AudioMonkey: You mean the way atheists are being facetious in their claim of seeking evidence which exactly is all what I've been saying. Now to your question, I think I did answer it more than once, though I can't remember any where I said mocking a god is wrong, that must have been your own choice of words. Since you said there are different concepts of a god or gods, which I also agree with. So if all other concepts are wrong, which of them got approved by the atheist community as right? If none is, then what right concept has the community provided so we can all follow such?
I already made a simple point at the beginning but seems you want to keep spinning the conversation all around, let's see what we arrive at in the end.
You said it was blasphemous, what do think that means?
Where did I say all concepts of god are wrong? What do you mean approved by the atheist community as right, were you told there a god needs to be approved by an atheist community? That is an individual choice so the atheist community has no say in that.
AudioMonkey: Of course, there can never be anything wrong in mocking a god if that gives you the evidence you claim to seek about whatever your concept of god/God is.
Why are you being facetious over a simple question? Can you explain what is wrong in mocking a concept of a god that I find comical or are you unable to explain what is wrong with it?
AudioMonkey: Exactly the point I been making. After you deduced I exist while you seek more evidence to reinforce the deductions but at the same time you keep insulting me, affirming I don't exist and propagating different grounds why I don't exist. Isn't that so contradictory, messed up and confusing? That's the reason why I tell you it's not a case of all these folks "sincerely" seeking for any evidence. If you do in your own case, you can only speak for yourself.
In an atheist community, under the generic tag of being atheist, you'd discover different sub categories - the 'sincerely' confused/neutral ones in doubt, who're 'sincerely' seeking 'sincere' answers. You'd see ex theists now antagonists. You'd see those who just hate to hear you say 'God', perhaps hurt and bitter because of hard life and bad experiences. You'd see the jesters who don't GAF nor care to know if God exist or not but they tease/bait you to give them evidences so they could have something new to mock and laugh about. You'd also see those who don't like the restrictions in religion or they see religion as the root cause of world's chaos, they think their lives have been full and great without any God.
You are sounding like you think there is only a singular concept of god but there is more than 1, there are many thousand concepts of a god.
I am asking you what is wrong in mocking a god? If I find the concept of a god comical why is it wrong for me to mock such a concept?
Mikel99: Today's world is full of all kinds of evil. Evil people do evil without facing any consequences whatsoever. They also ask for God's mercy which He dispenses almost instantly on them. Some even ask for more blessings, they are given. Good people ask for God's favour and mercy, they are delayed and sometimes not given. As it is , I don't think this is just and fair. Good people should get what they deserve and bad people should have their portion too. It looks as if God is indifferent or does not care about us one bit. If He truly does as He says in His Books, there's no ways He will sit down idly on His Throne and do nothing about the evil occuring every day in the world. Tell me, what is God's justice all about?
A clear sign that a god that is absolutely good and is watching over the affairs of men doesn't exist. If a god exists then it is not absolutely good or it is not watching over the affairs of men.
AudioMonkey: Yea, fierce debates arise on many topics all the time but you know this is different case just as we have built our discussion hitherto and I gave the DNA analogy. How can someone claim to seek evidence for God while they continue looking/advocating evidences against same God and deride/ridicule same God concept? How can someone claim to seek evidence for God but affirm he doesn't exist and tag those who say otherwise delusional? How can you seek evidence for God when you're already sure he doesn't exist, concluded he doesn't exist and claim you have evidences he doesn't exist? Like I said, some just hate this whole God stuff not like they sincerely seek any evidence, they blaspheme, they're much ok when you keep the God thing out of their way and they get mad when you keep parading the God discussion in their face.
You totally can. You can reject a concept of a god while still holding out rhat you could find once that you can accept. Even you do that since you don't believe in all concepts of a god.
LoL @ blaspheme. That such a made up offense. What is so special about a god that it cannot withstand being made fun of or even insulted?
BTW why would you continue keep parading the god discussion in their face?
AudioMonkey: You can get more than enough examples of folks like this in atheists communities like the Atheist Republic group on SM.
Unless you can give me a particular example it just seems like you are saying anyone disagreeing that a god exists is hating on god. I don't see how pointing out that this or that concept of a god cannot exist equates to hating god. I mean people vehemently debate all sorts of things even fictional ones. You should see the fierce debates that erupt about movies, games, cartoons and the like, do you think such vehement debates indicate hatred for the fictional characters involved or just emotional investment into whatever point someone is making?
KnownUnknown: What do you mean by increased probability of predictions? What type of predictions?
This study is nonsense and the claim it makes is so simultaneously vague and general that it’s meaningless. The summary of the study: Psychedelic drugs induce 'heightened state of consciousness', brain scans show.
What does “heightened state of consciousness” mean? It’s such a vague statement that the meaning will depend on the readers biases. The study itself is based on brain scan showing random activity. Since when did the brain not show random activity? I could hook a crack head up to the same brain scanner and claim they are in a “heightened state of consciousness “. I could hook Tony Montana, high on uncut cocaine, up to the same brain scanner and claim he is in a “heightened state of consciousness”. The study is meaningless babble based on perceptions of a drugged brain and silly opinions.
This book also rubbish because it’s based on the ignorant idea that the authors of the Bible were actually seeing visions. Let’s examine the claims of the book:
Naturally occurring DMT may produce prophecy-like states of consciousness and thus represent a bridge between biology and religious experience.
The above is a nonsensical statement. What is a “prophecy like state of consciousness”? Religious experience, like all human experience is inherently biological, so what bridge is he looking for?
• Reveals the striking similarities between the visions of the Hebrew prophets and the DMT state described by Strassman’s research volunteers.
Again what makes him think the Hebrew “prophets” were seeing visions? Allegorical writings that are misunderstood being erroneously labeled as visions does not support the drugged state of dmt users.
• Explains how prophetic and psychedelic states may share biological mechanisms
Agains what is the prophetic state that he speaks of?
• Presents a new top-down “theoneurological” model of spiritual experience
Just makes nonsensical claims that can’t be supported. Besides, there is no need for the term “theoneurological” because all ideas and experience include “Theo” are basically “neurological”.
Sure it might all be nonsense or there might be something there, let's find out that's all I am saying.
AudioMonkey: Affirming, especially rigorously he doesn't exist is one easy example and some really take this personal like their survival in life run on their denial of God's existence. These folks really get mad at you if you say he does. They hate it and get pissed when you reference God in a conversation. Some live their lives advocating for any ground against God. They try hard to oppose and debunk anything that has been used to support the existence of God while they promote anything that might support the inexistence of God.
I meant an example of someone actually doing what you are saying.
(The Question) Were we created or did we evolve? How did we arrive? What's the purpose of our existence? Why are we alive? Tell me who do you believe in? To what do you subscribe? And when it's time for you to prove yourself, how will you survive?
INTRODUCTION First I'd like to thank y'all for coming out today We would ask that you close your mouth and pay close attention to what we're about to say
I'm your moderator in this great debate We're tackling a topic that's highly prevalent state to state To my left an evolutionist atheist, he'll be stating his case against The man to my right who's a creationist
(Did a deity create this or did we evolve as a basic gist)
You, Sir (The creationist)
Well the Bible states in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth So everything we see here was his hand at work This man's a jerk I've read his books and seen his lectures Even studied all his tapes about how we were lifeforms that evolved from apes I ask you how could a intelligent being come out of a lesser being? This is the thing with which we're wrestling The Universe and man are God's creation, just admit it pop If we evolved from apes and apes are still around why?
Moderator
OK your time is up you'll get a chance to talk some more But at this time we need to let our second speaker have the floor Let's give the same respect to him and not speak all at once So we'll pass the baton to your opponent, now for his response
{Evolutionist} Atheist
{Well the concept of life evolving and the way that things were brought in Was fathered and authored by Charles Darwin Your assessment of what we believe was improperly covered We only speak of how one life form changes into another You believe in God but can't prove there's a god and this is vital Your theology is based upon a contradicting bible You don't worship him you worship idols and hold self-righteous dispositions If God is real why is this world in this condition? I feel humanity has had enough of this lie You praise a spirit that allows people to suffer and die And no matter how much you pray and look up to the sky Things remain corrupt..}
(Moderator)
Alright, your times up to rebut and reply
Moderator (Creationist) {Evolutionist}] Right now, this debate is winding down We're finding out some things now so we'll let the evolutionist start this time around
Evolutionist (Atheist) {Well as for the Universe we've never said who made it Evolution is not the theory of how life originated Your failed connection and theory rejection Is only evidence of your lack of comprehension in the process of natural selection}
(Creationist)
(Well motion and order are the first two laws of the Universe We don't agree that stars and planets are the result of a big burst Think of the perfect celestial trajectory How things operate successfully with intricate detailed complexity)
(Atheist) {Can you believe this idiot sitting next to me? See you're speaking scientifically, prove God did it and break it down specifically}
(Creationist)
(I've done that through the scriptures, what you've heard is the truth Whether it's Bible or Qur'an, see God's word is the proof And I agree I'm speaking scientifically we're in compliance But my last question to you will be, who created Science?) {End}
What is your take on this Let’s hear your opinion.
Bwahahahahaha! This is what a christian thinks an atheist would say. You should go listen to actual debates between someone supporting evolution and someone supporting creation.
AudioMonkey: Good judgment LordReed. Remember you also agreed earlier that it may not be hard to deduce God. So, if we use intuition and deduction on important matters of our lives like accepting paternity without any DNA fact/evidence, why suddenly do some people make this method invalid when it comes to God? I'll play along and assume they're more skeptical than the rest of us, the reason they want evidence to reinforce their deduction. If that is the case, yet we shouldn't have those who spend their lives attacking the concept of God, trying hard to prove he doesn't exist. No matter how skeptical you're, after all your positive deductions by intuition, while you await perhaps DNA evidence/fact to solidify it's your son, you don't kick him and attack him. If as a malevolent person, you can't love him yet, worst is you maintain a neutral stand towards him. But if you kick him out and spend all the time attacking him, isn't that exposing the truth is that you really don't want him, only using the evidence thing as an excuse? Some don't want God nor want him to exist, the reason they exist to attack and debunk him, while using whatever they mean by 'evidence' as an excuse to mask their real intention. That is what it is.
Can you give an example of how you think people are attacking god(s)?
TenQ: A thought experiment makes sense only when followed logically from its foundation (well structured) and from known to unknown. When the foundation is skipped, we arrive at a faulty projection into the unknown.
Exactly.
You may rephrase what you think AudioMonkey is saying but check our argument: It wasn't this. He was of the point that 1D, 2D and 4D etc do not exist in reality. Why bother with a philosophical Question of the Philosophy of Spatial Dimension and the spiritual realm when the answer or conclusion is that is that NOTHING can exist outside the 3D space!
I have rephrased it for you twice now.
His conclusion if I may put it in another word: Only 3D objects in 3D space exist, there's no need projecting into 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th ,6th dimensions.
This is another level of argument for anyone interested.
You are not understanding what he meant. Stop getting stuck on the objects and focus on the perception, that is the key to understanding what he wrote.
My Questions were all based on your claims which were surprising to me and thus needed clarifications
You said: Also we can consider that there are humans who for some reason or other are actually able to occassionally get a glimpse of the extra dimensions. My Question: Can you please give one or two examples where this has/can occurred?
I wasn't making a claim. I said it is possible a glimpse into extra dimensions is an explanation for certain phenomenon. I am speculating not making a claim.
You said: Again this doesn't imply anything magical or spiritual, all that may be happening is their consciousness has expanded beyond our usual limited perception of the 3 dimensions we are used to perceiving. My Question: What nomenclature do you have for this reality which you say defies our limited perception of 3D?
Again this is speculation. we have no way currently of knowing if anybody can perceive in themselves the extra dimension. I seriously hope you know what speculation means.
I am not attacking you my friend , I just want to understand your view You also said: I would suggest that these beings will not be invisible rather they would be very much a part of this universe we see and perceive but would be possibly very alien to us physiologically and psychologically since their entire existence would be based on perceptions much more broader than ours.
I know you probably are not speaking as an atheist here but as a philosopher but truly, I want to understand these. Thanks
Finally and again, I am SPECULATING. IF (and that is a very gigantic IF) beings exist that can natively see extra dimensions then they will certainly be different from us humans. It is our bodily structure that has determined how we perceive the universe around us thus it is not hard to extrapolate that beings capable of perceiving extra dimensions will have a body type that dictates such an outcome.
KnownUnknown: Provide evidence of anyone under psychedelic influence being “prescient”. Not to be facetious, but psychedelics are just drugs and I don’t see any reason when to musings if a person under the influence if psychedelic drugs should be taken serious. The musings of a heroin addict are not considered “prescient” after all so why the musings of some asshole tripping balls on DMT?
I wrote "seem to be prescient", having increased probability of predictions coming to be seems to be prescient. I am not saying they've acquired magical powers nor am I saying it is the case for everyone who uses psychedelics.
TenQ: I wish you started with 1D, then 2D, then 3D then postulate what you think will be in 4D and beyond.
Why do you think it is necessary?
Only after this will it be reasonable to jump to your stated conclusions above. Thought Experiments are such only because they more often than not are not possible to perform in the laboratory. AudioMonkey's point of view was that only 3D is real: thus 1D, 2D, 4D and any higher dimension is mere paper theory not worth anything. If this is the case the whole field of "Thought Experiments" in philosophy is nonsensical. Do you agree with this?
Once again that was not AudioMonkey's point. His point, if I may be bold enough to speak to it, is our perception is limited to 3 dimensions even though we are aware of the extra dimensions. We can try to visualise what those extra dimensions would mean/look like but the result will be imperfect because of our limitation. He is not saying only 3 dimensions exist and you would do well to stop misinterpreting what he said and ask questions if you don't understand it.
Well structured thought experiments provide sufficient information going in, in other to produce helpful conclusions. Eg Schrodinger's cat. We are not going to get anything useful if we start with fictions.
The Highlighted in yellow coming from a self proclaimed atheist is interesting. Can you please give one or two examples where this has/can occurred? You said: Again this doesn't imply anything magical or spiritual, all that may be happening is their consciousness has expanded beyond our usual limited perception of the 3 dimensions we are used to perceiving. What nomenclature do you have for this reality which you say defies our limited perception of 3D?
It seems to me that you feel there are some aspects of our reality to which our senses cannot perceive, however, you think we should not call it spiritual nor attribute it to anything higher than us (eg deities or magical): Am I correct with this opinion?
I dunno why you think this is special. First off, I was being speculative about the explanation for certain things we observe under certain conditions. For instance some people under psychedelic influence seem to be able to be prescient, could it be that the psychedelics are breaking that limitation to perceiving only 3 dimensions? I don't know but I am willing to speculate that it is as a way of explaining it. Next, of course there are aspects of our reality our senses cannot perceive. This is why we develop tools to get at those. These are not magical things so I see no reason to think that extra dimensions are any different.
Let me oblige you if this is what is Keeping you from clearly presenting your own views. The subject of discussion (The Philosophy of Spatial Dimensions and the Spiritual) is discussed as an aspect of Metaphysics, Logic and with a tiny dose of Science. The principles of discussion had been a mixture of Thought Experiments, Rationality and Conceptual Analysis!
I am not an "academic philosopher" therefore there exist no way I would put my thoughts in the fancy academic format. Are there other principles I could have used? I don't know. Others can fill in the gap as it is not a definitive complete assembly of knowledge on the theme.
Now that I have obliged you, it now your turn to fill this place with your knowledge and opinion!
Here is an interactive tool to help with visualising 4d objects.
KnownUnknown: I feel you, This is the song that was playing when a hypervoice called out from 4D: Behold, here is Nature Boy, in whom I am well pleased! Behold, the Son of Woman!
KnownUnknown: It’s a revelation!! I was on a desolate highway on my way to El Paso, Texas. Suddenly, a sphere of light appeared before me, appearing out of thin air as a tiny sphere that gradually got larger. The sphere of light before me, which was the portion of the hypersphere of light from the Almighty Leprechaun in 4D, was the glory of Them. After the hypersphere was recalled into the 4D by the Almighty Leprechaun , a cube appeared the same way the sphere appeared. This cube was the visible 3D version of the 4D hypercube of reality that determines our fate in this 3D world. I saw your fate; quite disappointing but expectedly drab. This is a revelation. My road to Damascus (El Paso) moment.
Let me oblige you if this is what is Keeping you from clearly presenting your own views. The subject of discussion (The Philosophy of Spatial Dimensions and the Spiritual) is discussed as an aspect of Metaphysics, Logic and with a tiny dose of Science. The principles of discussion had been a mixture of Thought Experiments, Rationality and Conceptual Analysis!
I am not an "academic philosopher" therefore there exist no way I would put my thoughts in the fancy academic format. Are there other principles I could have used? I don't know. Others can fill in the gap as it is not a definitive complete assembly of knowledge on the theme.
Now that I have obliged you, it now your turn to fill this place with your knowledge and opinion!
What I think you are asking (I won't ask you any questions since you think it means more than asking for clarification) is what are the implications of having more than 3 spatial dimensions. AudioMonkey tried to steer you towards what I think is the implication, mainly that it introduces a problem of perception of those higher dimensions for us. The scientific direction indicates that these dimensions may be less than 2mm so indeed we will have a struggle on our hands to perceive what these extra dimensions would look like.
In terms of metaphysics and spirituality I do not think these extra dimensions indicate a "spiritual realm", rather it could imply that there are beings who, very different from us humans, are able to perceive these extra dimensions even the 4th dimension that you don't want to include could be perceived by these beings. I would suggest that these beings will not be invisible rather they would be very much a part of this universe we see and perceive but would be possibly very alien to us physiologically and psychologically since their entire existence would be based on perceptions much more broader than ours. Would we venture to call these beings gods? Depends on your definition of a god. If you think a god is a being who through knowledge is able to do things that you can't then yeah they would be gods to you but they certainly wouldn't be invisible magical creatures performing sleight of hand tricks from just outside your field of view.
Also we can consider that there are humans who for some reason or other are actually able to occassionally get a glimpse of the extra dimensions. Again this doesn't imply anything magical or spiritual, all that may be happening is their consciousness has expanded beyond our usual limited perception of the 3 dimensions we are used to perceiving. Instead of thinking it is magic, we would rather benefit from knowing what causes such expansions (eg psychedelics, meditation, prayer, etc) and tap into it for our own benefit.
TenQ: If you choose to lack cognitive sense, how does it concern me?
What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.
1. We you compelled by others to be an Atheist? 2. Do you have reasons you reject theism and their deities? 3. How is the notion below faulty? : We Choose/Take/Hold a position of BELIEF when whenever have a REASONABLE but INCOMPLETE knowledge of a position or thing to hold a position of HIGH or LOW Probability
If I choose not to have cognitive sense do I lack cognitive sense? LoLz.
TenQ: What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.
So if I choose not to have beer In my house I don't lack beer in my house?
kkins25: God, is in a place called heaven, which of course has gates.
FSM and the god used to be pals but after FSM started gaining some followers and popularity the god got jealous and put up the gate and walls to stop FSM from coming around. He didn't want the inhabitants of heaven to start following FSM. LoLz.
AudioMonkey: I agree with you to a good extent on this but how many are sincere with their deductions to start with? You clearly deduced your doppelganger son who also ticks all other traits, by intuition is beyond any doubt your own son but being a skeptic, you still desired a DNA test for evidence/fact so you won't be living in fantasy but it only becomes something else if you reject him and all those right deductions, kicked him out and say he isn't your son just because you're yet to get a DNA evidence confirming it.
Except in this case I have never seen this son, not even a picture. I was only told I have a son that looks like me. Maybe some people can live with that not knowing if the son actually exists and is actually theirs, I can't.
Politics › Re: NMDPRA: We’re Ready To Issue Petrol Import Licence To Interested Companies by LordReed(m): 3:10pm On May 31, 2023
