Author Topic: What is consciousness? Theists say ...  (Read 4712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #319 on: March 21, 2014, 02:40:31 PM »
How did he learn about “God”?
  - From his teacher - Sawan Singh. Did you do any research?

Unfortunately researching the exact details of his childhood from an infant until about 7 or 8 years old is very limited.  Your answer however is incorrect, as Kirpal Singh did not learn about “God” from Sawan Singh.  In his early life Kirpal Singh learned about “God” from many other sources including yogis and mystics and did not choose to follow them.  Kirpal prayed to “God” on his own prior to meeting and eventually following Sawan Singh.

I cannot find any information on the parents of Kirpal, however unless Kirpal was an orphan, he was likely raised by his parents and raised with some concept of “God”.


Was he told about “God” from someone else, his parents perhaps?  Yes, that is where I suspect Kirpal Singh learned about “God”, from his parents.
His teacher - Sawan Singh. No need to make up what is not true.

Where exactly did I make anything up?  I asked a question.  It seems you answer confirmed exactly what I expected.  He learned about “God” from someone else.  As I state before, your answer is incorrect.


Just about every spiritual or religious person (if not all) learn about “God” as children, from the people who raise them. 
Sweeping statement again we have is books and all dedicated to his teacher. The sign of a true human being who claims nothing for the knowledge he has but says it is his Masters. 

Do children not learn from their parents?  People make lots of claims in books and attribute their knowledge to others, it doesn’t mean what they are saying is true.  They might even say a few things that are true, but again, that doesn’t mean everything they say is true.

Why do you insist on being gullible?  Is it not the easier path to simply believe what you read or hear instead taking the hard path of thinking for yourself and asking tough questions?


This is a serious problem as children will believe almost anything including true and untrue things.
More sweeping statements. Parents always wants the best things for their children. Not necessary what you want them to teach their children. Which in my opinion has no moral agenda or leader. You need to fix that problem first to claim it is a problem of others.

Do children not believe their parents when they say “Santa Claus is coming to town” or “put your baby teeth under your pillow for the tooth fairy”?

Are children not impressionable? 

Do you even understand what the problem is?  Do you not understand how it could be possible that a child could be raised to believe something that is not true?

Do you honestly think children are raised only to believe what is true? 

Perhaps you think a theist is raised perfectly to only know what is true.  Ah, but where is the evidence for this?  Why is there such an abundant amount of evidence that humans are imperfect and are capable of believing untrue things, especially if raised by their parents to believe said untrue things?


Simply having a desire to know “God” proves nothing. 
It proves that one has that desire. Because that sets up their determination for the rest of their life on who and what they want to be.

Okay fine, it proves they have a desire to know something for which its claimed existence has no evidence.

The equivalent of desiring to know “God” is a desire to know “unicorns” or a desire to know “Santa Claus”.


Some children may also have a desire to know Santa Claus, however eventually children figure out the truth or they are told the truth that Santa Claus is imaginary.
Nonsense -- we are talking about real people and their desire to know what they know - not imaginary ones. Selective Bias at work and you do not see it.

“Desire to know what they know” = “Selective Bias at work and you do not see it”

Are you saying things and then responding to yourself or are you projecting?

A person having a desire to know what they know is exactly selective bias at work.  Do you knot see that?

These real people we are talking about had a desire to know something which is imaginary.  Please stop wasting my time and provide evidence that what these real people supposedly knew is not actually imaginary. 


There is no evidence that Santa Claus actually exists.  So, where is the evidence that “God” actually exists?
One is a story to feed our minds to be a better human being the other is what our individual consciousness being part of the all consciousness. There is evidence the theists have been saying exists - Life comes from God. They know this and you don't. Neil De Grasse said he did not know where life comes from and not afraid to admit that. Theists say they know where life comes from and is not afraid to say that.

I’ll repeat myself.

Please stop wasting my time and provide evidence that what these real people supposedly knew is not actually imaginary.


It is fair to say, people who assume things with zero supporting evidence for their assumptions are idiots.

No it is not fair at all. You are making sweeping judge mental statements. Very inappropriate for someone to select such a bias about another human being they have no knowledge off. You should first try to prove he is an idiot through something he has said or written or know because you were in his class. But to base your judgement on something so intangible is based on your selective bias processing. Human psychological error - not science.

If you read what I said again, I never made a judgment about anyone specifically (not until later in my reply).  I merely said that people who assume things with zero supporting evidence for their assumptions are idiots.  Making assumptions with zero supporting evidence could be considered lacking in sense, judgement or discretion and given to unintelligent decisions or acts and subsequently is exactly what would be described as idiotic.

Why exactly is it not fair to say someone who makes assumptions without supporting evidence is idiotic? 

Your response appears to be misdirected from where I conclude that Kirpal Singh is an idiot.  Are you becoming defensive?


For instance, if I were to assume that aliens from another planet are stealing my socks to fuel their intergalactic space ships, I would be an idiot.  If I were to assume my 14-speed bike can fly me to the moon, I would be an idiot.
Indeed your idiocy would have started with your assumption without evidence.

So you agree with me that it is fair to say that someone who assumes something without evidence is idiocy.  Yet before you say it is not fair.  Can’t make up your mind?

Or perhaps you like it if I call myself an Idiot, but you become defensive if someone you believe is speaking the truth might be considered an idiot?

Is that selective bias on your part?  You seem to be mentioning that a lot in your reply, are you projecting?


I can’t speak for Graybeard, but for me it would be my educated stance that Kirpal Singh is an idiot.  I say that not as an insult, but as a evaluation.
That's what I am worried about. Your ability to make claims about other people who you do not know and have not studied and you would call that an educated stance. Don't you think it is Selective bias?

Oh, I’m sorry, do you know everything about Kirpal Singh?  I didn’t realize you were close personal friends with him and knew everything he knew.  Wait, I thought you said you didn’t know “God”?   

Hmmm, I sense some doublethink going on here.  Let’s see, you know that Kirpal Singh knew “God”, yet in order to know that, you would have to know everything about Kirpal Singh including knowing “God” yourself yet you don’t know “God”.

Jesuis, I think you are very confused.  Why do you keep claiming to know things?

You see, I never said I know Kirpal Singh is an idiot.  I said it was my educated stance.  That means, based on what I know, I think he is an idiot.  I don’t know everything do I, so I don’t know that he is an idiot, I merely think that he is an idiot based on what I know.   Additionally, I never made a claim about Kirpal Singh, I merely stated what I thought based on what I know.  In fact, you are the one making claims about Kirpal Singh, that he knew “God” yet you have provided no evidence that he actually knew “God”. 

Yet, you know that Kirpal Singh knew “God”.  How do you know if you don’t already know “God”?  The only way for you to know that Kirpal Singh actually knew “God” is if you yourself already know “God”.

Please stop projecting your selective bias onto me.


What someone wants to be from an early age has nothing to do with being an idiot. 
Obviously you have not been paying attention. Everyone if free should be allowed to follow their dreams, to have their purpose of life fulfilled.

Again, you are projecting because it is obvious that you have not been paying attention.  I never said anyone shouldn’t be free to follow their dreams.  Read what you are responding to, what I said, in other words, is that following ones dreams is not what makes someone an idiot.

You have already agreed that what makes a person an idiot is when they assume things with no evidence.


Who gave you the dictatorial powers over what should or should not be studied?

I never said anything about what should or not should not be studied.  I think people should be free to study what they want.  In fact, I’ve implied exactly the opposite of what you are implying I am saying.

Your selective bias is causing you to misinterpret what I am saying.


If you say you want people to have morals you would need to have an authority be it the king, the state , the army or the President. You need a moral authority. Theists say God is that moral authority.

Why exactly do we need an authority to provide morals?  Why is a moral authority necessary?

Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?

The Euthyphro dilemma is a simple question regarding moral authority which makes the idea of a moral authority being necessary self defeating.

The question is as follows:

Is something morally good commanded by “God” because it is morally good OR is something morally good because it is commanded by “God”.


Interesting enough, this “urge” to learn and know things has developed over millions of years through evolution and is what has helped the human race survive.
Whose story is that???

That is the story told by the Theory of Evolution, which uses the scientific method to do research and come to conclusions about how life functions. 

You don't really know what life is or how it survives.

You are correct, I do not know for sure what life is or how it survives.  Then again, I’m not claiming to know anything with 100% certainty, unlike you.  In order to know something with 100% something, you must know everything with 100% certainty.  It is your mistake, thinking you know things like that “Theists” know “God”.

I, in stark contrast to your claims of knowing things you can’t possibly know, am only interested in believing that which sufficient evidence has been provided.


We want to know if there is a lion in the bush that is about to kill us, we want to know about the trails used by animals so we can hunt, we want to know about the cycles of the seasons so we can learn what time of year is the best time to plant crops. 
Observation is one of the things we use to navigate the world, but it is not the only thing. Feral children would prove you are not on the right track.

Your response does nothing to refute my statement.  Feral children are individuals, evolution deals with entire populations.  What exactly are you claiming about feral children?  That they do not have desires to know things?  If that is your claim, do you have evidence to support your claim?

Incidentally, your claim would be meaningless anyway even if it were true, as feral children are not the norm, feral children do not outnumber non-feral children and therefore contribute less to the evolution of the human race.

Unfortunately, simply wanting to learn or know things isn’t enough as a person has to put work into learning and knowing, and has to care if what they learn or know is actually the truth.
I am sure if you read Kirpal Singhs books you would find that this is very important to him and to his followers.

I don’t have any doubt that Kirpal Singh says things that are very convincing, unfortunately, saying things is easy.

Some people however take the easy way out of doing the hard work it takes to learn and know things, and just make stuff up like “God exists and created the universe”.
Yes some do - however it does not apply to Kirpal Singh.

Why exactly? Where is the evidence that came from the hard work done by Kirpal Singh?  My research has only shown Kirpal Singh to merely say things and take the easy way out by making stuff up.  Perhaps your research has found the evidence for the existence of “God”, if you have please share it, I am very interested.

Knowing God is not the same as saying God did it.

Saying you know something doesn’t mean you actually know.  Where is the evidence that Kirpal Singh actually knew “God”?

How many book has he written?

My research has found that Kirpal Singh has written between 18 and 23 books (some of the books were split into multiple volumes) and 8 booklets. 


What education standards did he reach? –

I couldn’t find any information on his educational background besides what different philosophies he studied.


What lack of attention to detail in the books he has written has indicated he lacked intelligence on the subjects he taught?

I haven’t found that he has provided any evidence that “God” exists, which means he is merely assuming “God” exists without evidence.

Perhaps your research has identified the evidence that “God” exists.  Could you please provide that evidence or at least a source to that evidence?

Clearly if you were going to say he was an idiot I would have expected a better research than sweeping statements based on your personal group bias.

What you thought were sweeping statements, didn’t actually have anything to do with me determining that Kirpal Singh is an idiot.  No, you are merely assuming that is how I made that determination.  Perhaps you should ask questions before you assume things or at least acknowledge that you are making an assumption instead of simply claiming to know things.
"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #320 on: March 21, 2014, 03:59:12 PM »
Nope. But you go ahead and think that if it helps keep your delusions in one piece.

There is no scientist of the self aware. There are quacks of the self aware, but they aren't worth talking about.

We are not having a discussion. You are talking at us and we are flipping you the bird. Nothing else is happening in this thread or the other one you are mucking about in. You are making claims, you are astonished that we are rejecting them, and you think that means you have to repeat the same things over and over for the next few months. If you were claiming that fish farts were proof that rainbows have a different origin than claimed in science books, you would probably have a better chance of succeeding than with this junk you are peddling.

I am not questioning the curious and/or fascinating aspects of human consciousness. But it is the be all and end all of everything the same way that Pez dispensers are the epitome of human technological achievement. The human brain is fascinating, but it is not the basis of ultimate truths, nor is consciousness an ultimate of any sort. It is merely interesting. And you're even ruining that.
They have a hypothesis regarding consciousness, they have a method, and they have the experiment which all leads to the same repeatable experiences.

So why do you say it is not scientific.? Could it be that when it comes to Selective Bias you have adopted it as part of your idea of atheism - which I cannot say I am a part of.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #321 on: March 21, 2014, 04:08:30 PM »
Nope. But you go ahead and think that if it helps keep your delusions in one piece.

There is no scientist of the self aware. There are quacks of the self aware, but they aren't worth talking about.

We are not having a discussion. You are talking at us and we are flipping you the bird. Nothing else is happening in this thread or the other one you are mucking about in. You are making claims, you are astonished that we are rejecting them, and you think that means you have to repeat the same things over and over for the next few months. If you were claiming that fish farts were proof that rainbows have a different origin than claimed in science books, you would probably have a better chance of succeeding than with this junk you are peddling.

I am not questioning the curious and/or fascinating aspects of human consciousness. But it is the be all and end all of everything the same way that Pez dispensers are the epitome of human technological achievement. The human brain is fascinating, but it is not the basis of ultimate truths, nor is consciousness an ultimate of any sort. It is merely interesting. And you're even ruining that.
They have a hypothesis regarding consciousness, they have a method, and they have the experiment which all leads to the same repeatable experiences.

So why do you say it is not scientific.? Could it be that when it comes to Selective Bias you have adopted it as part of your idea of atheism - which I cannot say I am a part of.

Well tell us the method, then, and we can see how scientific or not it is.
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)

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #322 on: March 21, 2014, 04:13:37 PM »
Nope. But you go ahead and think that if it helps keep your delusions in one piece.

There is no scientist of the self aware. There are quacks of the self aware, but they aren't worth talking about.

They have a hypothesis regarding consciousness, they have a method, and they have the experiment which all leads to the same repeatable experiences.

Repeatable experiences?   Really, is that why no one agrees on the nature of "God"?

Yes, they are repeatable alright, all you have to do is sacrifice logic and reason, delve into the imaginary and you can propell yourself all the way to the status of knowing "God". 

But as ParkingPlaces already said in the first sentence of his reply to you:

Nope. But you go ahead and think that if it helps keep your delusions in one piece.


So why do you say it is not scientific.? Could it be that when it comes to Selective Bias you have adopted it as part of your idea of atheism - which I cannot say I am a part of.

In order for something to be considered scientific it has to be verifiable or falsifiable.  That is the hurdle which must be overcome.  The hypothesis cannot be verified or falsified, the method is riddled with cognative biases, and the experiment is neither verifiable or falsifiable.

Bias or atheism has nothing to do with whether something is actually scientific or not.

The problem is, you don't understand science or the scientific method and instead let your bias attempt to redefine words and science to fit your bias.
"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #323 on: March 21, 2014, 04:29:28 PM »
There are only two options as to what could have been "going on back then".  The teachers were correct, or the teachers were incorrect, when they claimed knowledge of god.   
Why is there only two options. The human mind is unlimited unless you give it laws to follow.

Quote
What we DO know is that there are many many religions and beliefs that have lasted long past the original teachers were dead.
That's correct. But why? Why is it surviving? -- it is underground or in the lime light?. What is the human determination to sustain the imaginary or is it real?

Quote
So my questions to you still stand.  Did the pagans genuinely know the Mother Goddess?  Or did they get things all wrong?  And how - at the time - could you have told the difference?
I have no idea about the past, only of the present can be known. What makes you think anything written about them is true. Only a living pagan can tell us what they know or experience. I would advice to investigate the present. The rest is bound to be cooking the books by so called experts who are not really an expert on anything except trained in flat earth gibberish.

Quote
Do you have the intellectual honesty to answer any of those questions, even with a straight "I don't know"?  Probably not - because to say "I don't know" would open to question all the assertions you make about current teachers, and you can't do that as you are too emotionally vested.  You can't say "yes, they genuinely knew", because that means your current teachers are definitely wrong.  And you can't say "no, they were wrong" as you would then have to admit the possibility that your current teachers are wrong, since we will have established that saying "I know god" and actually knowing god are indistinguishable positions.
You obviously have not been listening to me. You're making stuff up to suit your agenda. I can say I do not know -- and have said it all the time. "I am an Atheist which means "I do not know". The question is whether you can say you do not know like I can. Which would then mean someone does. I allow that someone else to know but you don't. Can you allow them the right to say what they know and you give them the opportunity to prove it to you.  And that's when I say you can't not under your definition of atheism, but can only under mine.

Quote
So your only choice is to dodge the questions I am posing.  But maybe you will surprise me.  So I'll ask them again, and see if you have the integrity to actually give direct answers.
I have never dodged your questions -- you keep claiming that to be so, but from where I stand you are not listening to anything I am saying.

Quote
Did the pagans genuinely know the Mother Goddess?
I have No idea. The logic would be found in a living present day Pagan.

Quote
Or did they get things all wrong?
No idea again - do you know a living one to tell us what they really know and experience and can they teach you to know what they know?  If they can't you have nothing but belief.

Quote
And how - at the time - could you have told the difference?[/b]
No Idea. I live in the present moment. I have no skills set to jump in time to know anything for sure about the past or the future. Do you?
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 #324 on: March 21, 2014, 04:35:50 PM »
Well tell us the method, then, and we can see how scientific or not it is.
I have told you and others already - it is in their books.
Paul Twitchells - Ecankar - The tigers Fang - religion of light and sound.
Ching Hia's - Gods direct contact - Quang Yin Method - the contact with the inner light and sound
Kirpal Singh' - Surat Shabd yoga - Contact with the shabd (light and sound).
 
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 04:38:12 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #325 on: March 21, 2014, 04:38:15 PM »
I can say I do not know -- and have said it all the time. "I am an Atheist which means "I do not know".

^^^^ This is a lie.

I can prove it.

Say "I do not know if a Theist actually knows God" and then say "I do not know if God exists".
"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #326 on: March 21, 2014, 04:54:49 PM »
I am an atheist -- I don't know --> Theists do.

Theists CLAIM to - I can't believe you are still getting that so wrong!

Consider for a moment what you are saying - "theists know god".  What you are saying is that EVERY theist - from your New Age woo-woo merchants through the Muslims and Christians and Jews, the Ba'hai, the LaVeyan Satanists, the Druids, the worshippers of Zeus.....that each and every one of these people know god.

Despite them all saying that god is different.
I understand what you are saying -- many people can claim to know -- but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point. There is always a true living theist teaching others and some of those never complete their training. They can make many claims to know things but they don't have know everything. They are not true theists.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #327 on: March 21, 2014, 04:59:46 PM »
... but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point.

Your point is irrelevant because you don't know if a "Theist" actually knows.   If you did know that a "Theist" actually knows "God" then you would know "God" and you would be a "Theist".
"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #328 on: March 21, 2014, 05:02:18 PM »
I can say I do not know -- and have said it all the time. "I am an Atheist which means "I do not know".

^^^^ This is a lie.

I can prove it.

Say "I do not know if a Theist actually knows God" and then say "I do not know if God exists".
OK - so you believe you should programming me to do what you say rather than give me the info for me to make up my own mind?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #329 on: March 21, 2014, 05:08:58 PM »
I can say I do not know -- and have said it all the time. "I am an Atheist which means "I do not know".

^^^^ This is a lie.

I can prove it.

Say "I do not know if a Theist actually knows God" and then say "I do not know if God exists".
OK - so you believe you should programming me to do what you say rather than give me the info for me to make up my own mind?

No, not at all.  You're the one who keeps claiming to know things without providing any evidence and then claiming that you can say "I don't know" and then you expect info that would supposedly show that you don't know.

Are you insane?

Do you expect me to believe things without info for me to make up my own mind?
"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #330 on: March 21, 2014, 05:11:08 PM »
... but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point.

Your point is irrelevant because you don't know if a "Theist" actually knows.   If you did know that a "Theist" actually knows "God" then you would know "God" and you would be a "Theist".
We have historical theists and present day theists who knew and know and have taught and do teach. Ignorance would make me  liar.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #331 on: March 21, 2014, 05:16:03 PM »
... but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point.

Your point is irrelevant because you don't know if a "Theist" actually knows.   If you did know that a "Theist" actually knows "God" then you would know "God" and you would be a "Theist".
We have historical theists and present day theists who knew and know and have taught and do teach. Ignorance would make me  liar.

Sounds like you've already been programed, programed to believe without evidence and only accept things that conform to your bias.
"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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #332 on: March 21, 2014, 05:17:36 PM »
... but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point.

Your point is irrelevant because you don't know if a "Theist" actually knows.   If you did know that a "Theist" actually knows "God" then you would know "God" and you would be a "Theist".
We have historical theists and present day theists who knew and know and have taught and do teach. Ignorance would make me  liar.

Sounds like you've already been programed, programed to believe without evidence and only accept things that conform to your bias.

We figured that out the first day he joined. What took you so long?

;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #333 on: March 21, 2014, 05:28:17 PM »
No, not at all.  You're the one who keeps claiming to know things without providing any evidence and then claiming that you can say "I don't know" and then you expect info that would supposedly show that you don't know.
This thread is about consciousness. Its been taught long before writing was invented. Yet you claim to know nothing about it.

Quote
Are you insane?
Sure I am insane -- you know what the fabric of space time is and how the unseen higgs boson makes matter yet you have no clue of consciousness or what it is and you call me insane. So yes. I am.

Quote
Do you expect me to believe things without info for me to make up my own mind?
Nope - but to make a claim that theists do not know is either bad investigation or group think. Theist do know. There is a long history of them teaching their disciples or followers about how to know God, and their are living theists today. All which have been presented. Your point seems irrelevant in face of the evidence that theists have left behind and are still progressing with that agenda.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6127
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #334 on: March 21, 2014, 05:29:58 PM »
I understand what you are saying -- many people can claim to know -- but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point. There is always a true living theist teaching others and some of those never complete their training. They can make many claims to know things but they don't have know everything. They are not true theists.

Okay. Imagine this scenario. There is no god. There never has been a god. Consciousness is not a god. Nothing is a god. But theists say they know god.

As you define it, would those theists, saying that they know a god that doesn't exist in any way, shape or form, still know god?

If so, why?

Because that is where we differ with you. Completely.

If you cannot coherently state your case, whatever it is, about this scenario, you are doing nothing but wasting time.

I doubt that you can adequately explain your position, but feel free to surprise the living sh*t out of us.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4627
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #335 on: March 21, 2014, 05:31:55 PM »
They have a hypothesis regarding consciousness, they have a method, and they have the experiment which all leads to the same repeatable experiences.
They do not have a hypothesis, because it is not falsifiable; they have not given any way to tell whether their hypothesis is false.  Falsifiability is required for something to be scientific.

It is not enough to say "they have a method"; they must use the scientific method, because all scientific disciplines are based on that.  Using the scientific method is required for something to be scientific.

It is not enough to say "they have the experiment", because science requires many, many, many different experiments in order to validate the results that come from them.  Further, it requires very strict controls to isolate the specifics that the experiments are designed to test.

And finally, it is not enough to say that these all lead to the same repeatable experiences.  There is a phenomenon known as the placebo effect; if you give someone a sugar pill and claim that it is medicine, the person will often react like it is medicine, and they will continue to do so every time you give them this 'medicine', even though it is nothing but a sugar pill.  That could easily be happening here, due to the lack of falsifiability, verifiability, and controls, which (among other things) makes it impossible to distinguish between a placebo effect and the real thing.

Quote from: Jesuis
So why do you say it is not scientific.? Could it be that when it comes to Selective Bias you have adopted it as part of your idea of atheism - which I cannot say I am a part of.
I've explained why it is not scientific, and it has nothing to do with cognitive or selective bias.  It has everything to do with the fact that they aren't following the rules of scientific methodology.  If someone doesn't follow the rules of science, they are not a scientist no matter what you call them or they call themselves, just like someone who doesn't follow the rules of soccer isn't a soccer player even if they call themselves one.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #336 on: March 21, 2014, 05:34:48 PM »
Sounds like you've already been programed, programed to believe without evidence and only accept things that conform to your bias.
Well judging from what your proposal for me was  it would appear you had no choice in the matter when you made your decision. You have not been given the information I have been presenting you and that  tells me where you are coming from. Your bias is programmed into you.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #337 on: March 21, 2014, 05:37:55 PM »
This thread is about consciousness. Its been taught long before writing was invented. Yet you claim to know nothing about it.

Whether he or anyone else knows anything about it is irrelevant to the fact you're making a claim and not backing it up with anything; oh, you provide books for us to read but that isn't you providing evidence, that's you claiming one's opinion (like yours) as the evidence, and when people call you on it, you reference the books again.

Also, your comment in reply (that I'm replying to) is also you claiming something without evidence. Where's your evidence?

Quote
Nope - but to make a claim that theists do not know is either bad investigation or group think. Theist do know. There is a long history of them teaching their disciples or followers about how to know God, and their are living theists today. All which have been presented. Your point seems irrelevant in face of the evidence that theists have left behind and are still progressing with that agenda.

See, here's yet another claim (that you keep regurgitating) and never give evidence for. Now, you're saying anyone who disagrees with it is stupid. You say you provide "evidence" but you don't. You provide outrageous opinions claim them as evidence and continue the regurgitation.

You're an idiot--no...no...I take that back. Idiots are smarter than you.

-Nam
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:39:31 PM by Nam »
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #338 on: March 21, 2014, 05:58:12 PM »
They have a hypothesis regarding consciousness, they have a method, and they have the experiment which all leads to the same repeatable experiences.
They do not have a hypothesis, because it is not falsifiable; they have not given any way to tell whether their hypothesis is false.  Falsifiability is required for something to be scientific.
It has been falsifiable - atheists prove it does not exist daily.

Quote
It is not enough to say "they have a method"; they must use the scientific method, because all scientific disciplines are based on that.  Using the scientific method is required for something to be scientific.
Indeed they do use a scientific method to know the self. It is meditation on the inner light and sound. "Quan yin method" Surat shabd yoga, The ancient science of soul travel as Eckankar put it.

Quote
It is not enough to say "they have the experiment", because science requires many, many, many different experiments in order to validate the results that come from them.  Further, it requires very strict controls to isolate the specifics that the experiments are designed to test.
Indeed you cannot go within without purifying the mind from its negative outward pursuits. Lust greed ego is not going to help you if you want to go within. It has strict guideline that one needs to adhere too.

Quote
And finally, it is not enough to say that these all lead to the same repeatable experiences.
The process of going within is the same for all. All will experience the same things. Once they have crossed over the possibilities are endless. Those experiences are dependent on where you go. But the path to go in is the same because it is the pah out of the human body. That doorway one's consciousness has to pass is all the same. 

Quote
There is a phenomenon known as the placebo effect; if you give someone a sugar pill and claim that it is medicine, the person will often react like it is medicine, and they will continue to do so every time you give them this 'medicine', even though it is nothing but a sugar pill.  That could easily be happening here, due to the lack of falsifiability, verifiability, and controls, which (among other things) makes it impossible to distinguish between a placebo effect and the real thing.
We know - but the truth was kept hidden until the homeopathy research caused them to reveal their hand. What came out of that is the hypocrisy of doctors and medical professionals bent on lying about their products to their patients.

Quote
I've explained why it is not scientific, and it has nothing to do with cognitive or selective bias.  It has everything to do with the fact that they aren't following the rules of scientific methodology.
How do you know they are not??? What do you really know!!!????

Quote
If someone doesn't follow the rules of science, they are not a scientist no matter what you call them or they call themselves, just like someone who doesn't follow the rules of soccer isn't a soccer player even if they call themselves one.
Its all well and good to say that but you really do not know... that is when it becomes selective bias or group think. No one on here has been investigating their science they sit and say it is not science ..that is not investigation it is laziness.  Its similar to everyone saying there is enough evidence that proves their is loads weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When you go in and examine the evidence you find nothing. That is your state here.
You have not idea of what the present day theists teach, you have no one investigating it, you simply claim. You have no idea what consciousness is but claim that it is not what theists say it is. You are just messing about hiding behind the banner of science when in reality you have nothing. 
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 #339 on: March 21, 2014, 06:00:22 PM »
This thread is about consciousness. Its been taught long before writing was invented. Yet you claim to know nothing about it.

Whether he or anyone else knows anything about it is irrelevant to the fact you're making a claim and not backing it up with anything; oh, you provide books for us to read but that isn't you providing evidence, that's you claiming one's opinion (like yours) as the evidence, and when people call you on it, you reference the books again.

Also, your comment in reply (that I'm replying to) is also you claiming something without evidence. Where's your evidence?

Quote
Nope - but to make a claim that theists do not know is either bad investigation or group think. Theist do know. There is a long history of them teaching their disciples or followers about how to know God, and their are living theists today. All which have been presented. Your point seems irrelevant in face of the evidence that theists have left behind and are still progressing with that agenda.

See, here's yet another claim (that you keep regurgitating) and never give evidence for. Now, you're saying anyone who disagrees with it is stupid. You say you provide "evidence" but you don't. You provide outrageous opinions claim them as evidence and continue the regurgitation.

You're an idiot--no...no...I take that back. Idiots are smarter than you.

-Nam
But you don't care.. so what is your beef??
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 #340 on: March 21, 2014, 06:07:46 PM »
I understand what you are saying -- many people can claim to know -- but my point is "only theists know". That is my only point. There is always a true living theist teaching others and some of those never complete their training. They can make many claims to know things but they don't have know everything. They are not true theists.

Okay. Imagine this scenario. There is no god. There never has been a god. Consciousness is not a god. Nothing is a god. But theists say they know god.

As you define it, would those theists, saying that they know a god that doesn't exist in any way, shape or form, still know god?

If so, why?

Because that is where we differ with you. Completely.

If you cannot coherently state your case, whatever it is, about this scenario, you are doing nothing but wasting time.

I doubt that you can adequately explain your position, but feel free to surprise the living sh*t out of us.
That is how you end up like you. Imagining nonsense making it suit your nonsense and then claiming everything else is that nonsense you imagined. Consciousness is observing itself and others. It is aware of the things in its environment and of itself. It is even aware of the thought before the thought.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #341 on: March 21, 2014, 06:11:22 PM »
But you don't care.. so what is your beef??

I don't care about what?

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #343 on: March 21, 2014, 06:25:47 PM »
But you don't care.. so what is your beef??

I don't care about what?

-Nam
Gibberish

[fixed]

A link doesn't answer my question. You made an accusation that I do not care: back it up--don't provide a link unless that link specifically says "Nam doesn't care", and even if it does specifically say that: show that it's speaking about me.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #344 on: March 21, 2014, 06:37:37 PM »
But you don't care.. so what is your beef??

I don't care about what?

-Nam
Gibberish

[fixed]

A link doesn't answer my question. You made an accusation that I do not care: back it up--don't provide a link unless that link specifically says "Nam doesn't care", and even if it does specifically say that: show that it's speaking about me.

-Nam
I cannot remember the thread exactly but it was your post. And No I am not going to start looking for it.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #345 on: March 21, 2014, 06:54:50 PM »
Then you must retract. If you can't show that "I don't care" about the means in how you replied to SevenPatch, then you have to retract.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • Darwins +92/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #346 on: March 21, 2014, 07:06:53 PM »
No, not at all.  You're the one who keeps claiming to know things without providing any evidence and then claiming that you can say "I don't know" and then you expect info that would supposedly show that you don't know.
This thread is about consciousness.

Correct, of which you claim to know that a high level of consciousness leads to a "Theist" knowing "God", for which you have no evidence supporting your claim to know.  For as long as you continue to make claims of knowing things without providing evidence, you prove that you lied when you said you can say "I don't know". 

Its been taught long before writing was invented.

Yet again you claim to know something for which you have provided no evidence.  Since when does consciousness need to be taught?  Where is the evidence that it was taught before writing was invented?

Yet you claim to know nothing about it.

Lying some more I see.  Where did I say I know nothing about consciousness?

Are you insane?
Sure I am insane --

Really?  Have you been clinically diagnosed?

you know what the fabric of space time is and how the unseen higgs boson makes matter

Why do you insist on continuing to lie?  Where did I say I know what the fabric of spacetime is?  Where did I say I know how the unseen higgs boson makes matter?

yet you have no clue of consciousness or what it is

What makes you think I have no clue of consciousness or what it is?  I merely don't claim to know things when I do not have evidence.

and you call me insane. So yes. I am.

Actually, I never called you insane.  I asked if you were insane.  Your answer could have been "I don't think I'm insane but I could be wrong".  Instead you assumed I was calling you insane because of your selective bias.

Do you expect me to believe things without info for me to make up my own mind?
Nope - but to make a claim that theists do not know is either bad investigation or group think.

Oh, so if I don't believe something without the info then I am doing bad investigation or just thinking with the group.  I get it.  So you do want to program me.

Oh and by the way, even if you don't know something, it doesn't mean it is not true.  I think you are confusing not knowing with knowing that it is false.  Not knowing something is very different than knowing that something is false.  I think it might be your programing that is causing your confusion.


Theist do know. There is a long history of them teaching their disciples or followers about how to know God, and their are living theists today.

So you continue to claim things, instead of providing evidence you merely say read some books, which also don't provide evidence for their claims.   Yeah there is a long history of people thinking they knew things when they didn't actually know. 

All which have been presented.

Yep, you have thoroughly presented your claims without any evidence.

Your point seems irrelevant ....

As long as you continue to claim things without evidence, YOU make my point entirely relevant.

... in face of the evidence that theists have left behind and are still progressing with that agenda.

What evidence?  The only evidence you've provided is that there are people who without evidence, claim to know "God" and that they continue to claim things without evidence.

"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 Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What is consciousness? Theists say ...
« Reply #347 on: March 21, 2014, 07:10:14 PM »
Then you must retract. If you can't show that "I don't care" about the means in how you replied to SevenPatch, then you have to retract.

-Nam
Oh OK I retract it -- it is too much hassle to go look for it and it does not matter to me.
So long as your do not bash your head to death we will all be happier for you.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.