Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 10:00:30 AM »
OK, you say before we start any science we have to decide on awakeness. Fine, I think virtually everyone here and, indeed, in the world would go with we are awake when we start collecting evidence of anything. This assumption has given us all sorts of knowledge and carried on doing so.

Now it is you who are asking the question about this and you are going to have to do better than expect us to follow you in your silly game. Show us one sensible reason why our present might be wrong. It had better be back with some evidence some sort to show your idea actually might make sense because, at the moment, it sounds like you are the one dreaming nonsense.
62
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by Dominic on Yesterday at 09:55:06 AM »
Dominic,

EVIDENCE

Wheels

Before science starts - ie before any evidence of any kind can be collected - we need to first decide whether or not we are awake!

Can you not see that ?

This is a question that must be answered before science is even invented!

I acknowledge that this is an unusual discussion but it's not complicated.

I ask you again wheels, if this is a dream, can we still do science, can we go looking for EVIDENCE ?

[By 'dream' I do not mean the type of dream where semi-random things occur - I mean a dream where things are ordered and consistent and the dream goes on for 70 to 80 years.  If you say there are no such dreams, I say how do you know that ?  If you then say well we've never had those kind of dreams, I say how do you know you are not having a dream like that now ?]

I am not asking anyone to believe that life is a dream.  I am simply asking that all of you acknowledge that the possibility cannot be discounted by science, or by evidence, or by any other means that I am aware of.

63
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 09:39:48 AM »
Dominic,

EVIDENCE

There isn't any, so you have to guess. Panic Now; your immortal soul is at stake.

I'm just going to guess a few things.
64
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 09:31:59 AM »
Dominic,

EVIDENCE
65
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by Dominic on Yesterday at 09:18:24 AM »
GB

Your last post was simply a collection of dogmatic assertions.

You seem unable to see the obvious problem with your dogma.

How do you know that you are awake ?

Stop telling me that you just know.  That we all know.  Because that is not an argument.

We all know that there must be a God, right!!  <<<- see how dogma is not valid.

But your dogma is okay ?  We all know we are awake don't we ?

It's an underlying assumption of science.  It is not verified.  You have not verified it.

You are claiming that it is self evident and that anyone who contradicts it is mad.

That is what was claimed about falling off the edge of the Earth and the sun going round the Earth.

Stop with your dogma.

You talk about brain patterns being different when sleeping.  That is totally irrelevant.  I am not talking about us sleeping, I am talking about us potentially being in a dream!.  What tests have ever been done IN DREAMS of brain patterns ?   Within the dream.  None.   Scientific tests are no doubt invalid within a dream.

If you want  to stick with your dogmas that is fine.  Just don't pretend that your dogmas are somehow superior.

I will talk to those on the thread who don't want to be dogmatic.

66
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Tero on Yesterday at 09:11:02 AM »
The Shostakovich box was a bit of a flop. I saved the film and theater music. The violin and cello concertos are so depressing that I would have committed suicide if I had razor blades and if I was not able to reach the off button with my last strength.
67
General Religious Discussion / Re: Quote of the Day
« Last post by Star Stuff on Yesterday at 09:06:03 AM »
Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him.  (Bertrand Russell)
68
Kcrady, I'm surprised that someone as bright as yourself would make such a considerable error in your assessment of me, and my comments on this thread.  While I don't wish this thread to get derailed here, I would like to clarify this one point.  For starters, you would be hard-pressed to find a less "racist" individual as myself.  As I grew up I could never understand prejudice.  For there are no other "races", there is only one race - the human race.  Chronos has astutely seen through the fog of political correctness and avoided the knee-jerk "Gasp - a racist!" response.  And he is indeed correct; nowhere did I suggest that there are no black women who are intelligent/non superstitious/atheistic, nor do I not recognize the many unintelligent/superstitious simps who are white.  I'm merely pointing out that it appears that the sort of mentality & beliefs that were expressed by the two black women in the videos (it would have been helpful for you to actually watch them before commenting) are highly ubiquitous amongst black women, and I do suspect that it is indeed due to the lower levels of education amongst black women globally.  If this is indeed true, it is not "racist", it's an observation.
69
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by Graybeard on Yesterday at 08:39:53 AM »
Greybeard

Whether you dream a hippopotamus or you see a hippopotamus in waking the test for accuracy must be the same.
What "accuracy" are you talking about?

Strangely enough the images in our minds when dreaming are pretty poor.At the time of dreaming, we make great use of emotions: the hippo becomes a mixture of the vague idea of a hippo and a set of emotions - how we feel. Seeing something in real life, like a hippo - which are very dangerous - concentrates our mind, not in emotion, but in atavistic urges to think practically so we can escape.

We wake and we think: "I had a dream about a really weird hippo. It sort of came into the room as if it was looking for something... I was worried and glad I woke up" etc.

When we see a real hippo, we don't say, "There was this hippo that started to come out of the river and lumber towards me, I was really glad when I fell asleep."

We live in a waking world. When we sleep the brain appears to have delusions as it makes sense of the day we have just experienced.

If you cannot tell the difference between a dream and being awake, you are in trouble. Those suffering mental illness have a similar difficult - their irrational thoughts, comprise a part of their reality.

Quote
Either you can't be sure that the dream hippo is not material OR you can't be sure the waking hippo is material.
I am sure that you now see that that claim is simply idiotic.

Quote
If you haven't realised that yet, you are not making a serious effort.
Well, OK, I am not making a 'serious effort' at self-delusion, if that is what you mean.

Quote
You are simply assuming that the dream hippo is not material and you are assuming that the waking hippo is material.
No. No, really, I am not. Repeat this three times, "Real hippos are real, hippos I dream about are imaginary."

Quote
You are allowed to do that.  But don't pretend that you are using science when you make those assumptions.
I think this is one on those cases where we can say, "We can use common sense."

Tell me, Dominic, do you become confused between what is a dream and what is reality?

Quote
You (and most people) make those assumptions because they suit you.
So you claim that there are no assumptions that are common to mankind? Like feeling cold, or pain, or seeing an airplane?
Quote
They allow you to build a model of reality which is useful.
You realise, don't you, that you are drifting away from reality here?

Dominic, there are common experiences upon which we agree. Goodness, I might even agree with you if you said that swallows fly quickly. 

Quote
We are all taught this same model as small children.  That does not mean the model is correct.
I assume that you are talking about how you were taught about God as a child? I would prefer to broaden this because it seems to me that if you were taught that cars were animals, eventually, you would reach your own conclusion about that, and, like the rest of us, agree that they weren't. So whatever you are taught, you (should) challenge and there are enough people in the world who have done that.

You see, thinking dreams are material is simply lunacy. What happens to the hippo if you stop dreaming about it? The dream image of a hippo is harmless.

Quote
You may choose to say or to believe that dreams are erratic and regularly inconsistent whereas  waking is consistent.  But these are simply definitions of waking and dreaming.  They are not verifications.
This is a really illogical explanation. You are drifting into 17th century thought patterns where you sit in a dark room without data and come to a conclusion that has no connection with the real world.

We can see changes in the brain when we sleep. When we are awake, the world is logical and obeys laws. Awake, we can eat and drink and keep alive. If someone slept for a couple of weeks, we would see them die of thirst and hunger. This has been known for hundreds of years. In a dream, you cannot reproduce. In reality we can and this eating and reproducing is what defines life, therefore we know that dreaming is not reality.

Quote
You may then claim that you are verifying whether you are awake or dreaming by testing against those assumptions that you have made - but testing against assumptions is not verification.
I'm not sure why I am even arguing with you. You seem to be making things up wilfully, and I have no idea why you do this.

Sleep has been studied by people who are awake. People who are awake have never been studied by people who are asleep.


Quote
Don't mention solipsism as an attempt to escape this conundrum because mentioning solipsism does nothing towards solving the problem.
I wasn't going to mention solipsism - I was going to mention wilful stupidity and your propagation of confused, adolescent, semantic garbage.

Quote
Just face it.  It's there - it has to be faced.  Face it that the science of materialism is based on assumptions, not verification.
Who told you that? Did you pay them?[1]

Why do you believe them now that you have read what I have written?
If you really believe what you have written, do you believe that your reality is in fact a dream, that the dream is reality and when you die, a third reality will kick in?

Sleep and awake are both states of reality: real people sleep. Real people have dreams, dogs have dreams, trees don't have dreams - are trees real?
 1. I may be able to help you get your money back
70
General Religious Discussion / Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 08:22:12 AM »
As I've stated earlier, the two alternative models are consciousness emanating from matter (matter given primacy) vs matter being one experience within consciousness (consciousness given primacy).

The second model underlies all major religions.  It is assumed by these religions.

Wrong. This is just you trying to impose your own version of Krishna Consciousness on other people's religions. It is the exact opposite of Yahweh and his people as physical in the OT.

Here, you are choosing to be a bible literalist because you need that primitive rhetoric so as to maintain a primitive attack on religion.  Atheists are much more comfortable taking on primitive concepts from the OT than they are dealing with the complex concept that is God. 'Oh look! I've found a contradiction in the OT.  Therefore I've disproved God!'.

The caricature known as 'Yahweh' in the OT is an attempt by men to describe a complex spiritual phenomenon (the universal consciousness from which all things emanate) to the best of their ability with the tools and knowledge that they have available.

Your claims to the contrary are simply your own biased dogmas held with the same religious conviction as bible literalists.

That caricature known as Yahweh is what two religions believe in. The fact that you don't believe it says more about you than about those religions.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10