Doing God's will.

[danydandan]

44 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There's no atheist indoctrination ? I guess it's "indoctrination" if the content isn't to your liking, but "education" if it is.

Everyone is subjected to indoctrination.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Everyone is subjected to indoctrination.

Enculturation is indoctrination, but it is the other guy, in another culture, that is being brain-washed, not us.

[Tatetopa]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

With current human technology we die with our body However that will not be the case for much longer.   Soon our minds will be down loaded into computers and transferred into other host bodies possibly clones generated by matter transmission from  a template of our own body    Again science puts this as being achieved by the end of this century  (as a conservative estimate)  

The definition of free is without hindrance or constraint 

Tell me ONE physical ( biological or other) factor known to  constrain human thought?. 

This is the sticking point for me Mr. Walker.

Lets say that we are in the early stages of this mind transfer technology and you are a test volunteer.  To really verify the accuracy of the systems, a dozen alter egos are created by downloading your personality.  Every morning you go to the lab download again to keep the alter-egos current.  Then the lab runs a test to see if the host computers are functioning properly. You get a form with a couple of dozen questions to answer.  Some multiple choice, some essay type.  They all have the form:  If such and such, what would you do?

You answer and your answers are compared with the alter egos' responses.   They match, 12 out of 12 mimic your responses.  Brilliant, the technology seems to be working perfectly.  The scientists are fully confident that the personality in the alter ego hosts is a high fidelity reproduction of you.

One morning a week into the trial, you download, prepare to answer the quiz but receive an emergency phone call.  You have to leave and do not return to finish your quiz for six hours.  Meanwhile the alter ego results are on file.  Again they match perfectly. Hooray for technology.

Yet, the alter egos took the test and made their choices six hours before you did   You identical personality programs had no trouble predicting your responses simply by running the Mr. Walker program in their memory.

The implication of that predictability about your choices seems to indicate that choices are a result of programming, a function performing transformations on inputs to produce a predictable, repetitive output. I am drawn to the conclusion that free will is more of a conceit than a reality.

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

This is the sticking point for me Mr. Walker.

Lets say that we are in the early stages of this mind transfer technology and you are a test volunteer.  To really verify the accuracy of the systems, a dozen alter egos are created by downloading your personality.  Every morning you go to the lab download again to keep the alter-egos current.  Then the lab runs a test to see if the host computers are functioning properly. You get a form with a couple of dozen questions to answer.  Some multiple choice, some essay type.  They all have the form:  If such and such, what would you do?

You answer and your answers are compared with the alter egos' responses.   They match, 12 out of 12 mimic your responses.  Brilliant, the technology seems to be working perfectly.  The scientists are fully confident that the personality in the alter ego hosts is a high fidelity reproduction of you.

One morning a week into the trial, you download, prepare to answer the quiz but receive an emergency phone call.  You have to leave and do not return to finish your quiz for six hours.  Meanwhile the alter ego results are on file.  Again they match perfectly. Hooray for technology.

Yet, the alter egos took the test and made their choices six hours before you did   You identical personality programs had no trouble predicting your responses simply by running the Mr. Walker program in their memory.

The implication of that predictability about your choices seems to indicate that choices are a result of programming, a function performing transformations on inputs to produce a predictable, repetitive output. I am drawn to the conclusion that free will is more of a conceit than a reality.

Except that it would not work like that, given what we know of human cognition 
Suppose you downloaded 10 copies of your mind,  and immediately tested them (if I understand your test correctly)

  Yes, at that moment, the ten minds would be identical. However they then leave the room and go separate ways.  10 minutes later, if tested again, the minds would have begun to diverge and be giving slightly different responses.  A day later those responses would be  noticeably different,  and a year later, very different.  That is because we build and construct our thoughts based on experiences (both internal and external ) feeding data into our mind,  and no two minds have the same experiences, because both their external and internal stimuli are different over time.  

And thus the will of each mind would be different  and  unique over time, because it had difernt experiences, and eventually your 10 clones might be as different as brothers can be, or even strangers  

If you are only talking about 10  self aware computers then the same applies to a lesser extent

YOU will rapidly diverge, (because you are having very different experiences from  the 10 computers, so that your answers will very soon be different  from the computers .

However, being self aware, each computer will also diverge from the others  They will all have difernt "experiences" through both external contacts, and internal musings and thoughts 

if the computers are NOT advanced enough to be self aware then the y will not be able to store your mind, but also there would be no point  except to preserve your self exactly as you were when up loaded 

If that was the purpose then the computers would have to be "turned off " after uploading,  and then reprogrammed every few weeks, or however often you wished to store your own new memories.    That would preserve your original personality as much as possible.

However, much more can be achieved by allowing 10 of you to learn new things and then combining the memories and knowldge of all, into all of the minds, so that , for example,  if one learns Chinese then all will know it after the minds are linked/ transferred, again  

 

 

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Well in the past you said you look like this guy

Google Image Result for https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1a/3e/dc/1a3edc2384e06cd660f77d159dc9814b.jpg

and then you say you look like this guy

A vintage illustration of Jesus Christ, published in Germany, circa... News Photo | Getty Images

but to be honest neither one of them appears to be tanned and the afro is not in evidence in any of the image searches I did for Jesus.

Ps I was just teasing but really Walker unless you can prove that you are a shapeshifter I would take that into consideration.

jmccr8

Yup At different times of my life i have looked like both of those guys.

I had an afro at uni 

I have had long hair and a long beard  like the other guy 

 I have never shaven off my moustache except where required to for  medical reasons  since i was 16 and grew it in my final two years of high school

However my hair has always been  almost black (until it began turning white) It varies from  tight curls to wavy depending on conditions 

My skin has always been olive complexioned but sometimes much darker than others ( As dark as many aboriginal people's, for example)  

My nose is like both their noses  

I cant really tell what colour their eyes area and i dont really know what colour my own are , but the y sparkle   Just went to the bathroom to check inthe mirror Stillhard to describe the colour. A rich  chocolatey brown, with maybe a tendency to green? (But i am somewhat colour blind so i see some greens as browns ) 

I have always been incredibly good looking    

Cultural history suggests Christ would have had long hair and a beard   In time this would either have developed an afro appearance or a long   wavy appearance, given again his cultural genetics.  From experience your hair can take on both, or either shape at different times,  depending how it is groomed or cut  Personally,  with christ, i would go for long and wavy.

I knew you were joking(its taken a few years but I've mostly got your sense of humour worked out )  

It is interesting 

Over the years I have been asked by community groups to be both Father Christmas and Christ, in community events.  I've mostly declined, and for the same reason. I don't feel comfortable, even pretending to be either of them 

I like to think that, if christ had survived into old age, he might have come to look like father Christmas with a dark skin .

[Will Due]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Religious indoctrination is a subject of its own. 

 

Well then, if religious indoctrination is a subject of its own, it would have to include the indoctrination of atheism.

 

 

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

There's no atheist indoctrination ? I guess it's "indoctrination" if the content isn't to your liking, but "education" if it is.

Not as I understand it. The atheist arguments I have proposed that refute superstitions and religions are based on facts that only have any real impact if understood. That's the very opposite of indoctrination. One has to learn and comprehend the sciences to understand why the God idea is so heavily flawed and extremely unlikely. If I just say 'well science' as an uncritical ideology (the flip side of the coin of God did it) that would be indoctrination (if I expect that line as the be all end all of the discussion) however explaining the finer points of why superstition and god ideas are not viable with real world information to be challenged, I can't see as working with the definition of indoctrination. Quite a few understand the sciences that remove the need for beliefs at all, yet still maintain such irrational beliefs. That's why it's not indoctrination the way I see it. 

Some say the likes of Stalin used atheist indoctrination. That is just a limited poor understanding of Stalanism though. 

Atheism is a default state. We have to build mental constructs to reject that natural state. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well then, if religious indoctrination is a subject of its own, it would have to include the indoctrination of atheism.

You are in over your head again Will. You don't know what your talking about again, do you? 

Go have a fortune cookie while the grown ups talk. 

[Aquila King]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Go have a fortune cookie while the grown ups talk. 

 

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well then, if religious indoctrination is a subject of its own, it would have to include the indoctrination of atheism.

It's odd how religious folks are outraged over "atheist indoctrination" yet equally outraged over not indoctrinating people into their specific religion... 

[psyche101]

Just now, Aquila King said:

It's odd how religious folks are outraged over "atheist indoctrination" yet equally outraged over not indoctrinating people into their specific religion... 

The worst part is they tend to refer to dictatorships as indoctrination which applies to a belief system. New atheism is about the questions that refute God through science. That promotes critical thought which is not indoctrination. Its the very opposite. 

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

The worst part is they tend to refer to dictatorships as indoctrination which applies to a belief system. New atheism is about the questions that refute God through science. That promotes critical thought which is not indoctrination. Its the very opposite. 

I'm an agnostic apatheist. I don't know and I don't care.

I'm aware that new atheists claim that science refutes God, and all that exists is the material world, etc. And it may very well be that way. I just acknowledge the fact that I'm a dumb dumb who don't know enough science to say for myself. 

Ultimately I don't think it matters either way. I'm simply against the religious folks who want to force their religiosity onto others. And at the same time I'd be against any atheists who essentially want to do the same thing. Just live and let live.

I don't consider myself a part of the atheist community, but I do end up agreeing with them more than most religious / spiritual people.

[psyche101]

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm an agnostic apatheist. I don't know and I don't care.

There are many who do care however, and have made great strides in understanding. It's all there for anyone who cares to look. That's the difference. An atheist viewpoint can look at both arguments and work with the merits of each discipline. Religiosity at some point must abandon real world knowledge to maintain faith. Atheism will maintain cohesion with things that actually affect us. 

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm aware that new atheists claim that science refutes God, and all that exists is the material world, etc. And it may very well be that way. I just acknowledge the fact that I'm a dumb dumb who don't know enough science to say for myself. 

Sort of. There are no absolutes in science, but evidence for god is the same as evidence for fairies. There's just no point in convoluting discovery with man made ideas like God. 

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Ultimately I don't think it matters either way. I'm simply against the religious folks who want to force their religiosity onto others. And at the same time I'd be against any atheists who essentially want to do the same thing. Just live and let live.

I don't feel that supporting an outdated superstition as if real is of any worth at all. As I say, it just convolutes discovery. There is nothing to be gained in this area from God ideas. 

Another thing I feel that moderate believers do is enable more fundamental believers. 

As I've embraced atheism, I've found the god idea outright silly. It's like having a children's tea party with imaginary friends 24/7. I simply don't see how others hold onto such a needless and baseless idea. 

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I don't consider myself a part of the atheist community, but I do end up agreeing with them more than most religious / spiritual people.

Its most likely because atheists tend to use real world examples and discoveries to support their views. Things like efficacy of prayer have nothing to support them but tall tales. 

[Will Due]

47 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You are in over your head again Will. You don't know what your talking about again, do you? 

Go have a fortune cookie while the grown ups talk. 

 

You said when you first joined UM, you were religious right? 

Then you said the atheists here turned you into an atheist right?

They indoctrinated you right?

Be honest.

 

 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yup At different times of my life i have looked like both of those guys.

I had an afro at uni 

I have had long hair and a long beard  like the other guy 

 I have never shaven off my moustache except where required to for  medical reasons  since i was 16 and grew it in my final two years of high school

However my hair has always been  almost black (until it began turning white) It varies from  tight curls to wavy depending on conditions 

My skin has always been olive complexioned but sometimes much darker than others ( As dark as many aboriginal people's, for example)  

My nose is like both their noses  

I cant really tell what colour their eyes area and i dont really know what colour my own are , but the y sparkle   Just went to the bathroom to check inthe mirror Stillhard to describe the colour. A rich  chocolatey brown, with maybe a tendency to green? (But i am somewhat colour blind so i see some greens as browns ) 

I have always been incredibly good looking    

Cultural history suggests Christ would have had long hair and a beard   In time this would either have developed an afro appearance or a long   wavy appearance, given again his cultural genetics.  From experience your hair can take on both, or either shape at different times,  depending how it is groomed or cut  Personally,  with christ, i would go for long and wavy.

I knew you were joking(its taken a few years but I've mostly got your sense of humour worked out )  

It is interesting 

Over the years I have been asked by community groups to be both Father Christmas and Christ, in community events.  I've mostly declined, and for the same reason. I don't feel comfortable, even pretending to be either of them 

I like to think that, if christ had survived into old age, he might have come to look like father Christmas with a dark skin .

Have Kaplan and that image of Jesus are not incredibly good looking. 

I'd say you have tickets on yourself that you can't cash in. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You said when you first joined UM, you were religious right? 

Then you said the atheists here turned you into an atheist right?

They indoctrinated you right?

Be honest.

No, they did not indoctrinate me in any conceivable way. 

That is 100% honest. 

Like I said  your out of your depth. Do you understand what indoctrination actually is Will? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/26/teaching-children-that-dinosaurs-didnt-exist-how-public-schools-fail-their-brief

[Aquila King]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There are many who do care however, and have made great strides in understanding. It's all there for anyone who cares to look. That's the difference. An atheist viewpoint can look at both arguments and work with the merits of each discipline. Religiosity at some point must abandon real world knowledge to maintain faith. Atheism will maintain cohesion with things that actually affect us. 

Sort of. There are no absolutes in science, but evidence for god is the same as evidence for fairies. There's just no point in convoluting discovery with man made ideas like God. 

I don't feel that supporting an outdated superstition as if real is of any worth at all. As I say, it just convolutes discovery. There is nothing to be gained in this area from God ideas. 

Another thing I feel that moderate believers do is enable more fundamental believers. 

As I've embraced atheism, I've found the god idea outright silly. It's like having a children's tea party with imaginary friends 24/7. I simply don't see how others hold onto such a needless and baseless idea. 

Its most likely because atheists tend to use real world examples and discoveries to support their views. Things like efficacy of prayer have nothing to support them but tall tales. 

First of all, I was once a staunch militant new atheist myself, so I'm pretty aware of the atheist viewpoint.

Second, please try and listen to what I'm saying here. I'm simply acknowledging what I don't know. 

I'm not a scientist. I'm not a theoretical physicist. Hell, I barely passed high school Algebra. I'm just your average dude. Anything I read from a science paper or prestigious book or whatever for the most part just goes over my head. You can make fun of me for it but meh, that's just how it is. I'm man enough to admit when I don't get something. And the only way for me to take a position on this topic is for me to simply believe what some scientist tells me about it on faith, which to me is not much different than doing the same thing with a pastor or religious authority. I just don't know.

But moreover, I don't care. I say that, because no matter whether I knew there was or wasn't a God, I really wouldn't change anything about my lifestyle in the slightest, so why should I care? I care when some religious nut starts trying to force their beliefs on others, or when they do blatantly immoral things in the name of their religion. But I don't have to take a position on the God debate in order to oppose those things. So I don't.

I don't know if there's a 'God', I don't care if there's a God, and life is a hell of a lot easier because of my admitting those things. It's really as simple as that.

 

Also just for the record...

When I was a fundamentalist religious person I was certain that I was correct. When I was an atheist I was certain I was correct. When I was a 'spiritualist' or whatever you wanna call it, I was certain I was correct. 

If there's one thing I've learned from alternating beliefs on this topic multiple times over the years, it's that we humans can genuinely believe with absolute 100% sincerity that we know the objective truth for certain, and still be dead ass wrong.

I'm not saying that we can't ever know the objective truth about anything, ever. But what I am saying is that just because you're confident that you're correct here, doesn't mean that you are.

In all truthfulness, your absolute confidence and certainty here simply comes off as fundamentalist to me.  Gives me flashbacks of the religious folks who know for certain that they're absolutely factually correct.

So sorry man, I want no part of what you're selling here...

[Will Due]

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

I'll express my opinion knowing full well that I'm far from understanding everything correctly like I hope to some day. In other words, I don't have it all figured out. It's through these types of conversations that I learn more all the time. Thanks for engaging me this way.

Yes, I have concluded that the will of god is in fact in each and every one of us. Actually it's more than that. God is actually present within us each personally. A part of him is within us all. In contact with us spiritually via the thoughts of our minds. And it's due to this that he's able to make us aware of his will. Although he never thinks for us, we can think for him.

————————————————-/-

awesomeness. So, I can’t honestly begin to say I know the will of our creator or that it has ever been made apparent to me for my life, though I have experienced various synchronicities, nudges, flashes of what I interpreted to be brilliance-etc... on the contrary to your theory, I’m not sure if it is we who can align ourselves with “Gods Will”, or if the will of “God” is in fact all there is. You think you make decisions, so do I. But do we really? How can two people raised in the same household turn out polar opposites? Favoritism within the family, possibly... what I’m trying to say is it could be environmental... or it could be that all of creation is a necessary expression of the limits of “God”, which presumably would be limitless.

 

I think God is limitless but within this infinity, he limits himself. This he expresses in the limitations of the creation of the human being for example. Who is imbued with will that's relatively free. Free enough for two from the same family to end up at polar opposites because of their personal decisions.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

Perhaps all those environmental differences that produce so many diverse personalities and shades of stereotypes are in fact pre-ordained to bring into fruition every shade of personality, appearance, circumstance possible in a truly infinite sea of variables... stay with me!!

——————————————————-

 

That makes sense to me. It seems there are personality types but ultimately, individual personality is totally unique. No duplicates.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

 

Yes, we create our reality ourselves. But our reality (at first) is not God's reality. Our greater reality is created by aligning our will to his will. Aligning our reality to God's reality.  Allowing God's understanding to become our understanding. Progressively. 

——————————_________________

can there be more than one ultimate reality? Do we create or reality, or do we simply not clearly see the ultimate reality? I think most of us paint our reality over with ideas and principalities.... sound familiar? Or perhaps we don’t do the painting at all, perhaps the reality we view is specifically chosen for each of us to unfold an infinite expression of the all... 

 

Yeah I think you're right. Our reality, what we decide, how we implement what is decided, is added to God's ultimate reality. This is how we are co-creative with God. It's a partnership.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

to be clear, I am not an advocate for pre-destination. But I do ponder its place with an all powerful creator force..

 

I've lately been thinking about predestination. I don't like the idea that something about me has been predetermined and that there's nothing I can do to change it. But after pondering it, I realized there lot's of things I'm powerless to change. I must keep inhaling in order to stay alive for example. In that way my life was predestined to breathe. I also see there are other ways my life was predestined.

But for my free will ability to make decisions that alter my predestination, that were against God's plan for me, there wouldn't exist a way for me to have become who I am.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

No, I believe from the rip of our existence our reality and Gods reality are one and the same, how we feel about it all is subject to change.

 

Or rather, it's what we decide that alters the plans God had for us. And it's those decisions he honors and works with to bring us home. Home within the limits of the infinity of his will. The limits we set for ourselves when we decide against God's predestination for us.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

in fact, I find it impossible to buy the belief that we could have a will and follow it through without “Gods” will being involved. Both seemingly noble and horrendous acts.

—————————————————-/

 

Noble free will acts and horrendous free will acts are ours first. Then they're everyone else's too.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

 

 

Yes, this is what's behind the deep meaning of the following in my opinion:

"Your kingdom come" (that place where everyone loves and serves each other correctly) 

"Your will be done" (the means of achieving the above)

"On earth as it is in heaven" (what occurs there, can occur here)

——————————————————-

 your kingdom come? Are we saying this is not part of the creators kingdom? Your will be done? Are we asking the creators will be done here? Is that similar to giving the creator permission that his will may be carried out on creation? Do you see the arrogance in that request? On earth as it is in heaven? How should we interpret heaven? As a physical place although maybe in another dimension? Or in the minds of men, maybe? 

 

I look at it this way:

God is not a King and we are not in a kingdom as subjects.

Instead . . .

God is our loving Father and we are all children in his family.

 

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

If we interpret heaven as minds of men and ideas, and see all of those ideas existing for the purpose of limitless possibilities of expression and manifestation, brought to fruition by the will of “God”, everyone loving and serving each other correctly begins to mean something totally different.... we are taking the long way to an interesting concept, more on serving each other and the will of “God” soon.

———————————————//////////

 

Service to our fellows is the main way if not the only way we are able to express God's will as a human being. I see that as one of those limitations you referred to earlier. A limitation of human will and God's predestination for us.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

 

 

Yes because, although our will and God's will can become one and the same, they don't start out that way.

—————————————————-/

I already touched on this, If we agree there is a “God”, I can’t imagine a god whose will would not be “ALL” there is.

 

To me there is only God. However, there are things that can exist temporarily that are not God. Things like evil. Evil that immature and imperfect beings can decide to do. Decide to do that ultimately teaches us that deciding to do anything that isn't God's will only leads to trouble.

 

23 hours ago, Wes83 said:

 

 

Yeah, let's have a conversation. 

 

 

Thank you. Yes, faith is all there is to it. And with your help and everyone else's, we'll all get a little higher.

————————————————-/-/

Agreed!!

So, I’m riding with a friend back in my 20’s. We were similar in a lot of ways, both gregarious, both attractive, fast with the ladies, liked to drink more than we should, probably had entirely too much testosterone between us. 

Im driving and we were a little intoxicated, I know-you shouldn’t smoke wacky tobacco and drive-I was much younger then. He starts saying “Wes,  have you ever thought about how big of a difference one person can make in the lives of so many other people?”

i consider for a moment and thought about how I attempted to positively impact everyone I know and meet. I begin to reply along those lines saying how one person could enter a room and brighten it with a smile, and people feed the homeless. going off on that tangent i petered out and fell silent.

He says “Yeah, or one person who creates one well placed and timed bomb could not only kill however many people but could affect millions”

we rode in silence for a while, I knew I was the only person he had ever shared this with and he was testing my reception. I did what anyone would do I imagine, I tried to determine if he was interesting in creating a bomb and causing harm to people. I tried to explain to him that there are better ways to touch people in the world.

i thought about that a lot over the years... with that story in mind I offer the following. 

I attempt to serve others in a positive helpful way consciously. However, others in my now adopted worldview are living out the will of “God” in unlimited possibilities. What else would cause a guy so similar to myself to even consider wanting to harm so many people so horrifically? Was he just sick? We could assume something in his environment led him down that path.

Perhaps the universe is fulfilling limitless expressions of polarity and that’s what my friend was picked for.  In this worldview, those that fell victim to his act would be serving the will of himself and creator. Just as those that exist in need fulfill the need in others to help the needy. Serving others becomes a rabbit hole in itself, I hope I’m explaining this correctly?? The will of God is all there can be... serving each other is all we can do, because ultimately, are we not playthings?

 

Playthings? Us?

Not in my opinion.

However, we are more than able to treat ourselves and our will as playthings.

I would never think that someone by suggesting an extreme like killing people in a conversation like you described, was contemplating actually doing so themselves. But rather, just pointing out that even within a lot of limitation of human will, there exists a very wide range of choice, is how I would take it.

It's interesting to me though that at it's widest, our will always involves the potential for goodly service to others. With its corresponding evil of serving ourselves.

Maybe you misinterpreted what your friend was trying to say?

 

 

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

First of all, I was once a staunch militant new atheist myself, so I'm pretty aware of the atheist viewpoint.

Its changing all the time. As the cutting edge of science grows, we simply know more. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Second, please try and listen to what I'm saying here. I'm simply acknowledging what I don't know. 

I understand that. I honestly think you're being overly defensive here. Believers get defensive too for that same reason. They don't know, but the difference I assume there is that they don't want to know, where you can't be bothered. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not a scientist. I'm not a theoretical physicist. Hell, I barely passed high school Algebra. I'm just your average dude. Anything I read from a science paper or prestigious book or whatever for the most part just goes over my head. You can make fun of me for it but meh, that's just how it is. I'm man enough to admit when I don't get something. And the only way for me to take a position on this topic is for me to simply believe what some scientist tells me about it on faith, which to me is not much different than doing the same thing with a pastor or religious authority. I just don't know.

This is what I was telling Hab yesterday. Learning is easier than ever. Thanks to great books by brilliant peolie (Hawking, Greene, Krauss, Carroll etc) it's not as hard to grasp as it one was. And that's not to say people should educate themselves, ignorance is a choice too, and it can be taxing to learn. You don't have to take such things on faith when these brilliant minds go to such great lengths to lay them out for us. It's fine that you don't want to know, but you also shouldn't believe ' that nobody does. Some do, and some of us are willing to learn what is shared. 

I won't make fun if you for it knowing. It's not for everyone just like skydiving or seafood.

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

But moreover, I don't care. I say that, because no matter whether I knew there was or wasn't a God, I really wouldn't change anything about my lifestyle in the slightest, so why should I care? I care when some religious nut starts trying to force their beliefs on others, or when they do blatantly immoral things in the name of their religion. But I don't have to take a position on the God debate in order to oppose those things. So I don't.

I don't know if there's a 'God', I don't care if there's a God, and life is a hell of a lot easier because of my admitting those things. It's really as simple as that.

But then you shouldn't have an opinion either way. Even for your own choice. It's fine that your choice suits you. I'm a curious person and want to know. If there is information available, I see nothing wrong with pursuing that and sharing that. If that information squashes the god idea out, that's just how things are, like the sky being blue or water being wet. Religion is a personal ideaology, so when clashes with the data, egos will get bruised. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Also just for the record...

When I was a fundamentalist religious person I was certain that I was correct. When I was an atheist I was certain I was correct. When I was a 'spiritualist' or whatever you wanna call it, I was certain I was correct. 

If there's one thing I've learned from alternating beliefs on this topic multiple times over the years, it's that we humans can genuinely believe with absolute 100% sincerity that we know the objective truth for certain, and still be dead ass wrong.

I'm not certain anything I think is correct. That's why I go with data and knowledge gathered by people far smarter than I am. I defer to greater minds. All I can do is try my best to understand them. I can indeed be dead ass wrong. But math and data are not. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not saying that we can't ever know the objective truth about anything, ever. But what I am saying is that just because you're confident that you're correct here, doesn't mean that you are.

I'm confident in results and gathered knowledge. I'm not sure why you see a problem with that. It's proven information. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

In all truthfulness, your absolute confidence and certainty here simply comes off as fundamentalist to me.  Gives me flashbacks of the religious folks who know for certain that they're absolutely factually correct.

I'm sorry you have such a blinkered view of a supported approach. Again. Nothing to do with what I think. It's what nature does that we observe that builds the result. I'm deeply disappointed that you would sink to using the term fundamentalist in this context. Physics is not fundamentalist. And being confident with physics is not unwarranted. It has proven itself. 

12 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

So sorry man, I want no part of what you're selling here...

I'm not selling you anything  did I appear as if I was coercing you to change views? I simply stated that I have reason to be confident in gathered data that offers repeatability upon demand and can predict outcomes. I have no reason to want you to think the same way. In fact, in a little dissappionted that you would think Im selling anything. I'm debating what I know to be supported. Nothing more. I don't believe in indoctrination. If you wanted to know more I could point you at sources to learn more, but unless one understands the science that negates superstition, there's not really any way of getting that information across. Quite frankly, I'm too ambitious and interested to have the complacent approach that you do, but rest assured I don't begrudge you of your stance either. I just think if someone makes a claim, they should support it. I don't see anything wrong with that do you? 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Do you understand what indoctrination actually is Will? 

 

Yeah psyche. I see it occuring every time you try to indoctrinate me. 

 

 

[psyche101]

12 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yeah psyche. I see it occuring every time you try to indoctrinate me. 

That would indicate what I suspected. You don't know what it is do you. 

What examples can you copy and paste for me Will? You know, to prove you're not lying. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by psyche101

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Service to our fellows is the main way if not the only way we are able to express God's will as a human being

That's straight out of 'Calvin's Commentaries'. You really need to read those Will. I'm serious. 

The reason the Hungarian Cossacks didn't march to the beat of Hitler's drum like the rest of their country and instead protected the Croats and Jews was their staunch Calvinism.  

[Will Due]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That would indicate what I suspected. You don't know what it is do you. 

What examples can you copy and paste for me Will? You know, to prove you're not lying. 

 

When you express yourself about what should be believed, you are attempting to indoctrinate. Are you not?

Isn't that what happened to you? 

The atheists here told you what to believe (or disbelieve) did they not? That's how you were indoctrinated into atheism.

Be honest.

 

 

[Will Due]

18 minutes ago, Piney said:

That's straight out of 'Calvin's Commentaries'. You really need to read those Will. I'm serious. 

The reason the Hungarian Cossacks didn't march to the beat of Hitler's drum like the rest of their country and instead protected the Croats and Jews was their staunch Calvinism.  

 

I have a very old friend who is descended from Cossacks. He prefers to eat sharp rocks for dessert lol.

Calvin? Some things are universal.

Like doing the right thing. Like doing God's will.

 

 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

When you express yourself about what should be believed, you are attempting to indoctrinate. Are you not?

No, I'm encouraging you to learn and ask questions, not nieve blindly. 

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Isn't that what happened to you? 

No. I'm sorry that religion has jailed your mind so. 

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The atheists here told you what to believe (or disbelieve) did they not? That's how you were indoctrinated into atheism.

No, they have good arguments which I investigated critically and evaluated myself. Nobody told me to believe anything. 

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Be honest.

Can you? 

Your beliefs have been illustrated to be in error countless times, yet you just wrap belief tighter about yourself. Can you honestly say what you fear so much about real challenges to gods existence?