Challenge : Can you turn me into an atheist?

[Baranduin]

What makes you think that I've ignored the possibility that the universe might not be a creation? I've thought about that, but when we consider that creating means bringing into existence , we have to ask, why is the universe in existence? I'm sure we can at least agree that it is in existence. But was it brought there, or does it just exist of its own accord? If it exists of its own accord, then what created it? But if it exists of its own accord, what created it? And so on, regressing infinitely. Just like with god.

This very statement makes me think that you've ignored that possibility.

If you consider that the universe hasn't been created, why then do you ask later what created it? The fact that you imply that things have to be created - and you do so when asking "what created it" - begs for the question of a creator, as you've already been explained.

The universe exists - I can go with that. "Why is the universe in existence?", you ask. So I ask you: why there has to be a cause? What makes you think that the principle of causality is applicable outside the universe, indeed?

My answer is that the universe, with its obvious existence, is god. The universe (ie reality) is god. Uncreated (un-brought-into-existence).

So you define god as "collective of things that exists" or "collective of things that were not created". Fine for me. Note that this still doesn't mean that that collective of things can create or are connected or conscious. And in that case I just don't see why calling it "god" when we already have "reality". Unless it's a reality but not quite ...

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ok Hackenslash, your post doesn't contain any insults this time

Neither did any of my others. I guess it's how you define 'insult'.

and it's actually an interesting post.

I try.

We agree that my hypothetical woo being, if it does exist, it cannot have been created because of the kind of creator that we're talking about, namely a (perhaps badly named, admittedly) ultimate creator. You haven't raised any objections about the nature of such a creator. To be honest I wanted to avoid saying prime creator, because it sounds a bit too sci-fi. But let's go with prime creator.

You keep coming back to the point that everything I say assumes a prime creator, and therefore I'm forever begging the question. Point taken.

When I said "So the question of something being able to exist and yet not be a creation is not an issue at all. Existence easily fulfills that definition, and serves as evidence that it is not only possible, but it is an example of something which indeed does just that"...

...the first word of your reply to that was "And..." (followed by the rest of your response), not "no", or "that's incorrect". So I can only assume that you also agree that existence is an example of something which we all agree "exists" which fulfils the idea or definition of something which is, yet is not a creation.

Yep.

The rest of your response was you saying that the universe exists but is not a creation. You didn't say probably isn't, you just said it isn't. I don't know why you said that.

Well, that's the bit I dealt with earlier. Given a rigorous definition of the universe as 'all that exists' (and I'm still happy to explain the history of that word, because it's important in understanding what we mean by universe and why we mean that), then we can, not inappropriately, define the universe as existence itself. In other words, if existence is a brute fact, then the universe is a brute fact.

You have to note how I'm using the word 'universe' at all times. I am not referring to that which arose fro the big bang, and I never employ the word to mean that. I always employ it as 'that which exists'.

What's the difference between a thing, and existence? That's not a joke (although I am available for weddings and bar mitzvahs)

I spent 16 years performing at weddings and bar mitzvahs, among other such venues. It's not all it's cracked up to be (geddit?)

A thing exists, and existence is the backdrop, the canvass if you will, in which things are. A thing exists (verb), and it also is within existence. A thing does the existing, and it also "lives" in that canvass called existence.

That works well enough, although the backdrop itself also exists. In both cases, you're talking about what I would call the universe.

 

[Andiferous]

I started composing this very carefully. It was taking so long, well, at the end I kind of gave up, because there was SO much more to reply to and I didn't have the time. So. my best effort right now.

Well, as I've said in the whole love-in post, I like learning and responding and discussing things with people who hold different opinions. It is true, though.

Atheists claim that there's no evidence for god, and theists claim there is. Atheists ask theists what is the evidence, theists tell them it's subjective, atheists reject that.

I don't think it necessarily has to end discussion, but the evidence is subjective. Unfortunately, arguing on subjective evidence, to some extent, depends on a person's empathic ability and telepathic ability. Subjective evidence is, well, subjective. I can't borrow your mind today, figure out your evidence, and then return it tomorrow.

The only issue at stake here is that of philosophy. A way of viewing things, and a way of thinking, and regarding things, and placing value on one thing over another. If anyone here speaks more than one language, they'll be aware of the fact that in some or probably most languages, certain words have connotations and unspoken meanings / contexts that don't translate well into another language. That's similar to what I'm talking about. Sometimes some people largely miss the point of an idea while others grasp it easily. National psyches also play a part (if anyone has any links on that I'd sure like to know as I've been searching high and low and found almost nothing). What one person or group of people see as obvious, another will be totally confused. Eastern philosophy / western philosophy is another example. Another (rather petty but still valid) example is if you have a cat, and you point to something, the cat won't look at what you're pointing at, they'll just look at your hand. They don't understand the concept of one thing leading to or representing another. I could go on but you get the idea.

I want to know. I want to think, that you are trying to understand our viewpoints before making generalisations. It seems that way, to some extent, but I'm beginning to doubt that, now.

If you want to make a good argument you really have to show your opponent some respect.

Why do atheists and theists keep having the same conversation over and over again? Are theists mad and delusional, or are atheists too blind to see the obvious?

I know people do it here, there and everywhere, but it's strange how I and everyone else is always lumped into groups and assigned certain beliefs and characteristics. It almost seems like irony or poetry that you bring this up. Perhaps it is intentionally a way of showing others their own error in a cryptic kind of way. And I'd agree with you, you know. Maybe not the delivery. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, again.

In my opinion, it's neither, it's just that we have different philosophies. Many discussions have a fairly satisfactory conclusion for everyone, but this one often doesn't. People of all ages have some belief in god, well educated people, others not so much, people in all kinds of professions, it's all across the board. We can't all be nuts, there's hundreds of millions of us.

Yeah, we have different philosophies, but those aren't a permanent kind of thing. If they were, we'd be very stupid creatures indeed, because we'd never change, learn, grow.

Sometimes I agree, sometimes I laugh, and sometimes your posts make me a bit wary - you are very good with words and as a fellow word lover, I kinda wonder sometimes, about your motivations and if you really do have an agenda. I'm sorry if this is wrong. It comes across that way.

Crazy. crazy blind, crazy blind. Meaningless, and stupid I do agree. I read this comment as a kind of mirror or satire, to show us how silly it is to make generalisations. I might be reading too much, might be wrong. If I'm accurate, this point shows a lack of effort to understanding on your part. Do you generalise? we haven't really established that. You haven't said much about what you believe. I want to know, you're playing coy...

I never said you were crazy. You might be being tricksy. I suspect we could have interesting discussions

Bringing up philosophy. Have you read the other threads? Curious to hear your thoughts.

Evidence, well, yes. Philosophies and rationalities do require different sorts of equations.

Questions are fantastic. No one can go wrong with questions.

I'm a bit confused about the post, honestly. It feels like a kind of baiting, and I can't help but to read your words very, very skeptically.

The truth is that I like rational thinking, but I would never be so arrogant as to start a thread debating my personal beliefs, and then cryptically not really say what they are in the first place. That requires a bit of pompous, that is very transparent.

If I am wrong, I will bow and apologise manifold as is my duty. Really. I don't like being mean and stuff. It's just that you use words in a very colourful way that seems designed to confused people. Or. This is my opinion. You have said a lot of vast nothing with many descriptive words. I have no idea what you believe, yet.

 

[sgrunterundt]

My answer is that the universe, with its obvious existence, is god. The universe (ie reality) is god. Uncreated (un-brought-into-existence).

So you define god as "collective of things that exists" or "collective of things that were not created". Fine for me. Note that this still doesn't mean that that collective of things can create or are connected or conscious. And in that case I just don't see why calling it "god" when we already have "reality". Unless it's a reality but not quite ...

Ah. Pantheism.

Describing this wonderful universe we live in with the word "god". No dogmatic reliance on old books for the truth, no forced adherence to strict rituals, just trying to figure it all out using our senses and the scientific method.

If that is what you believe, then you are practically one of us. I don't see the need for yet another synonym for reality, but hey, Einstein and many others used it from time to time.

 

[Gnug215]

I understand now. Group hug time again. If this goes on, what will the neighbours think? Best not to think about it.

I can't say I quite understand what you're getting at here.

And I'm still not sure exactly what you're asking for conversion from or to.

You want to turn to some kind of "pure", "strong" atheism that totally rejects god?

You've stated a belief in some kind of vague creator and connectivity. Ok.

Do you want us to convert you from that?

If those beliefs are vague enough, they can't really be debunked. Do you have anything more specific to say about them?

Perhaps some predictions of what we should see in the world if they are true?

Also, do you have some notions about atheism that you find hard to accept?

Actually, you haven't as far as I have seen defined atheism yet. Could you perhaps give us your understanding of it?

Sorry for all the questions.

 

[Squawk]

My response is going to be extremely brief.

I won't try to convert you to atheism, I will try to help you see the merits of critical thinking and remove faith from your epistemology. Once critical thinking is established as being a central tennet of your world view I would argue that atheism would be an emergent property.

Put simply, and paraphrasing Matt Dillahunty somewhat:

Beliefs inform our actions, therefore we should try to ensure that our beliefs are true to the best of our abilities in order to make our actions appropriate.

The question then becomes one of methodology, by what method can we make our beliefs true to the best of our ability? I would argue that we must, first, have no cherished belief. Every belief must be subject to scrutiny, and we must be willing to abandon it should it be shown in error. Second, we should attempt to expunge any belief that is either not testable or is insufficiently supported by evidence. By using this method we cannot guarantee that our beliefs are true, but we can minimise the chance that they are false given our current ability.

The obvious implication from above is the death of faith. If you subscribe to the above sentence then you must agree that faith is doomed as a methodology for establishing truth.


If I can get you to agree to the above, and once you are comfortable with it's application in every other context, I would ask you to apply the above to the concept of a specific deity, in your case presumably the Christian God. I would then contend that atheism will result. The process may take years.

And one further point. You must be willing to accept that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, albeit unsatisfying.

 

[Worldquest]

I'd like to say that this post has taken me about 3 hours to write. So if I don't respond to any replies for a while, it's because I'm knackered.


Baranduin -

I'm sorry, the way I said it made it confusing. Some of my sentences, or some of the bits of them, were rhetorical. For example, if we were talking about god and you asked, who created the creator, I might say, but hold on, you don't believe in a creator, so why are you asking? I was just illustrating how infinite regression applies to the idea of an uncreated universe. I'll rephrase : If the universe is uncreated, how did it come about? [your answer]...and how do you explain that? [your answer], and how do you explain that? What I'm saying is that an uncreated universe is unresolvable, it can't be explained in a satisfactory way.



Hackenslash -

Ok, so you're saying that the universe relates to, equates to, is, everything in existence. Everything that performs the verb of existing. The realm of existence.

Does a talking rock exist? I'm going to say no. I'm sure you'll agree.
Does the concept of a talking rock exist? I'll say yes. I certainly hope you agree.
Do all concepts exist? Again, yes. As what they are, which is concepts.
If the concept of a talking rock exists, but the actual talking rock itself doesn't, then "where" does its concept exist?
It does exist, and so it must exist in the universe.
So all concepts, all potential, all theoritical possibility, exists. They are all in the universe.
Even concepts which make no sense, or contain contradictions, exist. For example, the concept of a square circle exists. It may be unconceiveable by us, but since we can talk about it and how it makes no sense, it's a concept, so it exists as a concept, an idea.

There are an infinite number of theoretical possibilities, an infinite number of "potentials" in the universe. In existence. Some of them manifest, some of them don't. Some we conceive as not being able to manifest since they would violate laws and logic which we acknowledge and are able to understand, others could quite perfectly exist, but don't. For example, there could be three dogs standing outside my house, but there aren't.

All of that applies to events too.


Does god exist?

What is god? A creator of the universe.
What is the universe? Existence.
What is existence? The universe.
What is creating? Bringing into the universe / existence.

All concepts are already in the universe. They weren't brought into it, meaning they weren't created. The universe is the sum total of all concepts, all potential, some of which is manifest



When a concept manifests, is it being made manifest, or does it manifest of its own accord? (I'm more inclined to use the word manifest as an adjective than a verb)

If it's being made manifest, as opposed to not being made manifest, then something is making it so.
If it manifests of its own accord, as opposed to not being so, this means that all concepts, at least those that manifest, have the ability to be manifest.

Either way, there is something that has the ability to make concepts manifest, whether that be itself, or something else.
Also, there must be criteria determining whether or not a concept is manifest.


Once again :

What is god? A creator of the universe.
What is the universe? Existence.
What is existence? The universe.
What is creating? Bringing into the universe / existence.


God exists =

Creator of the universe = the universe =
Bringer of existence into the universe = existence =
Creator of the universe = universe =
God = existence
The creator of the universe = the universe
God = the universe

I can't take you on a ride around that cycle of equations, because of course you don't believe that there's a god, or that any creating takes place.

But if we say that all concepts exist, and that some manifest and others don't, ie we could say 2 possible states of existence, then that shows that there is a choice being made between being manifest and not being manifest. A verb is being performed. Everything that exists as manifest is being made manifest. Something is making it manifest. Something is creating a circumstance in which it is manifest. Something is making it "exist". Something is "creating" it. That "it" is a thing, it exists, it is in existence, it's in the universe.

Creator of the universe = the universe =
...and so on.



Andiferous -

I've only briefly looked at the other threads. I've tried not to get into them too much otherwise I'll probably end up postng on lots of them and that would be way too time consuming. So for now at least I'm trying to avoid the temptation. I probably am making generalisations here and there. It's hard to avoid at times. I've outlined my beliefs briefly, I think on the previous page. I'll try to go over them again. Hopefully my reply to Hackenslash will help you understand where I'm coming from.


Gnug -

I'm not literally asking to be converted from theism because I particularly want to be. What I mean is that I have no doubts and no desire to be an atheist. I'm more interested in finding out how an atheist would successfully manage to do it, by using myself as a guinea pig. A person who is unwilling to question their beliefs or at least take a look at other views wouldn't make a good subject. But I would make a good one, I think, as I do question and I do want to hear what others think. You never know, someone might crack it.
Atheism is a denial (I'm joking, I'm joking...) a lack of belief in a god. That seems to be what it boils down to.
My reply to Hackenslash will hopefully make some of my beliefs a bit clearer.



Squawk -

When choosing what beliefs to have (or choosing not to have beliefs), and how to act upon them, and how to or even whether to question them, how do we know that all of that itself is not being done under the influence of a belief? We know that beliefs are extremely powerful.

Why would the process of becoming atheist take a long time, possibly years? I mean, if it makes sense, it should be instant. I think it's not raining, I go outside, I get wet and / or see the rain, In an instant, I change my mind.

With atheism, why the time period? I would say that the time period is necessary in order to get one's thoughts together, and to (even subconsciously) devise ways to verbally articulate, at least to ourself, the new point of view, to solidify it, and strengthen it. After all it's a pretty big point of view involving the entire universe. And to reconcile any lingering doubts, and close any loopholes, to find a way to make everything "fit".

In other words, justifying to onself a belief. None of the things done in that period of time sound like they have anything to do with the actual truth or otherwise of the point of view. It's all about strengthening it, and become sure of it. (I've heard atheists often use the words "satisfactory, satisfying, compelling". That sounds about as objective as I do).

And I've been doing exactly the same with my views. Your main selling point, what you use to strengthen your view to yourself, is "rational thinking". Mine is what I suppose I could call philosophical logic.

But what I do agree with is that "I don't know" is a valid answer. That's true. That's why sometimes I'm still unsure, I'm still tying up the loose ends.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

If the concept of a talking rock exists, but the actual talking rock itself doesn't, then "where" does its concept exist?

I suppose it "exists" in your brain. Where does time exist? Where do your thoughts exist? Where does a lie exist? Where does truth exist? Why are detectives not searching for "truth" which must exist in some corner of the crime scene? Perhaps "truth" was taken away by the murderer, who put it in a box and hid it deep inside a pit he dug in his backyard. Never mind his fingerprints, never mind his DNA. The murderer can never be found unless the box of truth has been dug out.

 

[Demojen]

Born a theist?
NOPE..

Children are not born theists. Cultures breed the mindset of a god into children through discreet questions and paradoxs and subterfuge.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I don't have evidence as such, but I do care about the truth. What I have is conviction, a strong feeling, call it intuition, a hunch, that there's a god.

Then I'd say you aren't even really a theist, more of an optimistic agnostic. I also note you use a lowercase g, which is interesting because I used a capital G for a while after "deconverting."

Your beliefs are so minimal that I'd say you're closer to Carl Sagan on the "spirituality spectrum" than you are to the average churchgoer, perhaps even closer to Dawkins than to Joe Catholic.

I personally don't like the word atheist because it asks an unnecessary question. If there is no evidence for god's existence, which you readily admit, then it doesn't matter if god exists or not. If god has not communicated its will to you in any form or fashion, how does believing it exists change how you live your life?

 

[Demojen]

BAM

You're an atheist.

That was easy.

 

[Squawk]

When choosing what beliefs to have (or choosing not to have beliefs), and how to act upon them, and how to or even whether to question them, how do we know that all of that itself is not being done under the influence of a belief? We know that beliefs are extremely powerful.

Why would the process of becoming atheist take a long time, possibly years? I mean, if it makes sense, it should be instant. I think it's not raining, I go outside, I get wet and / or see the rain, In an instant, I change my mind.

My usual method of replying to a post such as this is to pick over it point by point, line by line. However I will take the above two paragraphs together. The reason is pretty simple, you answer your own question from paragraph 2 in paragraph 1.

As you rightly point out, beliefs are extremely powerful and can be extremely difficult to change regardless of the evidence presented. From your postings I take it that you accept evolution. Consider that 44% of Americans don't, even when presented with the masses of information in support of it. Beliefs have a certain hold on people, many are reluctant to change their ideas or are even reluctant to question them in the first place.

So it is not a simple matter of looking at one particular belief and deciding if it's true or false. What you have to do is wade through a great deal of your own epistemology and try to identify issues that you have never even considered before which may have a bearing on the particular issue you are looking at. You might address belief X, but if belief X is predicated on belief Y and you never challenge belief Y, your conclusion for X, whilst logically consistent, might be in error.

To digress slightly, I went through an exercise not unlike this myself some time ago, and I arrived at a couple of axioms for my epistemology. Others here will be familiar with them, I have posted them before.

1. Reality exists.
2. Reality can be perceived

To these 2 I sometimes add a third, which is arguably contained within 2.
3. We can reason about reality.

I refer to these as axioms because I can't regress beyond them. They are assumptions that I must accept as being true in order to use any form of reason to assess reality. I can't provide justification for them without first of all accepting them, which makes any justification senseless.

From this point on you can start to make inferences about reality.

With atheism, why the time period? I would say that the time period is necessary in order to get one's thoughts together, and to (even subconsciously) devise ways to verbally articulate, at least to ourself, the new point of view, to solidify it, and strengthen it. After all it's a pretty big point of view involving the entire universe. And to reconcile any lingering doubts, and close any loopholes, to find a way to make everything "fit".

In other words, justifying to onself a belief. None of the things done in that period of time sound like they have anything to do with the actual truth or otherwise of the point of view. It's all about strengthening it, and become sure of it. (I've heard atheists often use the words "satisfactory, satisfying, compelling". That sounds about as objective as I do).

That pretty much sums it up. Beliefs have emotional value, emotional attachment, and it can take a deal of effort to overcome that attachment. We are not beings free of emotion, I'm not going to pretend to be Mr Spock. However, I can identify which beliefs I shouldn't hold, and can then work towards being happy about it (if needs be).

And I've been doing exactly the same with my views. Your main selling point, what you use to strengthen your view to yourself, is "rational thinking". Mine is what I suppose I could call philosophical logic.

One and the same thing I think, just different ways to refer to it. You should come onto the live chat, there are a number of people who would love a discussion. Myself, borrofburi, aught3 and Gnug215 all spring immediately to mind as people who are often in chat and would like such a discussion.

But what I do agree with is that "I don't know" is a valid answer. That's true. That's why sometimes I'm still unsure, I'm still tying up the loose ends.

Patience is, supposedly, a virtue.

 

[Worldquest]

Why am I being called an atheist now? That's bizarre.



Squawk -

I may not mention everything you've said in your post but I've read it all and I'll think about it. Here I'll talk about certain bits of it.

When talking about beliefs, you also talk about emotions and evidence, and reluctance to let go. It's as though you equate beliefs solely with emotions. But this is how it goes for me : Using philosophical logic (that's my new phrase now) I've tried to "figure out", due to curiosity, if there's a god or not. As a result, I've come to the decision / opinion that there is a creator (by the way "creator" is too vague a word to describe god in my opinion but it'll do for now). As far as emotions go, that there should be a god feels right. Then, after that, once I believe that there's a god, I feel other emotions associated with how I see the universe. It's like going on a journey to see what's there, seeing something, feeling that what you see is right, that it makes sense, that it serves as an explanation for questions that you had, and then thinking about its implications, and feeling glad, happy. The implications of god are, for me : There's no death, everything has a reason, we reincarnate, everything is possible, I am everything that has or will ever exist. That's pretty cool stuff, but that comes at the end. The emotion comes at the end.

By contrast, when I was an atheist for a very brief period once, it was all out of pure emotion, which at the time happened to be anger. Strangely enough, I used reason to bring myself out of that. Do you see what I mean? You're kind of saying that beliefs somehow originate from emotion, when in my case it was emotion that caused a brief period of non belief, after which I used calm reason to achieve belief. And now I feel emotion at the implications of that belief. I would even go as far as to say that I'm employing a lot of rational thinking.

Someone said earlier on, or I paraphrased them, I can't quite remember, that there's a fine line between my view (which you could describe as pantheist or panentheist) and atheism. And some have said that the only real difference wth me is that I call reality or existence or the universe god. And now Others are practically saying that I'm an atheist.

But I'm not an atheist because I believe that the universe is the creation of a creator, and that everything is connected, and that everything is a living thing. I've avoided going into more detail about my beliefs because if I described them it would probably result in mass ridicule and make the thread very unfocussed. I think it's gone well so far.

And with that in mind, and getting back to the topic of the thread, I'm more than happy to answer specific questions about my beliefs. If anyone wants to make a list of questions, I can answer them, and then, you can use my answers to see if you can convert me from theism.

But remember, I'm not a christian. I started out there but now I'm somewhere else. So no need to quote the bible as it is largely irrelevant to me.

 

[Squawk]

I think you have my position slightly backwards. I'm not suggesting that all beliefs are rooted in emotion at all, though emotion can certainly serve to cloud judgement and form an "erroneous" belief, whatever that may be. I'm arguing that you can form an emotional attachment to a given belief and that this emotional attachment can take time to break down.

You say that you arrived at the conclusion of a creator, and from that creator inferred various things. I would ask how you arrived at the notion that a creator exists, and did you suffer from affirming the consequent? That is, did you take into account all the things that you could subsequently believe (no death etc) when deciding on whether or not to believe in a deity? If not, on what did you base the notion of a deity?

To my knowledge there are only a couple of logical arguments for God, basically TAG and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There are of course numerous variations, but all seem to boil down to those. Both have massive flaws, but even if valid neither can be used to make any further inference other than that a God exists.

So, my only question to you would be, how did you arrive at the conclusion that a creator exists? I don't much care about any inferences from that belief since all are predicated on that one belief, and I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. Well, clearly I don't, I would hold it myself if I did.

 

[RichardMNixon]

For starters, I agree this is the primary question you need to answer if "deconversion" is the goal:

So, my only question to you would be, how did you arrive at the conclusion that a creator exists? I don't much care about any inferences from that belief since all are predicated on that one belief, and I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. Well, clearly I don't, I would hold it myself if I did.

More importantly though, I think most atheists would agree with me that we don't care whether or not you or anyone else is an atheist. We don't expect a world of atheists. We do want a world of secularists. You're free to believe whatever you want as long as your beliefs don't impinge on the rights or beliefs of others (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, lying to schoolchildren about evolution, etc.). Which is why the question I have is: that yes, you have these beliefs, but how do those beliefs change who you are? You could believe there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter, but who cares? Does belief in your creator cause you to interact with people differently, to vote differently, to champion different causes? How does it affect what decisions you make?

If belief in your creator doesn't affect how you interact with me or anyone else, I frankly don't care what you believe. If a personally held belief in a creator floats your boat, bon voyage.

 

[Worldquest]

I'm not sure that I believe in a creator. I know I use the word myself but what I think I really mean is manifestor. Conscious manifestor.

By the way I've been trying to find a good link about god's attributes but all I keep getting is bible stuff.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I'm not sure that I believe in a creator. I know I use the word myself but what I think I really mean is manifestor. Conscious manifestor.

By the way I've been trying to find a good link about god's attributes but all I keep getting is bible stuff.

I don't know what you mean by Conscious manifestor (CM), but it doesn't really matter, the same questions still apply.

1. Why do you think it exists?

2. What affect does the CM have on your life? How would it's existence or nonexistence affect your decisions? How would it affect how you interact with people or what political movements you would support?

 

[Worldquest]

Richard -

Conscious manifestor is my way of saying, something that is self aware and which takes nonmanifest concepts into existence, making them "take form" / "exist". I'm saying this assuming that we agree that all concepts exist.


What effect does my belief have on my life?

None, really. I'm a pretty ordinary guy really, and I don't even talk about this stuff on a daily basis. You wouldn't even know I have these beliefs most of the time. I can't say it affects my decisions as such, but it does affect my philosophy about things. For example, I believe in synchronicity. And I believe that I'm 100% responsible for everything that happens to me. I mean that literally. I also believe that when I hurt others, I hurt myself. In terms of how I interact with people, I suppose let's say, if someone had a problem, I might share my philosophy or bits of it in the hope that they'll use it as a temporary crutch at least, to help get them out of whatever problem they're in, or at least their attotude to it. All positive stuff really. As for political movements, I don't believe in political movements, political parties, or even democracy. Not the democracy that we commonly tend to have anyway.

Why do you ask? Should my beliefs have any effect on my life?

(I can't answer your first question because I''ve been drinking and I want to be careful with my answers. I promise I'll get round to explaining why I think there's a god / manifestor. It's really hard to articulate. It's hard enough to do when sober.)

Hic.

 

[Baranduin]

I'm sorry, the way I said it made it confusing. Some of my sentences, or some of the bits of them, were rhetorical. For example, if we were talking about god and you asked, who created the creator, I might say, but hold on, you don't believe in a creator, so why are you asking? I was just illustrating how infinite regression applies to the idea of an uncreated universe. I'll rephrase : If the universe is uncreated, how did it come about? [your answer]...and how do you explain that? [your answer], and how do you explain that? What I'm saying is that an uncreated universe is unresolvable, it can't be explained in a satisfactory way.

Uh, still, why do you apply infinite regression to the universe? You keep postulating that the universe had a cause we don't have evidence for.

If we ever discover why the universe came to be (if it's the case that there was caused), and it happens to be a completely acceptable physical explanation, won't you just move the postgoal? What caused whatever caused the universe? So let's call whatever caused the universe and all its consequences "god". Because you'll be always facing the same problem: we won't have those answers in any reasonable amount of time. By taking this position, you can keep all the mysticism and even apologetics of theism (soul, reincarnation, holistic worldview), but with the security that you'll never have to see your views challenged. Is there a way to falsify your belief? Think about it.

Hackenslash - [ . . . ] If the concept of a talking rock exists, but the actual talking rock itself doesn't, then "where" does its concept exist?
It does exist, and so it must exist in the universe.

I can conceive a space that its the only one that can exist - it spans throughout all the universe - and at the same time has the property that only concepts with physical existence exist in there. So that space, using your logic, exists, and exists in the universe nonetheless. So all other possibilities don't exist - because that space it's the only one that can do it-, and furthermore, neither do abstract concepts.

Ideas are just combinations of pieces of information grouped on a characteristic pattern. In this case, seems that they're chemical balances in the neurons of your brain, arranged in a neural network. Complex ideas - like talking rocks - are just rearrangements in there, till proven the contrary. And note that there's no need of "basic concepts to start constructing": you can start with complex ideas like "arms" or "heads" and construct either upwards, agglutinating them (body, extremities), or downwards, dividing them (elbow, eye). The ideas you get first may come from your experience, and some may even have being created (yeah, that word) over time thanks to processes like evolution.

So there's no need to postulate "a platonic place to concepts to exist", nor alternate versions of reality to store them. Ideas don't need to come from anywhere outside your brain, as they arise from the structure and properties of the brain, not from any other process - the very same criticism done to ID can be done here: if there's any evidence of them, as of design, please bring it to the scientific arena. They aren't pointers to particular regions of that "idea space" where concepts exist. It's a very useful way to represent some concepts (the evolutionary landscape comes to my mind), but that's all.

But if we say that all concepts exist, and that some manifest and others don't, ie we could say 2 possible states of existence, then that shows that there is a choice being made between being manifest and not being manifest. A verb is being performed. Everything that exists as manifest is being made manifest. Something is making it manifest. Something is creating a circumstance in which it is manifest. Something is making it "exist". Something is "creating" it. That "it" is a thing, it exists, it is in existence, it's in the universe.

So indeed you're taking the contrary view to the one I usually use - and I'd dare to say that most of the other participants do. Someone's modus tollens is someone other's modus ponens, I guess.

Now, read carefully the previous two paragraphs. Note that, in the view I describe, "concepts" are consequences of the universe - concretely, of how we perceive the universe, and the concepts already existing (if you prefer, ingrained, embeded, formed... not existing any meaningful existence) in our minds. They are not something that exists, but something that emerges - from the way our brain is done - in our minds. Existence is not a property of concepts. Things pre-exist concepts. And, strictly speaking, our brains form those concepts. We are the ones who bring those concepts into existence, by a mechanism refined by evolution - not God, not god, not a creator, not a manifestator. Ourselves.

So, in the same conditions, we've got a way to describe the relation between things and concepts that doesn't require concepts to have any meaningful existence. Here's to apply the principle of parsimony.

Why would the process of becoming atheist take a long time, possibly years? I mean, if it makes sense, it should be instant. I think it's not raining, I go outside, I get wet and / or see the rain, In an instant, I change my mind.

With atheism, why the time period? I would say that the time period is necessary in order to get one's thoughts together, and to (even subconsciously) devise ways to verbally articulate, at least to ourself, the new point of view, to solidify it, and strengthen it. After all it's a pretty big point of view involving the entire universe. And to reconcile any lingering doubts, and close any loopholes, to find a way to make everything "fit".

Squak's answer is better than anything I could write, so read it carefully. It took me 7 years - yeah, 7 biblical years - to deconvert myself, since the moment I realize I was no longer willing to be a catholic till the moment I realized I was an atheist. Deconversion was gradual, as different tenets were falling: god's not good, biblical history is bullshit, morals doesn't come from god, faith is irrelevant. Religion goes so deeply rooted that there's just to much mess to clear it all at once. During a period I held a deistic belief in a sort of personal god - unmoved mover -, and used to argue with a fallacy similar to the one you were using about the concepts; too high in Plato and Descartes, too low in Hume and Kant There's a thread with more testimonies, some of them similar, some of them not. You'll see your position is not that strange; just too vague.

I think that it's just matter of time for you to cross the line. That sort of belief but not in a vague deity is, I assume, part of the process. That's the reason they're calling you atheist. And for some (depending where you draw the line, most) believers, you're just one of us (alongside a buch of newagers, pagans, buddists, etc that clearly have nothing to do with us ), one of those sky-dad-deniers. It's not bizarre: unless the subject of personal beliefs pops up into the conversation, you're indistinguishable of any of us. As RichardMNixon said, most of us care about secularization more than about deconversion. Feel yourself welcome

 

[tangoen]

Anyway the bible is just a bunch of books written by people with their own ideas and opinions. You'll never catch me waving a bible. But if we were friends and we went out for a drink, I'd have no objections to using one as a beermat.

The thin paper is good for rolling joints in a pinch too