Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,430 members, 7,954,687 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 September 2024 at 07:17 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Understanding Religious Delusion (5666 Views)
Understanding Religious Preaching Bill - El-rufal Writes Nigerians / PROOF: Understanding Religious Delusion / Understanding Religious Delusions. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 2:09pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
thehomer: Missed this jibe at me earlier. To rectify it, consider my response. It wasn't a jibe. Not in any way or form whatsoever. Deep Sight you're back again with your accusations. How is the idea of a self existent universe a fairy tale if the idea of a self existent God is to be tenable? You missed the flow of the conversation. I was not stating the idea of an eternal universe to be a fairy tale (though I do not believe in such an idea). What happened was - 1. I applauded the OP 2. Martian alleged that the same arguments in the OP used to discredit "religious fairy tales" could equally be used against my ideas of God 3. I asked him how so 4. He indicated that my ideas are also fairy tales and alluded to my concept of "self existent things" 5. I pointed out to him that he cannot call the concept of self-existence - by itself - a fairy tale given that in any event something or the other MUST be self existent - either the precursor of the universe or the universe itself. 6. In so doing I drew his attention to the fact that any person who rejects a self existent God must accept a self existent universe - or some other self existent state of affairs. 7. I mentioned you as an example of such a person. 8. And for this reason I conclude that he cannot deride the mere concept of self-existence as a "fairy tale" - if he does so, then the atheist who uses the same concept is also dealing with a fairy tale. That's all. Please can you tell me if you think energy is eternal or not? All energy is eternal but physical/material energy is not eternal in the past: because it is mutable, and as such not self-existent. First, you may realize that this isn't what all atheists say neither is it what I say. Any atheist that accepts that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal in the past is inevitably implying the same thing. Secondly, you're demonstrating your emotional need for some sort of cosmic purpose . . . That need is inherent in all men, in mind, in consciousness, and in knowing sentience. Given that nature abhors vacuums, that "need" in itself can only be as integral to man as every other natural instinct that any creature has. If it turns out that the universe has no cosmic purpose or that its purpose was simply to arrive at 42, would that bother you? Well that would render your life meaningless, not mine. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 2:42pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
In addition to the foregoing, I need also say that a purely theological discourse on primordial causality cannot in any vein be compared to the sort of tales in the OP (re: santa claus, flying horses, holy-spirit pregnancy, etc) and secondly that given that science itself bespeaks causality, the atheist who denies same is approaching the greatest fairy tale of all time. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by thehomer: 2:44pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Okay. Deep Sight: What evidence do you have of non-physical/material energy? Deep Sight: But the universe isn't nothing. Deep Sight: Actually, that need for a cosmic purpose isn't inherent in all people. e.g I don't have such a need. The absence of such a need doesn't mean that I cannot have my own purposes you know. Deep Sight: Actually, it would also render your life meaningless in the sense that you're using the word. Unless of course you actually know what the cosmic purpose is and for you to do that, you would need to be the God that created the universe. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 2:55pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
thehomer: The existence of non material energies is a logical deduction from the following premises - 1. Material Energies exist 2. Material energies, being mutable cannot be self-existent 3. Being not self-existent, material energies must have come into existence at a point 4. Given that something cannot emerge from nothing, material energies must have emerged from some thing else 5. Given that nothing mutable is its own cause, then material energies must have emerged from non-material elements But the universe isn't nothing. The implication of believing it to be finite in the past is that one must concede that it started at a point . . . . from what? Nothing? And if from something, what, why, wherefore, and how was that something? Actually, that need for a cosmic purpose isn't inherent in all people. It is. e.g I don't have such a need. You do. The absence of such a need doesn't mean that I cannot have my own purposes you know. They would be meaninglessly transient purposes, inherently empty. Actually, it would also render your life meaningless in the sense that you're using the word. Unless of course you actually know what the cosmic purpose is and for you to do that, you would need to be the God that created the universe. The cosmic purpose is the natural and living expression and expansion of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE itself. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by thehomer: 3:12pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Your second premise there is faulty. You're referring to "material energies". That is a faulty idea in the way you're using it in your argument. You need to realize that humans classify energy in various ways in order to be better able to work with them not that energy itself is mutable. I think what you mean by mutable there should apply if energy stopped being energy but instead became something else which doesn't happen. The failure of that premise causes the others to fail. Deep Sight: No, something. Deep Sight: I don't know. I don't even know enough to tell whether or not your questions on it are even valid. Deep Sight: Wow. You seem to know so much about me. Now please tell me how you know I have such a need despite the fact that I've told you I don't. Deep Sight: The fact that something is transient or limited doesn't make it meaningless. It is a purpose. Deep Sight: So the purpose of the universe is for life to be present. This is a worse than pedestrian purpose that would be served even if the only available life forms were bacteria. And you call this a cosmic purpose for humans? You need to try harder. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 4:20pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
thehomer: Material energy is indeed mutable to the extent that it changes state and form: ordinary material particles do change to energy and energy transformations are the stuff the universe is virtually made of. That is in the first instance. In the second instance energy does not have to change to something else entirely to be classified as mutable. Mutable simply means something that can change. To the extent that energy undergoes transformation in terms of matter/energy and also is transformed to different kinds of energy, yes, it is mutable. In cosmology and astronomy the phenomena of stars, nova, supernova, quasars and gamma ray bursts are the universe's highest-output energy transformations of matter. All stellar phenomena (including solar activity) are driven by various kinds of energy transformations. Energy in such transformations is either from gravitational collapse of matter (usually molecular hydrogen) into various classes of astronomical objects (stars, black holes, etc.), or from nuclear fusion (of lighter elements, primarily hydrogen). Energy transformations in the universe over time are characterized by various kinds of potential energy that has been available since the Big Bang, later being "released" (transformed to more active types of energy such as kinetic or radiant energy), when a triggering mechanism is available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy As such, the second premise stands, because yes, a mutable thing cannot be self existent. I don't know. I don't even know enough to tell whether or not your questions on it are even valid. I don't expect you to know, but I expect you to deduce from the question the glaring fact (which you have acceded) that the universe arose from something - and so long as we say we don't know what that something is, we can see that for that something to exist, it either (x) is self existent - which again justifies my position on self-existence or (y) arose from nothing - which we have agreed is impossible. What emerges is that the only logical position is that (x) above is the case: and in that event it cannot be that the material universe or any physical thing that preceded it is self-existent, because such are mutable: (if what preceded the material universe is also matter, then it clearly changed form and as such is mutable) - as such, we are left with the only other logical outcome: a non-material self existent element. Logic. This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible. Capisce? Wow. You seem to know so much about me. Now please tell me how you know I have such a need despite the fact that I've told you I don't. Because for one who has no such need you spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy on these matters. Secondly, as I said, ALL human beings have an inherent need for cosmic meaningfulness. Even those who claim otherwise still have that need. As a knowing sentient creature, it is as impossible not to have that need as it is not to think at all. The fact that something is transient or limited doesn't make it meaningless. It is a purpose. Of course, if it results in anything subsequent to itself, it had a successive purpose. But, as in the case of the atheist's worldview, when it ends with no successive event or further motion, then it ends as ultimately and eventually purposeless. You should read this in both the micro scale of individual death and the macro scale of universal-extinction/ death. This is as simple as saying that this equation - 0 + 123456789 - 123456789 = 0 --- Means nothing other than zero. Its final result and end purpose is zero, notwithstanding that there occurred 123456789 in the equation, and this is the summary of the atheist's purposeless zero life. So the purpose of the universe is for life to be present. This is a worse than pedestrian purpose that would be served even if the only available life forms were bacteria. And you call this a cosmic purpose for humans? You need to try harder. I did not say any such thing. I said the expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE. That is not the same as saying that the universe is built for living things - even if it is or not. Rather the universe itself is part of the primordial expansion and expression radiated from the ultimate PRIMORDIAL LIFE that I speak of. O, and by the way, PRIMORDIAL LIFE is another word for God, as I use it. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 5:04pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Fairies with tails?! You're trying too hard. Anyway, I've always maintained that i don't know if there is a precursor to the universe or not. No one knows, and your immutable non material entity can best be described as Nothing. Deep Sight: I've already thought about this stuff a lot. I know my "concious self" doesn't control everything but I'm also not qualified to talk about the intricacies of the brains autonomous functions but that doesn't mean my mind is independent of my brain. You just think you're the only one who "reflects" on stuff lmao. Anyway, the mind itself might be a function of the Cerebrum and the abcence of a cerebrum doesn't mean that all the autonomous fuctions would cease. I think anencephaly is a good example. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes the presentation of this condition as follows: "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly Deep Sight: lol, what are you yapping about? Deep Sight: I didn't call energy "self existent". Self existence is said to be an attribute of "god" and i don't know anything about any god. Anyway, energy is mutable so I guess it deosn't qualify for your "self existence" definition. Deep Sight: I do not regard the universe or energy as "self existence" and If if implied that before, then I take it back. I don't know anything that's "self existent" as you define it. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 5:06pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: If we are to follow your "logic", everything did come from nothing because "Nothing" is the best definition of a "non material self existent element"..........or maybe ghosts, or fairies with tails lol. nonmaterial - not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities" |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 5:07pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: Never heard of puns? come on. Fairy tails... |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 5:09pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: The logic in there is quite simple to follow, but at the same time it requires careful and hesitant logical reflection. I think you might want to go over it again: especially in light of the lame christian meme you accused me of deploying. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 5:11pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: That something is non material does not make it non existent. Ideas and thoughts are not material (they do not have the properties of matter, do they?) and yet they certainly exist. And many other things which I could cite. But what can I say, you are ever the hardened materialist. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 5:14pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
@ Martian, refer to - Deep Sight: Refer to: This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible. And take in context. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 5:28pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: What does this suggest to you about the brain and the conscious mind. lol, what are you yapping about? When i gave eternity as an example of a self existent thing, you smirk, why? 1. You don't believe that eternity exists at all? Are we not living in eternity? Is everything not existing in eternity one way or the other? 2. If eternity exists, is it something that can be created? 3. If not, then of course it is self-existent. If that is the case, and you yet deny that, then you must have created eternity. I do not regard the universe or energy as "self existence" and If if implied that before, then I take it back. I don't know anything that's "self existent" as you define it. Is eternity self existent? |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 5:34pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Ideas and thoughts are dependent on our brains. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 5:37pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: anencephaly could be evidence that our concious mind is a function of the Cerebrum. Deep Sight: The only thing said to be "self existent" is god and I don't know of any gods. Eternity is just a conception of endless time or infinite time.....................forever and ever, and ever, and ever |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 5:40pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Still doesn't work. lmao |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by thehomer: 6:33pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: It looks as though you didn't get my point. My point is this: nuclear energy is energy, chemical energy is energy, mechanical energy is energy etc. Humans classify them in different ways for their own purposes not because they're inherently different but to make it easy for them to work with the concept. So when you say energy is mutable that is like saying energy mutates to energy which is a tautology and a tautological idea like that wouldn't work in your premise. Deep Sight: This is the problem with mistaking a tree for the forest. I say it is something, you say the something is God. Now a God needs to have a mind. How do you know that this thing actually has a mind? Can it even have a mind? You need to actually consider the broad picture before you start posting your treatises. Deep Sight: Have you considered that it may be something as mundane as intellectual curiosity? Deep Sight: Wow. Deep Sight now declares by fiat what the inherent need of humans is. Well I can do that too. I declare that all humans have an inherent need of being loved by Santa Claus. It is as impossible not to have that need as it is to not think at all. Deep Sight: So you're in effect saying that when you die, you would have served no purpose. Sorry to hear that. The numbers you presented there don't really help what you're saying. e.g what is the purpose of -97531? Is that a negative purpose? I already pointed out to you that one can have a purpose in their life yet you persist in not paying attention. Deep Sight: So this primordial life is God. And God was alive without a universe. Now can you please tell me how God can be alive without a universe and what the purpose of your life is? Note that merely saying that your life is an "expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE" doesn't help you because bacteria that are alive are also an "expansion and expression of the PRIMORDIAL LIFE". Thus your so called purpose would still be less than pedestrian. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 6:34pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: Excellent! I am so very happy that you said "dependent" on our brains, and not that they ARE our brains. I still demand a strict and definitive answer from you: yes, ideas and thoughts are dependent on our brains - BUT ARE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS PHYSICAL THINGS? Answer yes or no please: I have always noticed great hesitation from you on this particular question: as though you know the truth but are hesitant to admit that anything non-material exists. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 6:38pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Martian: So what do you think. . . ~ That the cerebellum is consciousness itself or ~ That the cerebellum generates consciousness or ~ That the cerebellum is a consuit pipe for consciousness. Please take careful time to think on this one before responding, because I am going to ask you when you respond exactly what, why, how and wherefore the cerebellum is. Ciao. The only thing said to be "self existent" is god and I don't know of any gods. Eternity is just a conception of endless time or infinite time.....................forever and ever, and ever, and ever Please stop being evasive. Yes or no answers will suffice. ~ Does Eternity Exist, yes or no. ~ Can eternity be created, yes or no. Thanks. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 6:43pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
thehomer: EXACTLY! That betrays the need for meaning. Will respond to the rest of your post later. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by thehomer: 6:50pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Again, consider my response in context. I spend a lot of time on a lot of things due to my intellectual curiosity. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 9:18pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Ideas and thoughts are not physical, but they are the products of a physical entity which is the brain. 1 Like |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 9:34pm On Jun 30, 2012 |
Deep Sight: I'm not saying anything definite because I'm not an expert but it seems the Cerebrum and Cerebellum are vital to conciousness and movement Deep Sight: It's impossible to say whether eternity exists. Eternity is defined as indefinite time, but none of us knows the future or if "time" as defined will continue indefinitely. Time as part of the spacetime continuum is said to have started 13 billion years ago, that's all I knnow about time. Eternity is nothing but a concept used to describe the nature of the "self existent" god. You are just trying to force your supernatural beliefs to fit with reality. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Freksy(m): 1:13am On Jul 01, 2012 |
musKeeto: If he has started questioning hell, it could as well mean that he has been told the truth about hell by Jehovah's witnesses. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by dekung(m): 7:07am On Jul 01, 2012 |
I wonder how christians treat Joseph Smith's Mormon Theory? |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 9:17am On Jul 01, 2012 |
Martian: Martian, in the red-bolded above, i am pleased to see that you have finally acceded to the fact that somethings exist which are not physical. This is a major step, and it gives me great pleasure. Good afternoon. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by DeepSight(m): 9:34am On Jul 01, 2012 |
thehomer: There is also transformation between matter and energy and vice versa, so your rebuttal cannot stand. Physical energy is mutable. This is the problem with mistaking a tree for the forest. I say it is something, you say the something is God. In reference to that particular line I did not say the something is God. I said it is indubitable that a self existent none material element was the precursor of the universe. And this is the reasoning I deployed, which you are yet to address directly - I don't expect you to know, but I expect you to deduce from the question the glaring fact (which you have acceded) that the universe arose from something - and so long as we say we don't know what that something is, we can see that for that something to exist, it either (x) is self existent - which again justifies my position on self-existence or (y) arose from nothing - which we have agreed is impossible. What emerges is that the only logical position is that (x) above is the case: and in that event it cannot be that the material universe or any physical thing that preceded it is self-existent, because such are mutable: (if what preceded the material universe is also matter, then it clearly changed form and as such is mutable) - as such, we are left with the only other logical outcome: a non-material self existent element. Logic. This is why I say that denying this results in accepting (y) above, which is what I said the atheists position eventually implies, and we all agree that (y) above is nonsensical and impossible. Now a God needs to have a mind. How do you know that this thing actually has a mind? Can it even have a mind? You need to actually consider the broad picture before you start posting your treatises. At some indeterminate date in the future, we will consider the question of God having a mind - because we first need to get past God existing at all: to wit: we mus first establish that a self existent immaterial cause preceded the universe. Have you considered that it may be something as mundane as intellectual curiosity? Like i said already, this discloses your need. All the things you are curious about disclose a need of one sort or the other. Wow. Deep Sight now declares by fiat what the inherent need of humans is. Well I can do that too. I declare that all humans have an inherent need of being loved by Santa Claus. It is as impossible not to have that need as it is to not think at all. Argument from absurdity. Just about as worthwhile as the argument about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So you're in effect saying that when you die, you would have served no purpose. Sorry to hear that. I am saying that if all creatures cease to exist tomorrow, without any further successive eventuality in terms of life, then the ULTIMATE purpose of all life would have been ultimately meaningless. 0 + 1 represents the coming to be of life 1 - 1 representd the subtraction of said life: i.e: death. Thus 0 + 1 - 1 = [Give me the answer]! Such a life is ultimately meaningless. So this primordial life is God. And God was alive without a universe. Now can you please tell me how God can be alive without a universe and what the purpose of your life is? Absurdity. As I said before, we will get to all this when we get past the initial premises, if ever. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by thehomer: 11:21am On Jul 01, 2012 |
Deep Sight: The equation E=mc2 lets us know that matter can be represented as energy and our knowledge of the big bang informs us that at some point, there wouldn't have been matter present so what you're saying here is simply more of your confusion. In fact, matter e.g 1kg of nuclear material can be presented in kg or in joules. Deep Sight: Again, you're performing the usual trick that religious thinkers like which is to hide a certain idea that they have in order to appear more credible. Unless of course you're saying that what you're referring to as being self existent actually isn't God. So here is a direct question. Do you consider whatever it is that you take as being self existent as being God? Deep Sight: No, we must determine it now if we're to be sure that what you're calling a God actually is a God. Without a mind, it wouldn't be a God now would it? So why this attempt at splitting what really shouldn't be split? Deep Sight: Once more, you focus on a point ignoring the entire page. So someone being interested in discussion ideas must be manifesting a need for a cosmic purpose? Sheesh. Deep Sight: You do realize that it demonstrates the absurdity of your statement. Deep Sight: I know that is what you said. It also means that if e.g the sun were to expand and swallow the earth, then your entire life would have been meaningless. Deep Sight: I'm glad it is now Deep Sight that decides on whether or not life has meaning but you're yet to show that the ultimate purpose of the universe is life or that this PRIMORDIAL LIFE is actually out there or even coherent. I've already pointed out the problems with your initial premises it is up to you to correct the problems or discard the premise. I also notice that you're now running away from actually telling us what the cosmic meaning of life is after you've seen the problems that organisms such as bacteria present. |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Nobody: 1:07pm On Jul 01, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Major step my foot. Ideas and thoughts being products of the brain do not support your non material entity arguments. What are you so happy about? How does this support your "unembodied mind"? |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by Naital(m): 7:48pm On Jul 01, 2012 |
Interesting it was to read through these well informed and highly educated arguments coming from fellow Nigerians. I'm impressed. Here's a little contribution from me: As a deist of a sort, i've always considered myself "the man on the fence". I find it completely unnecessary to take sides on matters of religion. I do not believe in a personal god who concerns himself in the affairs of men. I'm also not of the opinion that there must be a reason for everything. Nonetheless, I find it hard to criticize those who believe in such a god because I have come to the understanding that it is 'human' to have delusions, religious delusions being just one of the many kinds. Regards to all the brilliant fellows who have contributed to this thread. 1 Like |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by FXKing2012(m): 9:43pm On Jul 02, 2012 |
cyrexx: Let's imagine that I tell you the following story: A lorry-load of crap. In one statement what exactly is your point? |
Re: Understanding Religious Delusion by logicboy01: 9:46pm On Jul 02, 2012 |
FXKing2012: Go to your fake church if you want cheap summaries and marketing slogans for sheep. Pavlovian dog |
Seun And His Fellow Atheist, What's Your Say On This? / "Uma Ukpai Is My Spiritual Father”, Pastor Adeboye Declares / 5 Things Christmas Should Always Remind Us Of
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 194 |