Author Topic: What is consciousness? Theists say ...  (Read 4658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #203 on: March 07, 2014, 10:43:16 PM »
Theists say to remain in a state of love and that keeps everything in check. (one liners)
If you're just going to waste my time by posting one-line responses to things that it took me a while to write, then let me know so I can more profitably spend my time elsewhere.

I don't care what you say "theists say", because while you're entitled to having an opinion, you're not entitled to have anyone else give it any special credence.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #204 on: March 07, 2014, 10:49:37 PM »
All theists are scientists of the self. I have never used the word gnostic. We do not know anything of their methods.
That means these gnostics of yours are in no way scientists, because scientists do things that can be repeated, verified, and understood by other people, such as experiments and theorizing things.  Your gnostics simply attempt to present things they believe as fact to other people, but don't give any way for other people to check the veracity of what they say.  If we could check their methods and determine which ones worked and which ones didn't through experimentation and the like, then I would be willing to consider the ones that did scientists, of a sort.  But you've ruled that out by saying "we do not know anything of their methods".

And the reason I call them gnostics?  Because you're insisting on calling them 'theists', which I've told you and told you and told you has a different meaning.  You've decided not to listen and to keep calling them 'theists' anyway, so I'll be calling them gnostics whether you like it or not.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #205 on: March 07, 2014, 10:53:03 PM »
Forget Gnostics. We need methods that work.  Theists have methods.
I wasn't talking about Gnostics, I was talking about gnostics - people who claim to know stuff, in this case without evidence.  You've chosen to redefine theist to mean only the people who have somehow 'connected' with 'god', over repeated objections from a number of people.  I do not agree, so I am calling them gnostics because of how you describe them.  That aside, I have to give you credit for a bit of cleverness here - you say "we need methods that work", and then say "theists have methods" without saying that their methods actually work.  Given that you clearly don't know whether the methods of your gnostics actually work, I can't say I'm surprised that you'd imply it like that.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #206 on: March 07, 2014, 11:01:48 PM »
We cannot investigate a scientific hypothesis without the person proposing it. Where is your critical thinking you ask others to do? The theists are proposing a more humane way of living to know God for as long as we know. What about the method or the science of knowing yourself that you find unacceptable?
Actually, we can investigate a scientific hypothesis without the person proposing it.  That's the whole thing of having a scientific hypothesis in the first place - other people must have the opportunity to check the work that the original scientist did in order to prevent them from foisting off nonsense on the world and calling it 'science', as you are trying to do here with your fake "scientists of the self".  That's the whole point of science and the scientific method.  If you don't understand even that much, you have no business talking about science as if you have the slightest understanding about it.

By the way, "knowing yourself" is not a science.  It not only isn't, it cannot be, because science needs something that you can check repeatedly under the same controlled conditions in order to validate the conclusions thus drawn.  How can someone possibly do that with themselves, let alone having other people do it, when the brain is structured so as to learn from experience and thus undercut any controls that one might establish, not to mention that it's effectively impossible to reproduce the exact state of mind you were in at any given time.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to come to know yourself, or anything like that.  But it isn't a science and it won't ever be a science, no matter how many times you try to claim that it is.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #207 on: March 07, 2014, 11:03:37 PM »
You said you googled it and discovered the same. Obviously not. What is critical thinking? I am obviously doing something wrong. Throw me a process here.
What - exactly - did you find when you did a Google search on this subject?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #208 on: March 07, 2014, 11:13:57 PM »
Forget Gnostics. We need methods that work.  Theists have methods.
I wasn't talking about Gnostics, I was talking about gnostics - people who claim to know stuff, in this case without evidence.  You've chosen to redefine theist to mean only the people who have somehow 'connected' with 'god', over repeated objections from a number of people.  I do not agree, so I am calling them gnostics because of how you describe them.  That aside, I have to give you credit for a bit of cleverness here - you say "we need methods that work", and then say "theists have methods" without saying that their methods actually work.  Given that you clearly don't know whether the methods of your gnostics actually work, I can't say I'm surprised that you'd imply it like that.
I did not simple blindly claim theists know God - I gave you the evidence to read. They have a method, and they have followers that confirm their method works.
Give me a book or books to read where you are getting this information from so that we know you have investigated something to to make your claim that they are gnostics.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #209 on: March 07, 2014, 11:20:36 PM »
I did not simple blindly claim theists know God - I gave you the evidence to read. They have a method, and they have followers that confirm their method works.
No, you didn't give me any evidence to read.  The mere fact that these gnostics of yours claim to have methods, and their followers claim that those methods work even though they don't actually know how the method itself works, doesn't serve as confirmation that the method works.  Belief never confirms anything except the mere fact that someone believes.

Quote from: Jesuis
Give me a book or books to read where you are getting this information from so that we know you have investigated something to to make your claim that they are gnostics.
They claim to know a god, and the word gnostic basically means to know or discern something.  In truth, I actually mean "gnostic theist", but it's simpler just to write gnostic.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #210 on: March 07, 2014, 11:35:38 PM »
We cannot investigate a scientific hypothesis without the person proposing it. Where is your critical thinking you ask others to do? The theists are proposing a more humane way of living to know God for as long as we know. What about the method or the science of knowing yourself that you find unacceptable?
Actually, we can investigate a scientific hypothesis without the person proposing it. 
.
Through conscious awareness yes. Told you that before. No need for any evidence from any one we can do it all by ourselves. But some say we need more than that.


Quote
That's the whole thing of having a scientific hypothesis in the first place
Yes -- the hypothesis is that their is a God.

Quote
- other people must have the opportunity to check the work that the original scientist did in order to prevent them from foisting off nonsense on the world and calling it 'science',
That's right..why else would they call it a science??

Quote
as you are trying to do here with your fake "scientists of the self". 
Where did that come from -- where did anyone claim they did not experience what they said they experienced?

Quote
That's the whole point of science and the scientific method.  If you don't understand even that much, you have no business talking about science as if you have the slightest understanding about it.
Glad we agree on what science is and also what conscious awareness is.

Quote
By the way, "knowing yourself" is not a science.
Really? Do tell.

Quote
It not only isn't, it cannot be, because science needs something that you can check repeatedly under the same controlled conditions in order to validate the conclusions thus drawn.
Of course -- we keep agreeing what science is.
 
Quote
How can someone possibly do that with themselves, let alone having other people do it, when the brain is structured so as to learn from experience and thus undercut any controls that one might establish, not to mention that it's effectively impossible to reproduce the exact state of mind you were in at any given time.
When you taste sugar it still tastes like sugar every time.

Quote
I'm not saying that it's impossible to come to know yourself, or anything like that.
Really -- where was that line in the above?

Quote
But it isn't a science and it won't ever be a science, no matter how many times you try to claim that it is.
Oh! - because you say so based on your beliefs ... sugar will always taste like sugar -- it is repeatable to the self aware.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 12:05:11 AM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #211 on: March 07, 2014, 11:39:31 PM »
I did not simple blindly claim theists know God - I gave you the evidence to read. They have a method, and they have followers that confirm their method works.
No, you didn't give me any evidence to read. The mere fact that these gnostics of yours claim to have methods, and their followers claim that those methods work even though they don't actually know how the method itself works, doesn't serve as confirmation that the method works.  Belief never confirms anything except the mere fact that someone believes.

Quote from: Jesuis
Give me a book or books to read where you are getting this information from so that we know you have investigated something to to make your claim that they are gnostics.
They claim to know a god, and the word gnostic basically means to know or discern something.  In truth, I actually mean "gnostic theist", but it's simpler just to write gnostic.
Read The Tiger's Fang by Paul Twitchell please.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #212 on: March 07, 2014, 11:41:38 PM »
You said you googled it and discovered the same. Obviously not. What is critical thinking? I am obviously doing something wrong. Throw me a process here.
What - exactly - did you find when you did a Google search on this subject?
Doctors claiming people were dead only to discover they were not. What did you find to make your comments?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #213 on: March 08, 2014, 01:14:21 AM »
Through conscious awareness yes. Told you that before. No need for any evidence from any one we can do it all by ourselves. But some say we need more than that.
No, not through "conscious awareness".  Through finding evidence to either support or contradict it.  I realize you don't understand science particularly well, but this is about as close to fundamental as you can get.  If you can't even understand that science needs real evidence or else it's not actually science, then you have no business pretending you know anything about science to begin with.

A person can come to conclusions about themselves, through introspection and the like, but they shouldn't pretend that those conclusions are in any way scientific, because it's on a subject that's totally subjective in nature.  It's not something you can get evidence about, which means it simply can't be scientific in the first place; science simply relies on evidence too heavily for it to be any other way.

Quote from: Jesuis
Yes -- the hypothesis is that their is a God.
The problem is that it's based not on evidence, but because humans evolved to see patterns in things, even when they're not real patterns.  Like when you look at a cloud and it seems to form shapes.  That's your 'hypothesis'.  But even if it were a good hypothesis, it wouldn't get anywhere without evidence - the same evidence you're busy trying to dismiss the need for.  But that doesn't fly and never will, because you can't come to valid conclusions about the real world without it.

Quote from: Jesuis
That's right..why else would they call it a science??
Given your apparent inability to understand that you cannot check someone's work unless you can reproduce exactly what they did, I am not holding out much hope in you understanding that this is the primary reason why I don't accept your statement that your gnostics are scientists.  What they say, nobody else can check or test.  It would be like having someone who had never heard of algebra checking an answer someone gave without showing their work.

Quote from: Jesuis
Where did that come from -- where did anyone claim they did not experience what they said they experienced?
I said that because they're not scientists.  Leaving that aside, how do you know that they experienced what they experienced?  How do you know that it wasn't all some really vivid dream they had, which has no bearing on reality?  Or that they weren't under the effects of some hallucinogenic drug, for that matter?  If you can't experience it yourself, then you can't know that they did and certainly shouldn't assume that they're telling the full, unvarnished truth.

Quote from: Jesuis
Glad we agree on what science is and also what conscious awareness is.
Stop it, dammit!  Quit trying to act like I'm agreeing with you on this "conscious awareness" stuff you keep spewing!  Honestly!  I told you several times that I didn't agree with your ideas on it and I absolutely do not appreciate and will not tolerate you trying to act like I'm giving you any credence on it when I've told you plainly that I won't unless you provide the real evidence which would support your ideas.

Quote from: Jesuis
Really? Do tell.
I've already told you.  The 'self' is purely subjective.  You cannot make a science out of something which is subjective, because science requires evidence which can be shared with others - meaning, it's objective.  Otherwise, you just end up with a twisted mess of subjective interpretations which don't do anyone any good.

Quote from: Jesuis
Of course -- we keep agreeing what science is.
Yet you keep trying to claim that something we cannot check under the same controlled conditions (anything to do with the 'self') is science.  So we are not agreeing with what science is.  What I think is happening is that you're reading what you want into what I say, so you can pretend that we're agreeing when we're actually not.
 
Quote from: Jesuis
When you taste sugar it still tastes like sugar every time.
But how do you know that the actual taste of sugar is the same from person to person?  I don't mean the generic "it tastes sweet", either, I mean how it specifically tastes.  There's a difference between the chemical reactions caused by the taste receptors in the tongue - which we can test, and don't depend on subjective interpretations - and how things subjectively taste to us.

Quote from: Jesuis
Really -- where was that line in the above?
I'm saying that it isn't a science, not that you can't find things out about yourself using it.  Really, start reading what I say instead of trying to twist it.

Quote from: Jesuis
Oh! - because you say so based on your beliefs ... sugar will always taste like sugar -- it is repeatable to the self aware.
No, I don't say so because of my 'beliefs', I say so because you're making unsupported statements and are now trying to play the tiresome old game of "you have beliefs too".

How do you know that how sugar tastes to me is identical to how sugar tastes to you?  Saying that something tastes sweet only means that the taste receptors in the tongue react the same way from person to person.  It doesn't mean that sugar tastes exactly the same to everyone.  So no, your pretense at a "repeatable experiment" just failed miserably, because you can't repeat it and have the results come out the same no matter who does it (except in a purely general sense of tasting sweet).  You can't control for all the possible variables, many of which involve specifics of biology that differ from person to person, not to mention upbringing and diet.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #214 on: March 08, 2014, 01:20:47 AM »
Read The Tiger's Fang by Paul Twitchell please.
I'm not going to waste my time reading something like this, especially not when it's a story written about his own "out-of-body experiences".  It's the same kind of nonsense you see when a Christian writes about journeying to heaven or to hell.  I'll accept for the sake of argument that he believes he had those experiences, but unless he can explain how other people can do them, have other people actually succeed in doing them following his instructions, and have some way of bringing reliable data back so that people can compare accounts to see if there's any chance of wringing objectivity from them, then it's not reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT--To clarify, if I did read it, I would treat it as fiction unless he was able to corroborate what he wrote.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 01:33:51 AM by jaimehlers »

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #215 on: March 08, 2014, 01:33:05 AM »
Doctors claiming people were dead only to discover they were not. What did you find to make your comments?
Did you notice that it was the actual doctors who worked on the patient who determined that the person was not actually dead?  That it wasn't about declaring them dead quickly so that their organs could be harvested, but a genuine mistake?

The fact of the matter is that medical science has accepted for a long time (decades, at least) that the brain must have totally ceased functioning in order to declare someone dead.  Plus, the standards are constantly updated based on new discoveries in order to keep someone who isn't dead from having their organs harvested - and in the tiny number of cases where a doctor does mess up, such as this 2009 case where they were lax about some of the procedures, the doctor and the hospital face stiff fines and other penalties.  Basically, if there's any doubt at all about whether they're dead, doctors are legally and morally obligated to keep working on them.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #216 on: March 08, 2014, 01:42:58 AM »
You know if you are going to claim that there is no God the least you can do is to try to chip at the source of their trump card. And you turn up with nothing.

I'm asking - for the third time now - if YOU think that this is what we should be doing, what do YOU think are the best arguments we could make?  Because thus far in this thread, you seem to have been arguing for "the opposition".
Its like I have been talking for so long and nothing has been understood.....

Yeah, me too - still waiting for you to actually answer me.  Good try bolding the part that was NOT my question, BTW - I've bolded the part that is the actual question - are you able to give a direct answer to it, or will you dodge again?
I think I have correct it.
If not please rephrase the question.

Fine.  But I presume I have your word you will honestly try to address is without a dodge.

At the start of this thread, you berated us for not "chipping away" at the theistic concept of consciousness coming from god.  I've asked you, umpteen times, to tell us what the best argument against their supposition is.

You have responded, over and over, to say we should try to understand their arguments, in order to be in a better position to counter them.  I get that, it is a good idea.  Understand the "enemy", so you know how best to fight them.  Well done, A+ in the basic method.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING.

Because understanding the mind of the enemy is useless if you do nothing with that information.  Once you HAVE that information, you need to DO something with it in order to "chip away" at their arguments.  Use the knowledge of their belief to expose the flaws.

And THAT is what I have been asking you for.  You seem to be significantly advanced over the rest of us in the study of the "enemy" - indeed, you regularly remind us how mired and backward our thinking is.  So I'm saying to you, as the person who clearly has obtained more knowledge of the theist position than anyone else here......

With your superior knowledge of their position, what arguments have you been able to construct that chip away at their position? 

Don't keep telling us the method to gain knowledge.  Tell us how that knowledge has enabled you to counter their arguments.  Don't tell me "this is how to establish what sugar tastes like", tell me "when you know the taste of sugar, THIS is how you can argue against the fellow sugar-eaters".

Because at the moment, when all you are saying is "get to know their position", you sound exactly like a theist who is trying to convert us to belief under the pretence of gathering intelligence on the enemy. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #217 on: March 08, 2014, 03:52:10 AM »
Doctors claiming people were dead only to discover they were not. What did you find to make your comments?
Did you notice that it was the actual doctors who worked on the patient who determined that the person was not actually dead?  That it wasn't about declaring them dead quickly so that their organs could be harvested, but a genuine mistake?

The fact of the matter is that medical science has accepted for a long time (decades, at least) that the brain must have totally ceased functioning in order to declare someone dead.  Plus, the standards are constantly updated based on new discoveries in order to keep someone who isn't dead from having their organs harvested - and in the tiny number of cases where a doctor does mess up, such as this 2009 case where they were lax about some of the procedures, the doctor and the hospital face stiff fines and other penalties.  Basically, if there's any doubt at all about whether they're dead, doctors are legally and morally obligated to keep working on them.

Why do you only put this much though into stuff that helps <insert my magic wand here> ...

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #218 on: March 08, 2014, 03:59:44 AM »


Hey Jesuis,you're a liar to me.  In other words you are a liar and I don't trust you.  How do you think that will reflect with the young people that are just as clever as me and more?
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #219 on: March 08, 2014, 04:04:39 AM »
^^^ That's the main point really.  I've read most of your post and I still wouldn't trust you.  You are a liar and purposely mixing up common and known language to put simply whether or not you know you are or not. Nobody likes these traits as a person liar...

And if you are not lying than it's sad to watch the show that which you have been raised to respond to stimuli -- Good job.

This guy is reading my past and looking into my post - Good job - I wish everyone was so well inclined.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 04:20:11 AM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #220 on: March 08, 2014, 04:19:42 AM »
Through conscious awareness yes. Told you that before. No need for any evidence from any one we can do it all by ourselves. But some say we need more than that.
No, not through "conscious awareness".  Through finding evidence to either support or contradict it.  I realize you don't understand science particularly well, but this is about as close to fundamental as you can get.  If you can't even understand that science needs real evidence or else it's not actually science, then you have no business pretending you know anything about science to begin with.

A person can come to conclusions about themselves, through introspection and the like, but they shouldn't pretend that those conclusions are in any way scientific, because it's on a subject that's totally subjective in nature.  It's not something you can get evidence about, which means it simply can't be scientific in the first place; science simply relies on evidence too heavily for it to be any other way.
Sorry you are not making any sense. Two scientists of different brains and bodies observing any data it is always observing it subjectively. You cannot say it is ok for two scientists and then say it is not ok for two theists.. the observations is the same --- always subjective.

Quote from: Jesuis
Yes -- the hypothesis is that their is a God.
Quote
The problem is that it's based not on evidence, but because humans evolved to see patterns in things, even when they're not real patterns.  Like when you look at a cloud and it seems to form shapes.  That's your 'hypothesis'.  But even if it were a good hypothesis, it wouldn't get anywhere without evidence - the same evidence you're busy trying to dismiss the need for.  But that doesn't fly and never will, because you can't come to valid conclusions about the real world without it.
There is always subjective observations.  You do not understand subjective and is bias with understanding subjective information. If a scientists says he sees green and the other says he sees green how do we know they both are seeing green. If that is your argument then there is no science? And the rest of you post follows the same irrational logic.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #221 on: March 08, 2014, 04:21:55 AM »
Why are you so quick to get defensive verse look for more information on the issue? Do we resort to the "Magic Wand"?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 04:23:39 AM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #222 on: March 08, 2014, 04:40:33 AM »
Fine.  But I presume I have your word you will honestly try to address is without a dodge.

At the start of this thread, you berated us for not "chipping away" at the theistic concept of consciousness coming from god.  I've asked you, umpteen times, to tell us what the best argument against their supposition is.

You have responded, over and over, to say we should try to understand their arguments, in order to be in a better position to counter them.  I get that, it is a good idea.  Understand the "enemy", so you know how best to fight them.  Well done, A+ in the basic method.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING.

Because understanding the mind of the enemy is useless if you do nothing with that information.  Once you HAVE that information, you need to DO something with it in order to "chip away" at their arguments.  Use the knowledge of their belief to expose the flaws.

And THAT is what I have been asking you for.  You seem to be significantly advanced over the rest of us in the study of the "enemy" - indeed, you regularly remind us how mired and backward our thinking is.  So I'm saying to you, as the person who clearly has obtained more knowledge of the theist position than anyone else here......

With your superior knowledge of their position, what arguments have you been able to construct that chip away at their position? 

Don't keep telling us the method to gain knowledge.  Tell us how that knowledge has enabled you to counter their arguments.  Don't tell me "this is how to establish what sugar tastes like", tell me "when you know the taste of sugar, THIS is how you can argue against the fellow sugar-eaters".

Because at the moment, when all you are saying is "get to know their position", you sound exactly like a theist who is trying to convert us to belief under the pretence of gathering intelligence on the enemy.
I cannot do it. That is why I am playing devils advocate.


According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #223 on: March 08, 2014, 04:52:04 AM »
Read The Tiger's Fang by Paul Twitchell please.
I'm not going to waste my time reading something like this, especially not when it's a story written about his own "out-of-body experiences".  It's the same kind of nonsense you see when a Christian writes about journeying to heaven or to hell.  I'll accept for the sake of argument that he believes he had those experiences, but unless he can explain how other people can do them, have other people actually succeed in doing them following his instructions, and have some way of bringing reliable data back so that people can compare accounts to see if there's any chance of wringing objectivity from them, then it's not reliable by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT--To clarify, if I did read it, I would treat it as fiction unless he was able to corroborate what he wrote.
What he wrote was corroborated by Julian Johnson. As Ad Hom discovered right here in our debates. Its on youtube.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 604
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #224 on: March 08, 2014, 05:34:35 AM »
Sorry you are not making any sense. Two scientists of different brains and bodies observing any data it is always observing it subjectively. You cannot say it is ok for two scientists and then say it is not ok for two theists.. the observations is the same --- always subjective.

No, sorry, you are the one not making any sense.  Gravity is not subjective.  The speed of light in a vacuum is not subjective.  Thermodynanics is not subjective.  Physics is not subjective.  Chemistry is not subjective.

The entire goal of the scientific method is to remove subjectivity.  Is the scientific method perfect? No. But if any subjectivity is discovered it is reviewed and examined again to remove the subjectivity.  If the subjectivity is still present then it is discarded.

This is the difference between "Theists" and scientists,  scientists seek to remove subjectivity while "Theists" are indifferent to subjectivity.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #225 on: March 08, 2014, 08:56:14 AM »
What he wrote was corroborated by Julian Johnson. As Ad Hom discovered right here in our debates. Its on youtube.

What I discovered is that Julian Johnson got his "knowledge", from some Indian geyser, just before he carked it (circa 1920). I have no idea if Julian Johnson actually put any of his knowledge into action, aka was it worth the paper it was written on. Then Paul Twitchell, who studied under L Ron Hubbard, decided to synthesize the works of various gurus, inc. Julian Johnson, to create his dubious graphic novel (aka comic book) work of fiction, which claimed a fictional lineage of 971 Eck masters, and then a load of unsubstantiated waffle about soul travel, to beat L Ron Hubbard's religion.  Twitchell suffered from "mythomania", which is a polite term for a fantasist, or compulsive liar.

This is the analysis from an Eck escapee, trying to figure out all the lies that Paul told.
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/confessionschap9TS.asp

Quotes from Harold Klemp (the current Eck master), after being given a wad of correspondence from Gail Twitchell

"His correspondence was so diverse that there were times I couldn’t quite figure out if this was the real Paul Twitchell or if it was one of his masks. 46"

"Early in his youth he was involved in a variety of activities, but he made it a point to obscure any facts associated with this life. In so doing, he left a trail so clouded that it’s going to take our historians years to piece it together.47"

"At 27 years of age, the most Paul had ever done was to teach physical education. But by the time he wrote it all up, exaggerating and twisting the facts, he had worked up a nice little paragraph about all the grand achievements of one Paul Twitchell.50"



Jesuiscammer, it really beggars belief that you would recommend anyone read Tiger's Fang. It seems you suffer from the same magalomaniac lack of self awareness that Paul Twitchell suffered from.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #226 on: March 08, 2014, 09:00:41 AM »
BTW, in your last pointless thread, you declared that you had wasted everyone's time, and you were going to fuck off. What changed your mind, and persuaded yourself that you needed to waste more of our time?

Could it be that you never intended to fuck off, and it was just a ruse?
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #227 on: March 08, 2014, 09:32:43 AM »


Hey Jesuis,you're a liar to me.  In other words you are a liar and I don't trust you.  How do you think that will reflect with the young people that are just as clever as me and more?

I conclude your accusation as fact.


At the very least he purposely is trying to deceive. When he is countered and finds himself against the impenetrable wall of logic, he spouts nonsense. When his nonsense is questioned, he says it's our fault we are not capable of seeing his truth.

I am hoping posters will stop engaging this reprobate. I guess some of us find him as a plaything till a real contestant appears.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #228 on: March 08, 2014, 09:40:39 AM »


Hey Jesuis,you're a liar to me.  In other words you are a liar and I don't trust you.  How do you think that will reflect with the young people that are just as clever as me and more?

I conclude your accusation as fact.


At the very least he purposely is trying to deceive. When he is countered and finds himself against the impenetrable wall of logic, he spouts nonsense. When his nonsense is questioned, he says it's our fault we are not capable of seeing his truth.

I am hoping posters will stop engaging this reprobate. I guess some of us find him as a plaything till a real contestant appears.

Well I haven't time for this Jesuis. I can't make sense of his nonsense and he doesn't engage in debates either. I am certainly conscious that he doesn't know what he is talking about - unless its some sort of Hinduism or  Buddhism  but whatever it is, It is not worth my while engaging with him.

See the rest of you guys in a discussion that makes sense!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6191
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #229 on: March 08, 2014, 01:31:55 PM »
With your superior knowledge of their position, what arguments have you been able to construct that chip away at their position? 

Don't keep telling us the method to gain knowledge.  Tell us how that knowledge has enabled you to counter their arguments.  Don't tell me "this is how to establish what sugar tastes like", tell me "when you know the taste of sugar, THIS is how you can argue against the fellow sugar-eaters".
I cannot do it. That is why I am playing devils advocate.

I see.  So you want US to follow YOUR method on "how best to argue with theists"......despite the fact following your method has got you nowhere?

And I would also suggest.....if your method of getting inside their minds has been fruitless for you......what makes you think you CAN adequately play devil's advocate? 

What is the point in us trying to understand the arguments you are trying to make about a philosophy that you don't understand?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #230 on: March 08, 2014, 02:57:35 PM »
Sorry you are not making any sense. Two scientists of different brains and bodies observing any data it is always observing it subjectively. You cannot say it is ok for two scientists and then say it is not ok for two theists.. the observations is the same --- always subjective.

No, sorry, you are the one not making any sense.  Gravity is not subjective.  The speed of light in a vacuum is not subjective.  Thermodynanics is not subjective.  Physics is not subjective.  Chemistry is not subjective.

The entire goal of the scientific method is to remove subjectivity.  Is the scientific method perfect? No. But if any subjectivity is discovered it is reviewed and examined again to remove the subjectivity.  If the subjectivity is still present then it is discarded.

This is the difference between "Theists" and scientists,  scientists seek to remove subjectivity while "Theists" are indifferent to subjectivity.
You do not understand all observations are subjective first. Gravity is observed, light is observed.
Yes science is about the method of what is subjectively observed.
When you say you see green and another person confirms they see green how do I know that they are actually experiencing green.
The method of observation is experience. 
Thats what these theists are talking about.

OK moving ..
Paul Twitchell's - Eckankar - The ancient path of light and sound - What is being taught and observed by many followers?
Kirpal Singh . -  Surat Shabd Yoga - The eternal path of light and sound. What is being taught and experienced ?
Ching Hai - Gods direct path - Quan yin method - Light and sound of the self. What s being taught and experienced?

All these were once disciples - all of them have written books about their experiences and now their disciples are confirming their methods. The path of light and sound is being experienced,is being document and all of them have similar experiences.

When will you read the books I offered up for debate? Your critical thinking process is still lacking wisdom regarding science and method. Everything a scientists does is subjective, he confirms his experiments with another - they observe the color of the fumes in the lab. They experience these things and tabulate the results. similarly the science of the spiritual experience is being observed and through practicing a method, tabulating the results and making progress through efforts made by being true to the self. There is no hidden agenda. Its in the books.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 03:09:34 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #231 on: March 08, 2014, 03:06:06 PM »
With your superior knowledge of their position, what arguments have you been able to construct that chip away at their position? 

Don't keep telling us the method to gain knowledge.  Tell us how that knowledge has enabled you to counter their arguments.  Don't tell me "this is how to establish what sugar tastes like", tell me "when you know the taste of sugar, THIS is how you can argue against the fellow sugar-eaters".
I cannot do it. That is why I am playing devils advocate.

I see.  So you want US to follow YOUR method on "how best to argue with theists"......despite the fact following your method has got you nowhere?

And I would also suggest.....if your method of getting inside their minds has been fruitless for you......what makes you think you CAN adequately play devil's advocate? 

What is the point in us trying to understand the arguments you are trying to make about a philosophy that you don't understand?
I have not spoken to them..
You are the wise and intelligent guys - you do the critical thinking better than anyone else.
You are scientists -- well so I thought.

I am trying to get the critical thinking process from you before I make such an attempt.
It is observed by me not only am I incapable of understanding complex sentences but that you guys seem to do a lot of nonsensical deductions like a spider crawled out of a bottle of ink running all over the place.

I suspect this is what you offer other when you talk about their lack off.

So far all my attempts to get some logic has been nothing more than a dodge and a negative karma process that allows you to lie rather than to improve upon what is known. You all are lacking credibility daily. What can you say that can be trusted that is now  simply belief?

« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 03:08:17 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.