What is Your Disbelief?

[ChristineM]

Right back at you. My apologies for trying to have an actual discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.

Jolly good

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jolly good

I wiped my ignore list a while ago, but you're the first to go back on. You're just being needlessly rude to me and I'm not putting up with that. I have enough problems in my ****ty life right now, especially when I just tried to show there's other ways of looking at it. What exactly is your problem? (That's a rhetorical question because I no longer give a **** what you have to say.)

 

[ChristineM]

I wiped my ignore list a while ago, but you're the first to go back on. You're just being needlessly rude to me and I'm not putting up with that. I have enough problems in my ****ty life right now, especially when I just tried to show there's other ways of looking at it. What exactly is your problem? (That's a rhetorical question because I no longer give a **** what you have to say.)

I am simply returning what I've learned from you over the years.
Ive helped you out in need and still you treat me like ****, do whatever makes you feel good. I don't really care

 

[George-ananda]

If you can detect the effects of something even indirectly then it fits within my definition of physical.
It there is evidence that can be seen, then its cause, whatever it is, falls under this definition of physical.
We may not know what it is or even disagree about what it is but it would fit the definition of physical.

We can agree then on a broader understanding of 'physical'.

So where do we disagree? I suppose when you create an opening post on Religious Forums of being a physicalist it comes across that you are then a nonbeliever in ghosts, heaven, souls, afterlife, etcetera (which I think is true in your case) as people think of those things as nonphysical.

Our difference then is just on the best interpretation of paranormal phenomenon and those claiming direct extra-sensory perception of more than the visible.

 

[Nakosis]

I posted my view on it here:

What is Your Disbelief?

It is a coincidence that you should post this question. Something that I read earlier here got me thinking about why I parted from Christianity. Some years ago I looked back on that and reviewed it. Christianity as I recall has aspects which would make a good contemplative and communal faith...

www.religiousforums.com

You can see the "love" a mother monkey has for their offspring. The behavior of "love", constant physical contact, protecting, feeding, teaching are encoded in the mothers brain. Their behavior is simply following a set of instructions "hard wired" in their brain. Baby monkeys are born with a similar set of instructions that cause them to cling to their mother, stay close to them, seek the warmth of their mother's body. They don't decide to act this way. Their brain has be encoded with this behavior.

 

[Nakosis]

We can agree then on a broader understanding of 'physical'.

So where do we disagree? I suppose when you create an opening post on Religious Forums of being a physicalist it comes across that you are then a nonbeliever in ghosts, heaven, souls, afterlife, etcetera (which I think is true in your case) as people think of those things as nonphysical.

Our difference then is just on the best interpretation of paranormal phenomenon and those claiming direct extra-sensory perception of more than the visible.

Just because I have no reason to believe. Lacking personal experience and any evidence I can verify for myself. I'm happy to change my views if either occurs.

 

[George-ananda]

Just because I have no reason to believe. Lacking personal experience and any evidence I can verify for myself. I'm happy to change my views if either occurs.

To me the experiences of countless others is about as good as my own less dramatic experiences. I consider the vast majority of people I meet to be sincere and competent. A quantity, quality and consistencies of even anecdotal experiences has influenced my understanding of reality. I consider such consideration to be part of normal human intelligence.

 

[Quintessence]

The brain is far from irrelevant, heart beat, breathing, walking, sleeping etc, etc, everything is controlled by the brain

That's not what I said. I said, in response to the claim that everything a human thinks and dose is the result of brain chemicals, the following:

Which, even if true, is irrelevant given day-to-day experiences of life and living patently do not reduce down to "brain chemicals."

Do you have a counter to this? Why should we reduce human experience down to "brain chemicals" when that is not reflective of our actual experiences in our lives? Similarly, why should we reduce human experience down to "mathematical equations" when that is not reflective of how we actually experience our lives? Or why should we reduce human experience down to any other substance monism that doesn't actually reflect how we experience our lives? I don't even care what the substance in question is - our life experiences don't reduce down like that in our actual lived experiences. So what is the point of believing that they do? When we don't actually experience reality that way, why believe it reduces down to some singular thing that doesn't actually reflect how we live in the first place? What is the point of that?

Keep in mind your answer can just be something like "I just like that story and mythology." We all have our preferences in these things.

 

[Nakosis]

To me the experiences of countless others is about as good as my own less dramatic experiences. I consider the vast majority of people I meet to be sincere and competent. A quantity, quality and consistencies of even anecdotal experiences has influenced my understanding of reality. I consider such consideration to be part of normal human intelligence.

Sure, you decide what is evidence for you.
Me, I've been fooled enough by the masses I need something more direct.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, you decide what is evidence for you.
Me, I've been fooled enough by the masses I need something more direct.

Fine.

I also consider if I think someone is trying to fool or be sincere.

 

[Nakosis]

Fine.

I also consider if I think someone is trying to fool or be sincere.

I met a man who sincerely believe themselves to be the incarnate of Christ.
I've never doubted their sincerity.

 

[ChristineM]

"I just like that story and mythology."

But it isn't mythology, everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain.

We all have our preferences in these things.

Very true

 

[George-ananda]

I met a man who sincerely believe themselves to be the incarnate of Christ.
I've never doubted their sincerity.

We have to use our reasoning skills I said.

 

[Secret Chief]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

Picked at random - Do you believe mathematics exists? I don't mean the numbers on the page, or the light wave transmission to the retina, or the brain chemistry and electrical changes, I mean...."mathematics."

 

[PureX]

I agree because it has no physical elements.

Or it does, but transcends them. Yet transcends them how? And how could we even know?

I keep thinking that if "God" were hovering in a 'blaze of glory' right in front of me, right now, telling me via telepathy that it is truly God, how could I possibly verify this claim, even just for myself? And I cannot think of a single way. Yet I CAN think of several other possibilities from which to cast doubt.

This whole "natural vs supernatiral" debate is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. We humans really want to believe that we can know the truth of things. And we'll create all sorts of intellectual sophistry to try and convince ourselves that we can, and do. Bit the truth is that beyond a small circle within our direct experience, and what we can imagine to be motivating it, we are basically clueless.

Work is a understood physical process in which energy is changed in form. So still nothing here that is not physical.

What is energy?

 

[Vinayaka]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

Not sure if you wanted to discuss your disbelief as you stated here, or did you want to hear about other people's main disbeliefs?

 

[Nakosis]

Not sure if you wanted to discuss your disbelief as you stated here, or did you want to hear about other people's main disbeliefs?

I'm fine with either. For example someone commented on their disbelief in the physical. Also happy to respond to any questions about my disbelief.

However it is in the debate section, so certainly we can debate the merits of disbelief.

 

[Nakosis]

Or it does, but transcends them. Yet transcends them how? And how could we even know?

I keep thinking that if "God" were hovering in a 'blaze of glory' right in front of me, right now, telling me via telepathy that it is truly God, how could I possibly verify this claim, even just for myself? And I cannot think of a single way. Yet I CAN think of several other possibilities from which to cast doubt.

This whole "natural vs supernatiral" debate is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. We humans really want to believe that we can know the truth of things. And we'll create all sorts of intellectual sophistry to try and convince ourselves that we can, and do. Bit the truth is that beyond a small circle within our direct experience, and what we can imagine to be motivating it, we are basically clueless.

Yes, however an understanding of physical processes have a practical understanding which can be consistently testing and from that useful methodologies can be developed. IOW, we can have limited understanding of this physical reality which we can make practical use of.

What is energy?

The ability to do work. If you want to toss a ball you need an available energy source to do so. The amount of work that is available can be measured so we can determine how much work can be done.

The non-physical, even if it does exist has no practical value since you can't do anything with it. No measurable physical effects.

I suppose I might better say the non-physical has no importance since it lacks the ability to affect physical reality even if it does exist.

 

[Nakosis]

Picked at random - Do you believe mathematics exists? I don't mean the numbers on the page, or the light wave transmission to the retina, or the brain chemistry and electrical changes, I mean...."mathematics."

Math is informational. That information is physically stored.
Any computer can use math. There is nothing non-physical about the process.

 

[Nakosis]

We have to use our reasoning skills I said.

Certainly, skepticism and critical thinking is helpful with that.