independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > My One And Only Thread On Religion
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 6 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #150 posted 09/23/19 10:49pm

IanRG

toejam said:

Fair point about recall, but you get my wider point - there are moments in our life in which we are not really aware of anything. I wasn't aware of anything before my brain came into existence, my brain produces my state of awareness in the here and now, and once my brain no longer exists, then my awareness should cease also.

.

There is no logic in this assumption. It just fits your beliefs. You are saying that before you ever existed should be the same as after you came into existence just because there are times after you came into existence that you were not "really" aware of anything. Another person would say perhaps you need to reconsider your superstitions because this certaintly is not a logical statement.

.

It may well be that, if there is no God/reincarnation despite as most people believe, your awareness ceases when the brain dies but this is not demonstrated by your logic error. Reduced awareness (or being not really aware) is normally associated with states of consciousness when we are isolated from awareness such as to allow us to sleep or allow the body to focus on repairing itself, etc. It does not mean the sub or unconscious mind is not aware of things. This has nothing to do when the body dies - and you cannot prove what happens when this occurs except by your assumptions.

.

Which all has nothing to do with the topic.

[Edited 9/23/19 22:51pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #151 posted 09/24/19 1:31am

JoeyC

avatar

toejam said:

JoeyC said:
I hear what you're saying, and you very well could be right. However, i choose to believe that, in some form, consciousness(or spirit, or soul) does survive death of the body. l also believe that there is a intelligent design to all of this. And, i choose(for the time being) to call that intelligence, God. Shoot though, for all i know, God could be an alien...

.

As far as religion? I consider myself a Christian. One thing about that though. If i ever lose what little faith i do have left in the christian church, it will be because of what Christians do. And not because of anything that non believers do, or say(about the church). AND, just short of absolute proof that Jesus never existed, i can't see myself abandoning my belief in Christ.
.
Anyways, as I've said before(as it relates to my spiritual and religious beliefs), that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... sym_peace.png

.

Why do you choose to believe that consciousness survives after death? Do you choose it because it is comforting, or because the evidence favors it? If the latter, what evidence? Is believing something on the basis of personal preference ever a good reason when it comes to trying to fathom the nature of reality?
.
Do you choose to believe that things like natural disasters and birth defects have similarly been "intelligently designed"? How do you tell the difference between what has and hasn't been designed by a higher intelligence? Is it all part of God's plan when a tsunami kills 300,000 unsuspecting folk in a single swoop or when a child is born with Pfeiffer's syndrome?

.
I think determining whether Christianity is true or not by looking at what Christians do or don't do isn't a sound methodology for determining such a thing. It doesn't matter what they do. They might be the most selfless and loving people on the planet or the most arrogant selfish pricks. Neither would make any difference as to whether Christianity's core claims about the state of reality are true (in my my experience, and I presume yours too, you will find Christians at both ends and everywhere in between that spectrum).
.
I also think requiring practical proof that Jesus never existed is an unnecessarily high bar for giving up on Christianity. To me, that would be like a Mormon stating that it would require practical proof that Joseph Smith didn't exist in order to give up on the superstition that is Mormonism. There are plenty of reasons to recognise Mormonism as a superstition without having to prove its founder didn't exist. Same goes for Christianity, in my opinion. Most former Christians I know, including myself, think there was at least a guy - some Jewish preacher named Jesus who got crucified. Christianity is more than the belief that there was a guy. You should give up on Christianity (or any religion of belief for that matter) once you fail to see the evidence for it as compelling to a degree of probable.


I don't know, toejam. The best i can tell you is it rests(for the most part) with faith. It's something that can't really be explained(at least for me). Some people choose to believe in a power greater than themselves. And some people choose not to. I guess like you. If i remember correctly, you used to be a person of faith. And at some point you found enough "evidence" to convince you that religion, God, Jesus, etc, was all BS. So you chose not to believe anymore. For me though, I'm not at that point. Sure there's some "evidence" to support the ideal that God, the divinity of Jesus, the Bible, and religion in general, is made up falsehoods. But, for me, that evidence is no where near compelling enough for me to deny the existence of God(or Jesus being his son)... I guess i would say that in terms of doubt(or questioning its truthfulness), this would be the order of that(my)doubt(s). The Church's teachings and customs(in general), the inherent truth of the bible, Jesus divinity, and lastly, the ideal that there is no God(or creator)... It would take a lot(and trust me when i say that I've been through a lot) for me to lose all faith in God(the creator). Also. Just because there's evidence of something, doesn't make it so.



Anyway, having said this though, I'm not implying that I'm a person with an abundance of faith. For decades I've wrestled with faith, lack of faith, doubt, etc. But yet i still choose to believe.

That's about all i got for you, my man.

Good stuff though.

[Edited 9/24/19 13:59pm]

Rest in Peace Bettie Boo. See u soon.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #152 posted 09/24/19 7:28am

poppys

toejam said:

Fair point about recall, but you get my wider point - there are moments in our life in which we are not really aware of anything. I wasn't aware of anything before my brain came into existence, my brain produces my state of awareness in the here and now, and once my brain no longer exists, then my awareness should cease also.


The keyword here is should. I don't trust where we are in science to disprove the continuation of conciousness any more than I trust another human to tell me their view of God is the chosen view, and these are the rules. It's also a part of science as we know it that matter and energy transform, they don't really go away. Not arguing that I, in my physical form, will be aware of where my energy goes when I die. But that doesn't prove to me that it doesn't go somewhere.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #153 posted 09/24/19 7:32am

poppys

JoeyC said:

poppys said:


Not really. Heaven is part of the (manmade) flip side of the hell theory. I have no idea where conciousness goes, or if we are aware of it when we die. I do feel a presence in life beyond our senses that I can loosely call God energy. But beyond that, I just don't know, it's all speculation.

One thing many organized religions do is try to motivate good behavior using guilt. I think people should strive to lead a moral life (as outlined in many religions) anyway. I have no problem with people who want that structure in their lives. Maybe it helps some who don't have a good moral compass (and churches are also social hubs, which is helpful). The dogma keeps me away.

The religion I was raised in (did not join) stresses just trying to do good. There is no absolution or map to forgiveness by a human church elder.



Good stuff ! Especially(for me personally) the 'presence' part. hmmm thumbs up!


hug

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #154 posted 09/24/19 4:22pm

toejam

avatar

poppys said:

.

toejam said:

Fair point about recall, but you get my wider point - there are moments in our life in which we are not really aware of anything. I wasn't aware of anything before my brain came into existence, my brain produces my state of awareness in the here and now, and once my brain no longer exists, then my awareness should cease also.

.
The keyword here is should. I don't trust where we are in science to disprove the continuation of conciousness any more than I trust another human to tell me their view of God is the chosen view, and these are the rules. It's also a part of science as we know it that matter and energy transform, they don't really go away. Not arguing that I, in my physical form, will be aware of where my energy goes when I die. But that doesn't prove to me that it doesn't go somewhere.

.
I don't see it as "science disproving the continuation of consciousness" so much, but simply following the observable tendencies to their most logical likely conclusion: Pre-birth, no brain = no consciousness. Developing brain activity = developing consciousness. Lots of brain activity = full consciousness. Deteriorating brain = deteriorating consciousness (e.g. those with Alzheimer’s). Therefore a dead brain should = no consciousness. Similarly, one can alter their state of consciousness in predictable ways by doing physical things to the brain. This all leads to the natural conclusion that consciousness is dependent on the physical brain. So no brain should = no consciousness. You don't even have to be an atheist to recognise this. Consciousness can be thought of as like a fire. When a fire is extinguished, it doesn't "go" anywhere, it simply stops being produced (indeed, it "goes out!" wink). Consciousness needs a physical brain to produce it just as fire needs physical fuel and oxygen to burn.
.
Of course one can always ad hoc their way to suggest that there might be more to it than that. Indeed, there may well be! But the time to think further proposals about consciousness are probable is when the evidence suggests their probability. In the meantime, this is what we can say about consciousness – it appears to be dependent on a physical brain.
.
I see some fuzziness in what you refer to as a person's "energy".
.

[Edited 9/24/19 16:45pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #155 posted 09/24/19 4:37pm

toejam

avatar

JoeyC said:
I don't know, toejam. The best i can tell you is it rests(for the most part) with faith. It's something that can't really be explained(at least for me). Some people choose to believe in a power greater than themselves. And some people choose not to. I guess like you. If i remember correctly, you used to be a person of faith. And at some point you found enough "evidence" to convince you that religion, God, Jesus, etc, was all BS. So you chose not to believe anymore. For me though, I'm not at that point. Sure there's some "evidence" to support the ideal that God, the divinity of Jesus, the Bible, and religion in general, is made up falsehoods. But, for me, that evidence is no where near compelling enough for me to deny the existence of God(or Jesus being his son)... I guess i would say that in terms of doubt(or questioning its truthfulness), this would be the order of that(my)doubt(s). The Church's teachings and customs(in general), the inherent truth of the bible, Jesus divinity, and lastly, the ideal that there is no God(or creator)... It would take a lot(and trust me when i say that I've been through a lot) for me to lose all faith in God(the creator). Also. Just because there's evidence of something, doesn't make it so.
.
Anyway, having said this though, I'm not implying that I'm a person with an abundance of faith. For decades I've wrestled with faith, lack of faith, doubt, etc. But yet i still choose to believe.
.
That's about all i got for you, my man.
.
Good stuff though.

.

I would love to know what evidence and reasons you have for thinking Christianity is probable in the terms you've described above, i.e. that Jesus really was the son of a God, that Jesus was more than a man, and that the Bible is "inherently true". Seems to me that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and inaccuracies. That you don't find the idea that there is no creator God compelling isn't in and of itself a reason to think Christianity is true. Personally, I gave up on Christianity long before I gave up on the idea of a creator-God. Perhaps in another thread though, if you're keen to start one.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #156 posted 09/25/19 2:37am

IanRG

toejam said:

poppys said:

.

.
The keyword here is should. I don't trust where we are in science to disprove the continuation of conciousness any more than I trust another human to tell me their view of God is the chosen view, and these are the rules. It's also a part of science as we know it that matter and energy transform, they don't really go away. Not arguing that I, in my physical form, will be aware of where my energy goes when I die. But that doesn't prove to me that it doesn't go somewhere.

.
I don't see it as "science disproving the continuation of consciousness" so much, but simply following the observable tendencies to their most logical likely conclusion: Pre-birth, no brain = no consciousness. Developing brain activity = developing consciousness. Lots of brain activity = full consciousness. Deteriorating brain = deteriorating consciousness (e.g. those with Alzheimer’s). Therefore a dead brain should = no consciousness. Similarly, one can alter their state of consciousness in predictable ways by doing physical things to the brain. This all leads to the natural conclusion that consciousness is dependent on the physical brain. So no brain should = no consciousness. You don't even have to be an atheist to recognise this. Consciousness can be thought of as like a fire. When a fire is extinguished, it doesn't "go" anywhere, it simply stops being produced (indeed, it "goes out!" wink). Consciousness needs a physical brain to produce it just as fire needs physical fuel and oxygen to burn.
.
Of course one can always ad hoc their way to suggest that there might be more to it than that. Indeed, there may well be! But the time to think further proposals about consciousness are probable is when the evidence suggests their probability. In the meantime, this is what we can say about consciousness – it appears to be dependent on a physical brain.
.
I see some fuzziness in what you refer to as a person's "energy".
.

[Edited 9/24/19 16:45pm]

.

You are still drawing conclusions based on miss applying logic and by applying assumptions driven by your need for confirmational bias.

.

Firstly you persist in the nonsense argument that before you existed you did not have something. You are only doing this because it is the only imagined data point where there is no consciousness before death because you want to belief there to be no consciousness after death. ALL the other datapoints have some level of consciousness - BUT this datapoint is it is before life, before anything and not useful or relevant to any assumptions about after your life begins. You just think it supports your beliefs and eases your conscience about talking people out of belief in God on the basis of your proofless faith.

.

Now, you continue with another logic error: Finding a correlation does not mean you have found a causal link. All you have found is that the state of the physical body affects consciousness. This is just as justifiably explained by whilst ever our consciousness is contained within our physical bodies and our environment, then our consciousness is affected by our physical body and our environment. This applies to a lot of things in our life here on Earth but it is not proof of no after life or even an indication of what any after life could be like. It is only your assumption that this means only brain functions create consciousness.

[Edited 9/25/19 2:54am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #157 posted 09/26/19 4:48pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

You are still drawing conclusions based on miss applying logic and by applying assumptions driven by your need for confirmational bias.

.

Firstly you persist in the nonsense argument that before you existed you did not have something. You are only doing this because it is the only imagined data point where there is no consciousness before death because you want to belief there to be no consciousness after death. ALL the other datapoints have some level of consciousness - BUT this datapoint is it is before life, before anything and not useful or relevant to any assumptions about after your life begins. You just think it supports your beliefs and eases your conscience about talking people out of belief in God on the basis of your proofless faith.

.

Now, you continue with another logic error: Finding a correlation does not mean you have found a causal link. All you have found is that the state of the physical body affects consciousness. This is just as justifiably explained by whilst ever our consciousness is contained within our physical bodies and our environment, then our consciousness is affected by our physical body and our environment. This applies to a lot of things in our life here on Earth but it is not proof of no after life or even an indication of what any after life could be like. It is only your assumption that this means only brain functions create consciousness.

.

You're absolutely right that I can't "prove" our consciousness does not continue after the death of our physical brain. I've never claimed to offer "proof" - only a more likely, Occam's Razor-friendly, scenario based on the available evidence.
.
Sure, correlation in and of itself does not equal causation. But causation can be fairly proposed when there appears to be a strong direction of correlation. The correlation between one's physical brain activity and one's consciousness seems inseparable. So we ask the question, is there a direction of correlation? Do they mysteriously happen simultaneously, or does one depend on the other? If one is dependent on the other, then causation can be fairly described. Well, one's consciousness can be manipulated with predictable results by physically manipulating the brain in particular ways. And this is the case whether or not the conscious participant is aware of how their brain is being manipulated. A person's consciousness will begin to change with predictable results if his drink has been spiked, for example. It would not have changed in that way had it not been spiked. This to me is a strong indicator that the direction of correlation is brain -> consciousness, and not the other way around (as advocates of 'The Secret' or what-have-you might prefer). We don't need to know all the details of how our brain functions to produce our consciousness in order to at least make the sound observation that our brain is the thing that produces our consciousness. So no brain should equate to no consciousness.
.
A second factor against your belief that someone's consciousness can survive the death of their physical brain is there is no reliable evidence of someone's consciousness surviving after the death of their brain.
.
Both these factors are completely consistent with the idea that one's consciousness would cease once their brain has deteriorated to an irreparable point. On the other hand, if our consciousness was not the result of our physical brain, then we might expect that someone could break the strong correlation between the two - e.g. The person with the spiked drink might be able to 'will' his way away from its effects, or one might be able to reliably communicate with the dead (as opposed to the fakery of folk like John Edwards, etc.). Prince might be able to tell us what he wants done with his Vault material! But we just don't see reliable evidence for this kind of stuff.
.
Of course, you can ad hoc your way out of this and imagine scenarios that allow our consciousness to continue after death. But that wouldn't add anything beyond baseless speculation. And, contrary to your strong beliefs about my integrity and what I "want", I hope that I am wrong on this point! - I don't like the idea that I'm not going to exist one day. That sucks! I want it not to be true! But I care too much about following the evidence and logic available to me as best I can that I can't pretend otherwise. How many times over the past decade or so have I told you this? I'm sure your extensive personal documentation of our conversations can go and check. Your strong and persistent rhetoric about my integrity and what I want, etc., is more about trollery than anything of substance. - note: you said you didn't want to engage, yet continually reply to my posts to others.
.
Also, just to clarify, it is not my view that only a biological brain can produce consciousness. It is a difficult question as to whether or not we might be able to push artificial intelligence far enough to create a truly conscious machine. But it would still be being produced by the physical and would cease once the physical bits of the machine are destroyed. I don't know whether that's a legit possibility or not.

.

[Edited 9/26/19 17:04pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #158 posted 09/26/19 8:09pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

You are still drawing conclusions based on miss applying logic and by applying assumptions driven by your need for confirmational bias.

.

Firstly you persist in the nonsense argument that before you existed you did not have something. You are only doing this because it is the only imagined data point where there is no consciousness before death because you want to belief there to be no consciousness after death. ALL the other datapoints have some level of consciousness - BUT this datapoint is it is before life, before anything and not useful or relevant to any assumptions about after your life begins. You just think it supports your beliefs and eases your conscience about talking people out of belief in God on the basis of your proofless faith.

.

Now, you continue with another logic error: Finding a correlation does not mean you have found a causal link. All you have found is that the state of the physical body affects consciousness. This is just as justifiably explained by whilst ever our consciousness is contained within our physical bodies and our environment, then our consciousness is affected by our physical body and our environment. This applies to a lot of things in our life here on Earth but it is not proof of no after life or even an indication of what any after life could be like. It is only your assumption that this means only brain functions create consciousness.

.

You're absolutely right that I can't "prove" our consciousness does not continue after the death of our physical brain. I've never claimed to offer "proof" - only a more likely, Occam's Razor-friendly, scenario based on the available evidence.
.
Sure, correlation in and of itself does not equal causation. But causation can be fairly proposed when there appears to be a strong direction of correlation. The correlation between one's physical brain activity and one's consciousness seems inseparable. So we ask the question, is there a direction of correlation? Do they mysteriously happen simultaneously, or does one depend on the other? If one is dependent on the other, then causation can be fairly described. Well, one's consciousness can be manipulated with predictable results by physically manipulating the brain in particular ways. And this is the case whether or not the conscious participant is aware of how their brain is being manipulated. A person's consciousness will begin to change with predictable results if his drink has been spiked, for example. It would not have changed in that way had it not been spiked. This to me is a strong indicator that the direction of correlation is brain -> consciousness, and not the other way around (as advocates of 'The Secret' or what-have-you might prefer). We don't need to know all the details of how our brain functions to produce our consciousness in order to at least make the sound observation that our brain is the thing that produces our consciousness. So no brain should equate to no consciousness.
.
A second factor against your belief that someone's consciousness can survive the death of their physical brain is there is no reliable evidence of someone's consciousness surviving after the death of their brain.
.
Both these factors are completely consistent with the idea that one's consciousness would cease once their brain has deteriorated to an irreparable point. On the other hand, if our consciousness was not the result of our physical brain, then we might expect that someone could break the strong correlation between the two - e.g. The person with the spiked drink might be able to 'will' his way away from its effects, or one might be able to reliably communicate with the dead (as opposed to the fakery of folk like John Edwards, etc.). Prince might be able to tell us what he wants done with his Vault material! But we just don't see reliable evidence for this kind of stuff.
.
Of course, you can ad hoc your way out of this and imagine scenarios that allow our consciousness to continue after death. But that wouldn't add anything beyond baseless speculation. And, contrary to your strong beliefs about my integrity and what I "want", I hope that I am wrong on this point! - I don't like the idea that I'm not going to exist one day. That sucks! I want it not to be true! But I care too much about following the evidence and logic available to me as best I can that I can't pretend otherwise. How many times over the past decade or so have I told you this? I'm sure your extensive personal documentation of our conversations can go and check. Your strong and persistent rhetoric about my integrity and what I want, etc., is more about trollery than anything of substance. - note: you said you didn't want to engage, yet continually reply to my posts to others.
.
Also, just to clarify, it is not my view that only a biological brain can produce consciousness. It is a difficult question as to whether or not we might be able to push artificial intelligence far enough to create a truly conscious machine. But it would still be being produced by the physical and would cease once the physical bits of the machine are destroyed. I don't know whether that's a legit possibility or not.

.

The topic is not my beliefs - you made it about your moral obligation to re educate people so they believe what you believe.

.

You constantly call on Occam's razer incorrectly. It does not apply the way you think it does. It is not a law, a principle or method for determining or justifying a choice between conclusions. It is a starting point - when faced with two hypotheses, the one that should be considered first is the one with the least assumptions or least exceptions or least complexity. Everytime you use it the way you do, it is pseudoscience.

.

No, a strong correlation does not, and never has been able to be used to fairly describe a causation. This is pseudoscience as well. You are fabricating the causal link. The direction of correlation is nothing more than one of the tests of the degree of correlation, the other is its strength. It says nothing at all about causation because the direction and strength of correlation may be just because BOTH are affected in nearly identical stengths and directions by the same separate causal link and the link to the causal variables may be the only thing the two merely correlated variables have in common. All assumptions you choose to make so they match your beliefs will be merely confirmational bias - you tendency to see imagined links and causes just because they match you view of reality.

.

Hoping you are wrong is directly contrary to your stated moral obligation: If you know you cannot prove your beliefs are correct and you know that the implications of you being wrong are dire in the extreme and you want to be wrong, then the damage you are potentially doing by your evangelisation is morally repugnant, doing it hoping you are wrong just makes it worse. It is contrary to your claim that you would be happy to have people point out your errors in belief (using the derogatory term of superstitions for other people's beliefs in line with your need to promote your proofless faith in your own beliefs): The fact that you have been saying the same thing over the past decade with no growth in your understanding despite 1,000 of hours and 1,000s of dollars is because you don't listen or learn or seek to understand: You just seek to find the elusive gotcha to show I and many others that you mock and use tricks, logic errors, wordplay, sematics and pseudoscience against around the forums you have frequented because you have failed to find that gotcha argument.

[Edited 9/26/19 20:52pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #159 posted 09/27/19 1:02am

toejam

avatar

^Nothing here shows that our consciousness can exist independent of our physical brains to produce it. Indeed, it seems more focused on troll-like smear than on substance. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that our consciousness is the product of our physical brains - i.e. the brain can be manipulated physically to produce predictable changes in one's conscious experience. It only stands to reason that no brain should mean the cessation of our conscious experience. This is only consistent with the lack of reliable evidence for one's consciousness surviving the death of their physical brain. Get back to me when you have some reliable evidence to the contrary.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #160 posted 09/27/19 2:39am

IanRG

IanRG said:

.

The topic is not my beliefs - you made it about your moral obligation to re educate people so they believe what you believe.

.

You constantly call on Occam's razer incorrectly. It does not apply the way you think it does. It is not a law, a principle or method for determining or justifying a choice between conclusions. It is a starting point - when faced with two hypotheses, the one that should be considered first is the one with the least assumptions or least exceptions or least complexity. Everytime you use it the way you do, it is pseudoscience.

.

No, a strong correlation does not, and never has been able to be used to fairly describe a causation. This is pseudoscience as well. You are fabricating the causal link. The direction of correlation is nothing more than one of the tests of the degree of correlation, the other is its strength. It says nothing at all about causation because the direction and strength of correlation may be just because BOTH are affected in nearly identical stengths and directions by the same separate causal link and the link to the causal variables may be the only thing the two merely correlated variables have in common. All assumptions you choose to make so they match your beliefs will be merely confirmational bias - you tendency to see imagined links and causes just because they match you view of reality.

.

Hoping you are wrong is directly contrary to your stated moral obligation: If you know you cannot prove your beliefs are correct and you know that the implications of you being wrong are dire in the extreme and you want to be wrong, then the damage you are potentially doing by your evangelisation is morally repugnant, doing it hoping you are wrong just makes it worse. It is contrary to your claim that you would be happy to have people point out your errors in belief (using the derogatory term of superstitions for other people's beliefs in line with your need to promote your proofless faith in your own beliefs): The fact that you have been saying the same thing over the past decade with no growth in your understanding despite 1,000 of hours and 1,000s of dollars is because you don't listen or learn or seek to understand: You just seek to find the elusive gotcha to show I and many others that you mock and use tricks, logic errors, wordplay, sematics and pseudoscience against around the forums you have frequented because you have failed to find that gotcha argument.

toejam said:

^Nothing here shows that our consciousness can exist independent of our physical brains to produce it. Indeed, it seems more focused on troll-like smear than on substance. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that our consciousness is the product of our physical brains - i.e. the brain can be manipulated physically to produce predictable changes in one's conscious experience. It only stands to reason that no brain should mean the cessation of our conscious experience. This is only consistent with the lack of reliable evidence for one's consciousness surviving the death of their physical brain. Get back to me when you have some reliable evidence to the contrary.

.

So you fall back to not directly replying to me and the old, tired and false "smear" line - You do this every time you cannot answer me.

.

Again, the topic is not my beliefs - you made it about your moral obligation to re-educate people so they believe what you believe despite you not being able to prove your belief is correct.

.

It is not about me proving anything to you or providing you with any evidence - we are discussing the impact of your actions if your beliefs are wrong because you have said many times in this thread that you cannot demonstrate that your beliefs are right. It is about how you seek to re-educate people to your proofless faith using pseudoscience. Instead of always trying to to get the other person to back their unstated beliefs with evidence or proof when we are talking about yours, you should be demonstrating that you are not misapplying Occam's Razer and that it is not a serious misunderstanding of maths, statistics, logic and science to state that determining the direction of correlation means you can substitute something that is only a correlation into being a causal link. As it stands you know you cannot

.

So get back to me when you can answer if you talk someone out of their beliefs based on you mocking, trickery, logic errors, wordplay, semantics and pseudoscience and you are found to be wrong and your miss-direction causes them to suffer dire consequences, then where is the morality in your self claimed moral obligation?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #161 posted 09/27/19 5:44am

toejam

avatar

^And around the trolly-go-round you go. You have nothing to show supporting your belief that our consciousness can and does survive the death of the thing that produces it, i.e. our brain. So you fall back on your old toejam-smear game. Bye.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #162 posted 09/27/19 7:37am

poppys

How about you both just believe what you believe and leave the speculation as to other people's souls out of it?

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #163 posted 09/27/19 8:21am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Toejam, what is awareness and how do you know you are aware? You become aware because God thinks humans are special.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #164 posted 09/27/19 2:52pm

IanRG

poppys said:

How about you both just believe what you believe and leave the speculation as to other people's souls out of it?

.

I am. Toejam is free to believe what he wants.

.

Please note in all of this I have not challenged him at all on whether he should believe what he believes and I have resisted all his attempts to make it about my beliefs. What I am discussing is his self-claimed moral obligation to change other people's beliefs to his beliefs when he repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation. So I absolutely agree with you in allowing people to believe what they believe and leave speculation on other people's souls out ot it.

[Edited 9/27/19 16:23pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #165 posted 09/27/19 5:08pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

poppys said:

How about you both just believe what you believe and leave the speculation as to other people's souls out of it?

.

I am. Toejam is free to believe what he wants.

.

Please note in all of this I have not challenged him at all on whether he should believe what he believes and I have resisted all his attampts to make it about my beliefs. What I am discussing is his self-claimed moral obligation to change other people's beliefs to his beliefs when he repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation. So I absolutely agree with you in allowing people to believe what they beleive and leave speculation on other people's souls out ot it.

.

Re: the bolded part:
.
Total misrepresentative bullshit and Ian knows it. I have never said I "cannot prove my beliefs as anything but speculation". If I have said this, I challenge Ian to quote it. He won't because he can't because I didn't say it. What Ian is doing here is a standard troll technique - deliberately putting forward a strawman (a straw-toejam) and then knocking down the strawman in order to give the illusion to those not following more closely of him knowing better.

.

I have said that I cannot prove that our consciousness ceases upon the death of our physical brain. But that does not mean that it is equally likely ("speculation") that it does or does not. I can't prove that the next dice I roll will not land on a 6, but it does not mean that it is mere speculation to think it probably won't. The evidence favors the dice not rolling on 6, as it does our consciousness ceasing upon the death of our physical brain. The evidence for this is clear - the direction of correlation between brain function and consciousness appears in that order. Our brain can be manipulated in physical ways to produce predictable changes in conscious experience. The brain produces our consciousness. It only naturally follows that no brain should mean no conscioiusness. Ian can't show that an alternative is possible, let alone more likely.

.

[Edited 9/27/19 17:17pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #166 posted 09/27/19 5:56pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

.

I am. Toejam is free to believe what he wants.

.

Please note in all of this I have not challenged him at all on whether he should believe what he believes and I have resisted all his attampts to make it about my beliefs. What I am discussing is his self-claimed moral obligation to change other people's beliefs to his beliefs when he repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation. So I absolutely agree with you in allowing people to believe what they beleive and leave speculation on other people's souls out ot it.

.

Re: the bolded part:
.
Total misrepresentative bullshit and Ian knows it. I have never said I "cannot prove my beliefs as anything but speculation". If I have said this, I challenge Ian to quote it. He won't because he can't because I didn't say it. What Ian is doing here is a standard troll technique - deliberately putting forward a strawman (a straw-toejam) and then knocking down the strawman in order to give the illusion to those not following more closely of him knowing better.

.

I have said that I cannot prove that our consciousness ceases once our brain prove our consciousness does not continue after the death of our physical brain. But that does not mean that it is equally likely ("speculation") that it does or does not. I can't prove that the next dice I roll will not land on a 6, but it does not mean that it is mere speculation to think it probably won't. The evidence favors the dice not rolling on 6, as it does our consciousness ceasing upon the death of our physical brain. The evidence for this is clear - the direction of correlation between brain function and consciousness appears in that order. Our brain can be manipulated in physical ways to produce predictable changes in conscious experience. The brain produces our consciousness. It only naturally follows that no brain should mean no conscioiusness. Ian can't show that an alternative is possible, let alone more likely.

.

Nice try - epic fail based on more trickery and semantics:

.

I never quoted you as saying those specific words: it is not in quotation marks because I am paraphrasing you when you say things like, and this time I quote you word for word: "I have said that I cannot prove that our consciousness ceases once our brainprove our consciousness does not continue after the death of our physical brain." Challenge accepted and met - I did not even have to leave the post to find you saying it yet again. You really need to learn what a strawman argument is and consider this before you actually confirm my summary of your self-confessed lack of proof for your beliefs is entirely correct - you agree with me that you cannot prove your beliefs.

.

Despite your strong reliance on semantics, you are now making up a new definition for speculation - It does not mean "equally likely" at all - In regards to what you are doing it means "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." You have repeatedly confirmed you have no firm evidence about consciousness after the death of the body (only evidence of the impact of body and environment after the brain forms and before death) or evidence for your speculation that God does not exist. All speculators seek some level of support for their speculation and most want to speculate on the sure thing, not the even chance or the hail mary shot - They often use pseudoscience: like seeking a confirmational bias based on confusing the direction of a correlation with an imagined causal links - I note you still use the term direction of correlation as a substitute for an assumed causal link despite it being pointed out that this is wrong mathematically, wrong statistically, wrong logically and is pseudoscience. It is also circular.

.

I repeat, we are not talking about my beliefs - I am talking about you seeking to talk people out of their beliefs and accepting your beliefs when you know that you cannot prove your belief is anything more than a conjecture without firm evidence. This is morally repugnant because you know that the consquences if you are wrong could be dire in the extreme: Yet you still evangelise your proofless faith.

[Edited 9/27/19 18:47pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #167 posted 09/27/19 10:38pm

toejam

avatar

^Still nothing that challenges the sound logic that without a brain our consciousness is not produced. Just more trolly-go-round BS because you know you can't provide compelling evidence for our consciousness surviving the death of the thing that produces it.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #168 posted 09/27/19 11:21pm

IanRG

IanRG said:

Nice try - epic fail based on more trickery and semantics:

.

I never quoted you as saying those specific words: it is not in quotation marks because I am paraphrasing you when you say things like, and this time I quote you word for word: "I have said that I cannot prove that our consciousness ceases once our brainprove our consciousness does not continue after the death of our physical brain." Challenge accepted and met - I did not even have to leave the post to find you saying it yet again. You really need to learn what a strawman argument is and consider this before you actually confirm my summary of your self-confessed lack of proof for your beliefs is entirely correct - you agree with me that you cannot prove your beliefs.

.

Despite your strong reliance on semantics, you are now making up a new definition for speculation - It does not mean "equally likely" at all - In regards to what you are doing it means "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." You have repeatedly confirmed you have no firm evidence about consciousness after the death of the body (only evidence of the impact of body and environment after the brain forms and before death) or evidence for your speculation that God does not exist. All speculators seek some level of support for their speculation and most want to speculate on the sure thing, not the even chance or the hail mary shot - They often use pseudoscience: like seeking a confirmational bias based on confusing the direction of a correlation with an imagined causal links - I note you still use the term direction of correlation as a substitute for an assumed causal link despite it being pointed out that this is wrong mathematically, wrong statistically, wrong logically and is pseudoscience. It is also circular.

.

I repeat, we are not talking about my beliefs - I am talking about you seeking to talk people out of their beliefs and accepting your beliefs when you know that you cannot prove your belief is anything more than a conjecture without firm evidence. This is morally repugnant because you know that the consquences if you are wrong could be dire in the extreme: Yet you still evangelise your proofless faith.

toejam said:

^Still nothing that challenges the sound logic that without a brain our consciousness is not produced. Just more trolly-go-round BS because you know you can't provide compelling evidence for our consciousness surviving the death of the thing that produces it.

.

Yet another toejam vortex - We have not missed them. No new content, no new point, no ability to address what I said, just a constant drone demanding others do what you cannot. See my previous reply.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #169 posted 09/28/19 5:18pm

toejam

avatar

No, you started stirring the vortex back in posts #116, #120, #122, #127, #141, #147 when, after you had already told me to "learn to be disappointed" by your non-answers to my "stupid" questions and I had thus concluded my conversation with you, you repeatedly replied to my posts in discussions with others primarily with the intent of smearing my integrity. I took your "learn to be disappointed" as you not wanting to engage and I didn't respond any further. But from there kept on posting smear, misrepresenting old discussions from years back. It was clear your intent was to derail any further conversation and simply to TROLL.

.

Reasons for thinking our consciousness does not continue after the death of our brain:

.
1) Our consciousness appears to be dependent on our brains. Our brains can be manipulated physically with predictable effects on our conscious experiences. As such, if our brain no longer exists then our consciousness does not have the thing required to produce it.

2) No reliable evidence forthcoming for thinking that our consciousness does continue. Dead people don't tell us the codes to their locked safes, nor their desires if they didn't leave a will.
.

Both factors are what we would expect if our consciousness ceases. Neither are what we would necessarily expect if our consciousness does survive on. Like I said, you are free to ad hoc your way out of this by imagining excuses for the lack of evidence (e.g. as is sometimes proposed by others; our consciousness lives on but doesn't communicate with the remaining physically-living) but such imaginings begin to break Occam's Razor when a simpler explanation is right in front of us - it doesn't survive on. The brain appears to produce our consciousness, and as such, when the brain is not there to do any production, the consciousness it once produced is equally extinguished.
.

Since you have no desire to provide evidence to the contrary and are instead more focused on trolling smear, I don't see why I shouldn't think as I do on this issue or why anyone else privy to the understanding above should think otherwise.

.

[Edited 9/28/19 17:30pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #170 posted 09/28/19 7:04pm

IanRG

toejam said:

No, you started stirring the vortex back in posts #116, #120, #122, #127, #141, #147 when, after you had already told me to "learn to be disappointed" by your non-answers to my "stupid" questions and I had thus concluded my conversation with you, you repeatedly replied to my posts in discussions with others primarily with the intent of smearing my integrity. I took your "learn to be disappointed" as you not wanting to engage and I didn't respond any further. But from there kept on posting smear, misrepresenting old discussions from years back. It was clear your intent was to derail any further conversation and simply to TROLL.

.

Reasons for thinking our consciousness does not continue after the death of our brain:

.
1) Our consciousness appears to be dependent on our brains. Our brains can be manipulated physically with predictable effects on our conscious experiences. As such, if our brain no longer exists then our consciousness does not have the thing required to produce it.

2) No reliable evidence forthcoming for thinking that our consciousness does continue. Dead people don't tell us the codes to their locked safes, nor their desires if they didn't leave a will.
.

Both factors are what we would expect if our consciousness ceases. Neither are what we would necessarily expect if our consciousness does survive on. Like I said, you are free to ad hoc your way out of this by imagining excuses for the lack of evidence (e.g. as is sometimes proposed by others; our consciousness lives on but doesn't communicate with the remaining physically-living) but such imaginings begin to break Occam's Razor when a simpler explanation is right in front of us - it doesn't survive on. The brain appears to produce our consciousness, and as such, when the brain is not there to do any production, the consciousness it once produced is equally extinguished.
.

Since you have no desire to provide evidence to the contrary and are instead more focused on trolling smear, I don't see why I shouldn't think as I do on this issue or why anyone else privy to the understanding above should think otherwise.

.

[Edited 9/28/19 17:30pm]

.

The thread is over. I never smeared you at all. That I have constantly and consistently told you that I am not going to discuss what I taught my children and what my beliefs are to try and stop you just taking over another thread to being about why you believe everyone should adopt your beliefs - But I failed. This is not me creating yet another toejam vortex.

.

That I refused to answer your off-topic and personal questions about what I taught my children but did continue to discuss other things in the thread is not trolling.

.

Addressing your pseudoscience and general misunderstandings is not trolling. It is specifically addressing the lack of proof, logic and understanding of concepts like:

.

- Misapplying Occam's Razor as if it justifies a conclusion,

.

- Misapplying the degree a correlation is in the same direction over a measurable zone as if this can be substituted as a causal link and useful outside of the measurable zone.

.

- Creating a new definition for speculation so it means equally likely.

.

- Misapplying what a strawman argument is by demonstrating that my summary of you inability to prove your beliefs was entirely consistent with your often stated inability to prove what happens to consciousness after death or whether or not God exists.

.

- Confusing the concept of actuality with reality.

.

- Using recall after the event to indicate whether the brain has functional awareness when under anaesthetic (this is the only point you engaged like an adult with me)

.

More importantly, no only is raising these discussion points not trolling, it was always stated as to address the point I was making to you about a claim you made several times in this thread. However, you kept on avoiding this point by, yet again taking us down your vortex: You stated it was your moral obligation to change other people's beliefs (dismissing them using the derogatory term "superstitions") so they match your beliefs about God BUT you know you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know their beliefs about God can include an understanding of extreme dire consequences for them if they follow your beliefs. Given you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know the consequences you are risking for these people if you are wrong, then I belief what you are doing is morally repugnant. You can show I am wrong here by proving you are right or you can end your vortex by addressing what I said. Or you can just ignore, accuse and seek to take the discussion further off topic to my beliefs when I keep on telling I am NOT discussing my beliefs.

.

PS The one saving grace here is that this methodology of yours with its mockery, logic errors, pseudoscience, misunderstandings, semantics, accusations and argumentative style is extremely unlikely to ever convince anyone your beliefs are worth following.

[Edited 9/28/19 19:12pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #171 posted 09/28/19 7:13pm

poppys

toejam said:

^Still nothing that challenges the sound logic that without a brain our consciousness is not produced. Just more trolly-go-round BS because you know you can't provide compelling evidence for our consciousness surviving the death of the thing that produces it.


^^ What do you get out of all this? Obviously something. Is it a need to draw an absolute for every human experience - on your personal terms? Pardon me, but you seem unable to understand the boundries between yourself and someone else.

[Edited 9/29/19 2:32am]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #172 posted 09/28/19 7:23pm

onlyforaminute

poppys said:

^^ What do you get out of all this? Obviously something. Is it a need to draw an absolute for every human experience - on your personal terms? Pardon me, but you seem unable to understand the boundries between yourself and someone else.


There's obviously silent encouragement, so this continues.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #173 posted 09/28/19 7:43pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

My big beef with some who claim to be persons of faith but do not seem to follow their own religion. Cherry picking Biblical princaples and holding some people's short comings against them going so far as to cite Scriptures that they themselves do not follow. Who would scoff at some teachings but insist others be judged for violating others. But it is not my place to judge. But then again I do not pretend to be a person of faith.

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #174 posted 09/28/19 8:09pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

My big beef with some who claim to be persons of faith but do not seem to follow their own religion. Cherry picking Biblical princaples and holding some people's short comings against them going so far as to cite Scriptures that they themselves do not follow. Who would scoff at some teachings but insist others be judged for violating others. But it is not my place to judge. But then again I do not pretend to be a person of faith.

.

I agree and disagee:

.

I agree that when a person of faith knowingly commites evil acts (the one that comes to first to mind t most is child sexual abuse including protecting the organisation by protecting the perp), then their evil act takes on extra level of abomination. But there are different levels of this with less abhorrent acts.

.

Outside of this, cherry picking based on better knowledge and understandings is not a bad thing.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #175 posted 09/28/19 8:15pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

My big beef with some who claim to be persons of faith but do not seem to follow their own religion. Cherry picking Biblical princaples and holding some people's short comings against them going so far as to cite Scriptures that they themselves do not follow. Who would scoff at some teachings but insist others be judged for violating others. But it is not my place to judge. But then again I do not pretend to be a person of faith.

.

I agree and disagee:

.

I agree that when a person of faith knowingly commites evil acts (the one that comes to first to mind t most is child sexual abuse including protecting the organisation by protecting the perp), then their evil act takes on extra level of abomination. But there are different levels of this with less abhorrent acts.

.

Outside of this, cherry picking based on better knowledge and understandings is not a bad thing.

cherry piking is one thing it is when you spit the pits out at some people for some 'sins' but excuse other people for theirs.

Seems a person obsessed with any particular issue may either be guilty of or the victim of that 'offence.'

[Edited 9/28/19 20:15pm]

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #176 posted 09/28/19 8:18pm

toejam

avatar

poppys said:

^^ What do you get out of all this? Obviously something. Is it a need to draw an absolute for every human experience - on your personal terms? Pardon me, but you seem unable to understand the boundries between yourself and someone else.



It's not about drawing an absolute for every human experience on my terms. I'm not sure why you think that from my comments in this thread. What prompts you to think that?

I'm not sure why you perceive me as not being able to understand the boundaries between myself and others. What prompts you to think that?

I'm here to discuss politics and religion. I hope to learn from others as well as help others learn.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #177 posted 09/28/19 8:31pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

I agree and disagee:

.

I agree that when a person of faith knowingly commites evil acts (the one that comes to first to mind t most is child sexual abuse including protecting the organisation by protecting the perp), then their evil act takes on extra level of abomination. But there are different levels of this with less abhorrent acts.

.

Outside of this, cherry picking based on better knowledge and understandings is not a bad thing.

cherry piking is one thing it is when you spit the pits out at some people for some 'sins' but excuse other people for theirs.

Seems a person obsessed with any particular issue may either be guilty of or the victim of that 'offence.'

.

On those terms, I absolutely agree.

.

But I am not looking at reinstating the types of slavery and rules of war from the past lest I be accused of cherry picking.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #178 posted 09/29/19 5:09pm

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

The thread is over. I never smeared you at all. That I have constantly and consistently told you that I am not going to discuss what I taught my children and what my beliefs are to try and stop you just taking over another thread to being about why you believe everyone should adopt your beliefs - But I failed. This is not me creating yet another toejam vortex.

.

You clearly stirred the vortex in posts #116, #120, #122, #127, #141, #147 when, after I had moved on from discussing with you because you described my questions as “stupid” and told me to “learn to be disappointed” with your sarcastic and non-answers, you followed by repeatedly replying to my posts to others, filling your posts with content clearly intended to provoke off-topic reaction from me – e.g. repeatedly bringing up and misrepresenting old conversations, misrepresenting my motives and integrity, etc.

.

That I refused to answer your off-topic and personal questions about what I taught my children but did continue to discuss other things in the thread is not trolling.

.

I did not say your refusal to answer my question about what/how/when you taught your children that Jesus-God was real was trolling. The trolling began after in posts #116, #120, #122, #127, #141, #147 when you repeatedly replied to my posts to others in trolling fashion after I had moved on from discussing with you.

.

Addressing your pseudoscience and general misunderstandings is not trolling. It is specifically addressing the lack of proof, logic and understanding of concepts like:

.

- Misapplying Occam's Razor as if it justifies a conclusion,

.

I have not misapplied Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor encourages us to prefer explanations with as few new assumptions as possible. When the brain activity appears to directly affect our conscious experiences, it would require an unnecessary ad hoc assumption to think that our conscious lives on once the brain that fires it is extinguished. Occam’s Razor would suggest the simpler explanation is that our consciousness would be equally extinguished.

.

- Misapplying the degree a correlation is in the same direction over a measurable zone as if this can be substituted as a causal link and useful outside of the measurable zone.

.

There is no misapplication here. Someone could measure the angle of a car’s accelerator pedal and observe that when it’s at 20° the car moves at 40km/h. They could further observe that when the accelerator pedal is changed to 40° the speed changes to 80km/hr, and at 50°, 100km/h. The logical conclusion would be that when the pedal is at 0°, the car would not be moving. This could be fairly deduced as the most likely scenario even if no direct measurement was made of either the pedal at 0° or the car motionless.

.

- Creating a new definition for speculation so it means equally likely.

.

I am not creating a new definition for "speculation". But it very much seemed the intent of your pseudo-quotation ("toejam repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation") was to misrepresent. It was your intent to remove any nuance of the issue of probability that I have been discussing. By doing so, you create a strawman. In the car analogy above, would it be fair to label the suggestion that if the angle of the pedal is at 30° the car should be moving at 60km/h as mere "speculation"? Of course not! Such a calculation and prediction would be a fair deduction based on the available evidence. It would defeat Occam's Razor to suggest otherwise. Saying "toejam repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation" would be like misrepresenting someone who argues the car would likely be moving at 60km/hr @ 30° has conceded that his belief is mere "speculation" on the basis that he acknowledges that because a 30° measurement was not taken it can't be absolutely proven. Such a representation would be a gross misrepresentation, based primarily on a trolly-go-round game of semantics.
.

- Misapplying what a strawman argument is by demonstrating that my summary of you inability to prove your beliefs was entirely consistent with your often stated inability to prove what happens to consciousness after death or whether or not God exists.

.

No misapplication of identifying the strawman that your misrepresentations of my beliefs create. See above. When you say "toejam repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation" this puts words into my mouth that I did not say and it removes the nuance of the issue of probability that I have been discussing. If this is a result of you trying to summarise my views, it is either extremely poorly worded, misunderstood, or (as I suspect), your usual subtle but notable trolling and smearing maneuvers.

.

More importantly, no only is raising these discussion points not trolling, it was always stated as to address the point I was making to you about a claim you made several times in this thread. However, you kept on avoiding this point by, yet again taking us down your vortex: You stated it was your moral obligation to change other people's beliefs (dismissing them using the derogatory term "superstitions") so they match your beliefs about God BUT you know you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know their beliefs about God can include an understanding of extreme dire consequences for them if they follow your beliefs. Given you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know the consequences you are risking for these people if you are wrong, then I belief what you are doing is morally repugnant. You can show I am wrong here by proving you are right or you can end your vortex by addressing what I said. Or you can just ignore, accuse and seek to take the discussion further off topic to my beliefs when I keep on telling I am NOT discussing my beliefs.

.

It is not morally repugnant to argue for what one thinks is more likely than another - even "if" they are wrong. Indeed, is not arguing for what one thinks implied and encouraged in the forum’s subheading – to “Flex your debating skills on more serious topics such as [...] religion”? Can you imagine a forum which encouraged its members to “Flex your debating skills on religion, but don't argue for what you think because if you're wrong you're being morally repugnant!”? Is that how you'd prefer the org to operate?

.

If someone claimed that the Angel Moroni had told them in a dream to bet their entire house and life-savings that the next dice would land on a 6, I believe it would be morally irresponsible *not* to help teach them about the unreliability of such dream-revelations and how it does not change the likelihood that the dice will probably not land on a 6. Sure, we can’t “prove” that it won’t land on 6, but it does not mean that it is morally repugnant to show why it probably won’t. Now, even if it is true that the Angel Moroni really did appear to this chap and accurately foretold him the outcome of the dice roll, that still does not make my desire and action to help the chap “morally repugnant”. I would simply be misinformed. Surely a term like "morally repugnant" implies ill-intent.

.

Finally, it is not “mocking” to describe beliefs that appear to be superstitious as “superstitions”. If someone believed that they had acquired 'bad luck' because they just witnessed a black cat running underneath an open ladder, it would not be “mocking” to describe their belief as a superstition projected onto reality. I see Rodeo's beliefs about hell, and your beliefs about a virgin-born Jesus-God as no different. If you interpret this as "mocking", then so be it. It is not the intent. In truth, I don't think you do interpret it as mocking. I think your labelling it as mocking is just more of your trolling and smearing maneuvers.

.

[Edited 9/29/19 17:26pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #179 posted 09/29/19 5:29pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

The thread is over. I never smeared you at all. That I have constantly and consistently told you that I am not going to discuss what I taught my children and what my beliefs are to try and stop you just taking over another thread to being about why you believe everyone should adopt your beliefs - But I failed. This is not me creating yet another toejam vortex.

.

You clearly stirred the vortex in posts #116, #120, #122, #127, #141, #147 when, after I had moved on from discussing with you because you described my questions as “stupid” and told me to “learn to be disappointed” with your sarcastic and non-answers, you followed by repeatedly replying to my posts to others, filling your posts with content clearly intended to provoke off-topic reaction from me – e.g. repeatedly bringing up and misrepresenting old conversations, misrepresenting my motives and integrity, etc.

.

.

No misapplication of identifying the strawman that your misrepresentations of my beliefs create. See above. When you say "toejam repeatedly said he cannot prove his beliefs as anything but speculation" this puts words into my mouth that I did not say and it removes the nuance of the issue of probability that I have been discussing. If this is a result of you trying to summarise my views, it is either extremely poorly worded, misunderstood, or (as I suspect), your usual subtle but notable trolling and smearing maneuvers.

.

More importantly, no only is raising these discussion points not trolling, it was always stated as to address the point I was making to you about a claim you made several times in this thread. However, you kept on avoiding this point by, yet again taking us down your vortex: You stated it was your moral obligation to change other people's beliefs (dismissing them using the derogatory term "superstitions") so they match your beliefs about God BUT you know you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know their beliefs about God can include an understanding of extreme dire consequences for them if they follow your beliefs. Given you cannot prove your beliefs about God and you know the consequences you are risking for these people if you are wrong, then I belief what you are doing is morally repugnant. You can show I am wrong here by proving you are right or you can end your vortex by addressing what I said. Or you can just ignore, accuse and seek to take the discussion further off topic to my beliefs when I keep on telling I am NOT discussing my beliefs.

.

It is not morally repugnant to argue for what one thinks is more likely than another - even "if" they are wrong. Indeed, is not arguing for what one thinks implied and encouraged in the forum’s subheading – to “Flex your debating skills on more serious topics such as [...] religion”? Can you imagine a forum which encouraged its members to “Flex your debating skills on religion, but don't argue for what you think because if you're wrong you're being morally repugnant!”? Is that how you'd prefer the org to operate?

.

If someone claimed that the Angel Moroni had told them in a dream to bet their entire house and life-savings that the next dice would land on a 6, I believe it would be morally irresponsible *not* to help teach them about the unreliability of such dream-revelations and how it does not change the likelihood that the dice will probably not land on a 6. Sure, we can’t “prove” that it won’t land on 6, but it does not mean that it is morally repugnant to show why it probably won’t. Now, even if it is true that the Angel Moroni really did appear to this chap and accurately foretold him the outcome of the dice roll, that still does not make my desire and action to help the chap “morally repugnant”. I would simply be misinformed. Surely a term like "morally repugnant" implies ill-intent.

.

Finally, it is not “mocking” to describe beliefs that appear to be superstitious as “superstitions”. If someone believed that they had acquired 'bad luck' because they just witnessed a black cat running underneath an open ladder, it would not be “mocking” to describe their belief as a superstition projected onto reality. I see Rodeo's beliefs about hell, and your beliefs about a virgin-born Jesus-God as no different. If you interpret this as "mocking", then so be it. It is not the intent. In truth, I don't think you do interpret it as mocking. I think your labelling it as mocking is just more of your trolling and smearing maneuvers.

.

.

You are convincing no one but yourself. Good bye

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 6 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > My One And Only Thread On Religion