physical existence behaves in very real and predictable ways. To deny this is, quite frankly, absurd.

But when you can levitate by the power of God or toss apples past the Earth's atmosphere with mindpower, let me know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I get even more distracted squirrels uttering words... They freak me out!

Same here, work mentally.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I continue to find it bizarre for someone to question the reality of physical existence.

This, Kartari, is the last frontier of science as well as philosophy. It is the same question that the atheists ask the theists - Where did your God/Deities arose from? As a strong atheist and a person following science, I too have to answer this question. How come the universe is eternal (if it is)? Why is existence there at all? Is there any thing like 'absolute nothing'? If there is not, then why not? Did the universe arise from 'absolute nothing'? Will it go back to being 'absolute nothing'? Is there one universe or many? Four dimensions or many? Is existence real? As you would agree, we do not have the answers today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. The RF online editor is ****ed.
2. Why not? Why wouldn't the few god-concepts that they have form a concept of "gods" as David Hume proposed it would?

Are you proposing that "the concept" is something external to them?

If you have a set of god-concepts that takes into account all gods, please share. I've yet to see such a thing.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Aupmanyav,

This, Kartari, is the last frontier of science as well as philosophy. It is the same question that the atheists ask the theists - Where did your God/Deities arose from? As a strong atheist and a person following science, I too have to answer this question. How come the universe is eternal (if it is)? Why is existence there at all? Is there any thing like 'absolute nothing'? If there is not, then why not? Did the universe arise from 'absolute nothing'? Will it go back to being 'absolute nothing'? Is there one universe or many? Four dimensions or many? Is existence real? As you would agree, we do not have the answers today.

We do not have all the answers. Though in the case of physical existence being real or not, here's the thing. While there is a lot more going on that our senses alone can perceive, our senses do actually discern some facts about reality, and our knowledge gained through the methods of science coupled by better technology have gained us further insights into the facts of reality. Through all of this, while our ideas about reality have radically shifted from long ago (before we understood atoms and space-time and so forth as we do now), existence nonetheless qualifies as fundamentally real. There are real actions and reactions that occur, with real consequences, all of which occurs beyond the scope of our minds or imaginations. In other words, the matter, energy, forces, dimensions, etc. of physical existence cannot be accurately claimed to be a figment of the imagination since they are all demonstrable realities.

What I see Acim doing, with very wordy and somewhat vague descriptions that take me too long to parse, is essentially claim that physical existence is not real because he (or she?) subjectively feels this is so, and that some kind of supernatural mind is real instead, which of course begs the question. Questioning what we know about reality does not give us license to free associate imagined notions about reality all as equally valid. Not if we're looking for factual knowledge, at least.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Universal mind/consciousness - I too do not subscribe to that. But if it all arose from 'absolute nothing', that will mean that we are not real and the universe too and what all it contains is just like virtual particles (which science says are not any different from real particles, and the boundary between the two is continuously transgressed).