That is how scams operate.
Oh yes, there are risks⌠I wonât deny that everything comes with risks and a price.
But there is no other way out of the cave than by taking the risk of not believing in the shadows. Then you find the real sunâŚ
Nor me, but that is not what I asked.
Like mermaids? Seriously, do you not understand that is a circular reasoning fallacy?
And the most compelling reason you believe a deity exists is what? Or is presuppositionalism all you have?
You came to an atheist debate forum to tell us you have nothing interesting to say? Itâs like debate as a form of dodgeball.
Iâm suggesting that perhaps your religion operates like a scam, because it is a scam.
Presumably, you donât think it is a scam; so maybe you could address why it has the appearance of a scam, but is not a scam?
1 Like
Well, as always, my thoughts on this are complex. I doubt that any human collective enterprise, after a certain amount of time, doesnât eventually turn into a scam.
For example, if you read the Bible, the majority of prophets end up being killed, persecuted, or ignored by priests, governments, and others. Other than King David, it is very, very, very rare for a government or religious institution to be portrayed in a positive light. Not to mention Jesus.
If you look at Platoâs famous allegory of the cave, when someone finally escapes the cave and returns to explain what they have seen, those still inside the cave kill them.
You see similar trends in economics. Originally, a company creates a product to meet a social need, but as time passes, they discover that itâs more profitable to limit the productâs useful life (planned obsolescence), so people have to buy their products more often, ensuring a continuous flow of money. This leads to them deliberately introducing flaws in their products. Later, they realize people can repair these products, so they start making them difficult to repair, developing âanti-repair tacticsâ to maintain this flow of money.
Similarly, religions evolve over time to retain and attract followers, which is a natural trend. However, I believe we must distinguish between the collective institution of religion and its needs, and the lessons contained in their doctrines.
I donât see anything in there about objectively evidencing any deity, or that a deity is possible, until someone does this much at least, the rest is just coloured bubbles.
1 Like
Okay, if youâre so interested in an argument, letâs discuss one. You are mechanical, you are material, and you have a first-person experience. I simply assume that the universe, being mechanical and material as well, also has a first-person experience, just like you. In other words, I see the universe as a giant organism.
Why not?
I donât see anything in there about objectively evidencing any deity, or that a deity is possible? If you canât do this, just give your most compelling reason for believing a deity exists, and which one. I didnât ask what you âsimply assumedâ about the universe?
Assume being the operative word.
My default position is that the universe, like me, is mechanical, material, and should have a first-person experience. In any case, you would have to prove the opposite.
To be completely honest, the reasons that lead me to believe are not based on rational arguments. As I mentioned before, I prefer to observe what I become by believing something, and if itâs good, I simply continue on that path. Itâs more empirical.
Moreover, I think the religious debate, which interests me the most, has three aspects:
First, there is the debate on what is real. I believe there are parts of reality we know and parts we do not know.
Second, there is the debate on the religious message. For me, this serves as an interface between us and the unknown aspects of reality.
Third, there are religious institutions, whose role is to preserve this message according to human needs.
I donât see any objective evidence for any deity, or which deity you believe exists, maybe you could just confirm then that your belief is entirely subjective? I already know you have no rational arguments, as we have spent some time going through them.
I could have told you that, before you even posted here.
4 Likes
What do they call it when someone states the obvious? âNo shit Sherlock?â âCaptain Obvious strikes again?â âDicunt manifests?â âYep, that about sums it up?â âThank you for playing, do not pass go, do not collect $200,â
1 Like
No, thatâs not true.
First of all, youâve already acknowledged that there is a gap between the most fundamental aspect of consciousnessâqualiaâand our current understanding of physics.
You accept this logical gap because you prefer it over acknowledging a perfectly rational and sound syllogism that leads to the idea of panpsychism. The fact that panpsychism is indemonstrable does nothing to undermine the logic of the syllogism.
But thatâs not the only issue. You also refuse to acknowledge that a brain without blood flow, in a cold state, and with no measurable brain activity should not be producing memories of events that occurred while in this state. You shifted the discussion to âthe brain is not really dead,â but this solves nothing and doesnât explain how itâs possible for the brain to do this.
You also chose to follow the interpretation of an anesthesiologist who wasnât present during the events, rather than the testimony of a renowned doctor who witnessed and monitored everything firsthand.
I could go on, pointing out your inability to grasp that positive results without clear causes warrant further investigation, which is different from simply having no results, and so on.
You are not truly seeking evidence. If you were, you would continue investigating these topics, which are far from being fully understood.
I donât think rational reasoning can truly change someoneâs attitude. Iâve said it many times: you canât force someone to love you using rational arguments.
You keep searching for evidence, but the issue isnât the evidenceâthe issue lies within yourself. However, this is a personal matter, and I canât tell anyone what to do in this area.
Of course it is axiomatically true, that you have demonstrated no objective evidence for any deity, and that your arguments have been relentlessly irrational, denying that is absurd.
Panpsychism is unevidenced, unfalsifiable, untestable, and has no explanatory powers, thus I cannot believe it, but even were this not the case, it is not objective evidence for any deity obviously.
The patientâs claims in the NDE you presented were anecdotal, so there is no objective evidence to support them of course, and the patient was under anaesthetic, so I have no idea what you think was witnessed? The expert in Anaesthesia was salient, as they had been asked to investigate the claims as an expert.
I have denied nothing, only refused to base belief in the superstitious claims, since the claims made by the patient are anecdotal, and do not objectively evidence anything, and the claims made about them are based on what we donât know, not on what we do know.
You were also asked to objectively evidence there was no brainstem activity and havenât done so, nothing in your link stated this implicitly, and the medical literature I linked explained explicitly and carefully that brain stem activity was possible even in the absence of brain wave activity, which at that point was all you had claimed.
Is that it then, anecdotal superstition and unevidenced unfalsifiable ideas that wouldnât represent objective evidence for any deity anyway?
You still havenât said which deity you are claiming exists either, is it a secret?
1 Like
FWIW, it is noticed when you divert attention away from evidence with people who base the formation of their beliefs about reality upon where the evidence leads, or doesnât.
Such a lack of situational awareness will keep dead ending your attempts at conversation and persuasion here.
Read and heed this or donât, but your hand waving and consistently implying that everyone elseâs ability to understand things is the problem is also noticed.
3 Likes
Your interpretation of the problem of consciousness, which is far from being solved, and your interpretation of the specific NDE I mentioned, which is also unresolved, is that there is no evidence.
My interpretation of these events is different.
However, for some reason, you never say, âMy interpretation is that there is no evidence.â Instead, you simply state, âThere is no evidence.â You treat your interpretation as fact when it isnât; itâs just your interpretation of phenomena for which we still donât have any explanation and, like quantum mechanics, seem to challenge traditional materialistic conceptions.
Not exactly. People who claim to base their ideas on what the evidence shows are, in reality, basing their beliefs on what their interpretation of the evidence suggests.
So the not heeding option, then.
Shovels do get heavy, in my experience.
2 Likes
Iâve made no such interpretations, is anyone going to feign surprise at this point, that this is another straw man.
I made interpretation, I have followed the facts, and they clearly donât objectively support any supernatural conclusion. at best you are offering an appeal to mystery.
No objective evidence to support any supernatural conclusion. Are we back to you telling me what I think, please quote my claims verbatim, and donât paraphrase me, as you simply get it wrong every time.
Clearly, as you are prepared to based a belief on not having an alternative explanation, which is fallacious, as you are doing here.
That is because the phrase is sloppy and inaccurate, and I take more care not to make such claims.
Thatâs a lie, please donât put lies in quotes and assign them to me.
Thatâs a lie.
I have made no interpretation of any phenomena here, I challenged material claims you had made, and offered citations. I have been very careful throughout to point out that the patients claims are anecdotal, and therefore are not objective evidence.
If you think this NDE story is objective evidence of an afterlife, then demonstrate why? It still would not represent objective evidence of a deity.
Exactly, so why would I based any belief on not knowing something?
So you think not knowing something âseems to challengeâ (your words) something we know is possible as an objective fact. If you canât see the bias in there, itâs hard to know what to say at this point.
What people, what ideas, what interpretations?
Itâs beyond ironic that you responded to @Bluedocâs assertion in exactly the fashion he had described, by diverting the discourse away from you have no objective evidence for any deity, to a straw man accusation.