Originally posted by DeadlinePlease indicate where you stated such, or if anyone else remembers and can direct me, I'd appreciate it. And it's been my experience -- with my far more frequent referencing of mysticism and meditation -- that people don't get "amped" about it. They may disagree, but I have never found this topic to be inherently disturbing to anyone...well, except those who pretend to know something about it.
I'm pretty sure I stated that I meditated on this forum, maybe you weren't there. I dunno maybe I don't like talking about it because people tend to get all testorene amped like you're doing now.
Originally posted by DeadlineAs I said, I already knew what you would say.
I meditate every day and have done so for years. I'm not even sure what you're talking about now, what reliable evidence that meditation makes you telepathic?
Originally posted by DeadlineIn terms of, say, a research topic, it doesn't. But conceptually, they're both transcendent, both "defy" physics. I don't know how I can make it any simpler. Again, if you really were familiar with mystical/meditative literature, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
I still don't see why ESP has to have something to do with god.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Stop it.You're missing the point.
That's not the point of it, at all.
You can think of anything you want to devise a "prove yourself, God" scenario, and that's going to be what needs to occur. That's the only point of the scenario. Remove my scenario and submit your own. Whatever you want to satisfy your want for a "Prove yourself, God" scenario.
Well, that is kind of my point, I don't see a way your God can prove himself, the same reason people can say "you can't disprove my God" are the ones that also make it impossible to "prove" that type of God.
Originally posted by Mindship
Please indicate where you stated such, or if anyone else remembers and can direct me, I'd appreciate it. And it's been my experience -- with my far more frequent referencing of mysticism and meditation -- that people don't get "amped" about it. They may disagree, but I have never found this topic to be inherently disturbing to anyone...well, except those who pretend to know something about it.
Yes let me dig through years of posts so I can prove to somebody who doesn't believe me because he hasn't seen me mention anything about meditation at the precise time he was around.
Yes actually they do I was relating some of my experiences to inimalist and automatically assumed I was patronising him.
Originally posted by Mindship
As I said, I already knew what you would say.
And I never said there is evidence that meditation makes one telepathic. What has been confirmed is that 1) meditation can produce a profound relaxation response; and 2) the self/ego is a construct.
Good for you. Didn't think thats what you were trying to say. Wow what a suprise.
Originally posted by Mindship
In terms of, say, a research topic, it doesn't. But conceptually, they're both transcendent, both "defy" physics. I don't know how I can make it any simpler. Again, if you really were familiar with mystical/meditative literature, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
I don't know whats wrong with you today. Any jackass who picks up a book and reads philosophy about mysticism knows that they tend to associate highier states of conciousness with God eg books on Qabbalah. I guess maybe you would like a detailed explantion of the Qabbalah and the name of an author and a book.
You're strawmanning. I'm not arguing that people don't associate highier states of conciousness with God or ESP. What I'm arguing is that you seem to think there has to be an inherent connection. It doesn't really matter wether its transcedental or not even the afterlife doesn't have to have anything to do with God.
So far all the only reason why you think there has to be a connection is because somebody wrote in a book. Hell even this argument that ESP is transcedent and 'defys' physics is faulty. Clearly some scientists think it exists and all ESP is something we don't quite understand yet.
Originally posted by Badabing
Awesome post! 👆I'm gonna save it because it's the best explanation I've seen.
Sorry dude, I was disappointed at that same post, as it did very little outside of misrepresenting atheism, made worse by the fact that I'm fairly sure I've rebutted near-identical arguments from lil in the past. The post itself is internally logical, but only when debating a straw man.
Not to be an atheist apologist...
IMO, most people who identify themselves as atheist do so in the manner to reject religious-dogmatic views of God, eg God created that like this, God wants you to behave in this manner, you’ll be punished or rewarded if you do don’t or do etc. etc. etc. If ‘we’ got a group of atheist and reasoned with them and asked them if they could in all intellectual honesty saw that with 100% certainly that they deny the possibility of a power greater than themselves; that is beyond human ability to fully understand, I think most of them wouldn’t deny that there is a chance in this God/Greater-Force/Higher-Consciousness/Power or what have you.
In turn, they would cease to be atheist and more in line with being Anti-Religious Agnostics.
Agreed with all but your final line there Robtard. Being an atheist is saying you don't believe in a God or gods, not that there's no chance of there being a God or gods.
The idea that atheism is the abject, absolute denial of any creator being is the most widely held misconception about atheism. I've seen numerous people, articles, etc. that will dismiss atheism on nothing more than the absurdity of this position. And if you don't know anything else about atheism, it seems logical, but it's a strawman. Those types of hard atheists make up a negligible total. I always cringe to bring this up because it may sidetrack the discussion, but its a great example, that even Dawkins isn't that type of atheist. If that doesn't tip you off that you're working with a flawed definition of atheism, I'm not sure what will.
Lil makes a similar mistake in her earlier post, and is why I felt the need to temper Bada;s enthusiasm for her post.
Originally posted by Digi
Agreed with all but your final line there Robtard. Being an atheist is saying you don't believe in a God or gods, not that there's no chance of there being a God or gods.The idea that atheism is the abject, absolute denial of any creator being is the most widely held misconception about atheism. I've seen numerous people, articles, etc. that will dismiss atheism on nothing more than the absurdity of this position. And if you don't know anything else about atheism, it seems logical, but it's a strawman. Those types of hard atheists make up a negligible total. I always cringe to bring this up because it may sidetrack the discussion, but its a great example, that even Dawkins isn't that type of atheist. If that doesn't tip you off that you're working with a flawed definition of atheism, I'm not sure what will.
Lil makes a similar mistake in her earlier post, and is why I felt the need to temper Bada;s enthusiasm for her post.
I have a feeling that Lil actually understands that.
Originally posted by Robtard
I think most of them wouldn’t deny that there is a chance in this God/Greater-Force/Higher-Consciousness/Power or what have you.
actually, I do believe there are atheists who would categorically deny higher powers. I don't necessarily think they have the strongest intellectual platform, but I'd be surprised if it didn't exist.
That being said, I feel this argument is largely moot. Accepting that there is a chance someone is wrong still makes a claim about the existence of some being.
While there are clearly some people who would fit the "anti-religious agnostic" label, there are equally people who take the position that an unknowable God is one that might as well not exist, and almost certainly doesn't.
That type of "qualification" is similar to the one that would make any proper scientist admit that the Earth is only round by observation, or that the theories of gravity and what have you are themselves susceptible to change.
Like, I'll put it out there: The "you-can't-know-by-definition" God is equally as mythological as the one you can know, and really only reflects certain generalizing processes that the human mind evolved to deal with complex social and environmental interactions required of mammals that live in large groups and ESPECIALLY language.
For as "arrogant" as someone might want to say that claim is, it is the consequence of almost childlike thinking that people would suggest that there could be something which could meaningfully be labeled as "God" for which there would be no possible way to confirm the existence of, and for any "god" not meaningfully labeled as such, its existence is tautologically moot or redundant, depending on whether you believe God is separate or everything.
Originally posted by Digi
The idea that atheism is the abject, absolute denial of any creator being is the most widely held misconception about atheism.
I don't know about that
I'd deny an intelligent creator to the same degree of certainty that I would deny the world is flat
I'd deny a non-intelligent creator on the grounds of it being irrelevant or redundant
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know about thatI'd deny an intelligent creator to the same degree of certainty that I would deny the world is flat
I'd deny a non-intelligent creator on the grounds of it being irrelevant or redundant
Thats kinda what I was thinking but even then I'd bet that you would say that an intelligent creator might exist. Also I think some athiests wouldn't put themselves in that category but as far as I'm concerned they're in denial. In other word they say God or gods might exist but they don't believe it really ie their level of belief is so low you might as well classify it as complete rejection.
Originally posted by Deadline
Thats kinda what I was thinking but even then I'd bet that you would say that an intelligent creator might exist.
in terms of the absolute dictates of empirical, evidence based philosophy, ok, it might, in the same way that the earth might actually be flat or that I might actually be a woman or that you all might be simulations in my mind as I am actually only a brain in a vat.
In terms of any real way that my philosophy is applied to reality, no, there is no creator. I'd be willing to evaluate evidence, as I would if someone said they could empirically show that I'm not male, but the fact that I'm not close minded says nothing about my degree of certainty.
Originally posted by Deadline
Also I think some athiests wouldn't put themselves in that category but as far as I'm concerned they're in denial.
I'd agree, but thats hardly surprising, as my interpretation of what it means to be an atheist is that degree of certainty. If you are actively considering that God might exist, or leaving that possibility open, then I don't know how fitting of the term atheist you are... though, like I've said before, I have no interest in arguing the labels people want to give themselves
Originally posted by Robtard
Interesting, I've thought it was the denial outright. Fair enough though.
In your defense, though, your definition is how the term is used in everyday parlance. Whenever a person self-identifies as "Atheist", it generally means Strong Atheist. Other forms of Atheism usually require an asterisk for clarification, such "Well, I'm not saying there's no god, I just want evidence".
Atheists = "Anti-Religious Agnostics" in casual, informal everyday speech.